Agenda item

A Member wondered why this item was necessary at all, since she understood that local authority members were covered by a Local Government Association scheme.

Members expressed concern about the provisions of paragraph 2.4, which require the repayment of sums expended by the Council pursuant to an indemnity in the event of conviction or a finding by a Standards process of failure to comply with the Code of Conduct. It was felt that the paragraph was badly worded and that it did should clearly distinguish criminal proceedings from the Standards process. The Monitoring Officer explained that the paragraph 2.4 was unfortunately wrongly formatted and that it should read:

2.4 Where any member or officer avails him/herself of this indemnity in respect of defending him/herself against any criminal proceedings or Standards proceedings, the indemnity is subject to a condition that if, in respect of the matter in relation to which the member or officer has made use of this indemnity:-

(i)  the member or officer is convicted of a criminal offence in consequence of such proceeding, or

(ii)  in the case of Standards’ proceedings a finding is made that the member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct for Members, and

(iii)  the conviction or finding is not overturned on appeal

the member or officer shall reimburse the Council for any sums expended by the Council pursuant to the indemnity.

He explained that Standards proceedings had to be included because they were specified in the Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004. A Member pointed out that there was no appeal against a determination by the Standards Committee. The Monitoring Officer replied that any decision of the Council could be subject to judicial review. He clarified that the indemnity provisions covered all decision-making bodies of the Council and applied to co-opted members as well as elected members. A Member pointed out that several simultaneous complaints could be made against the same member, only one of which might be upheld by the Standards Committee. He suggested that it would be wrong in such a case for the member to have to repay the full cost of defending him/herself. He also felt that there were circumstances in which a member might inadvertently breach the Code of Conduct. The Monitoring Officer responded that using the indemnity provisions was an option for members; no one could be compelled to use them.

A Member wondered how the sum to be reimbursed would be calculated in the case of proceedings relating to a collective decision where only one of the members taking the decision was criminally liable or in breach of the Code of Conduct.

A Member said that it was not clear whether the policy was intended to cover organisational culture as well as the conduct of individual members. The Monitoring Officer explained that the policy was intended to cover only individual members and officers. He also explained that the indemnity scheme would be funded partly by insurance (local authority insurance and self-insurance) and partly by expenditure from the Council’s budget or reserves.

A Member felt that there should be more support for members, including a legal helpline; it was better for members to avoid problems rather than to have to incur debts to defend themselves. Members agreed that this was a good idea; the Monitoring Officer said that he would look into this. Responding to questions from a Member he said that money paid under an indemnity would not become repayable until all legal processes had been concluded by a final determination.

A Member said that the document would be improved by the addition of subheadings and notes.

Members declined to approve the policy and requested that a revised version of the paper be presented at a future meeting of the Committee.