The Standards Committee of County Durham Council was scheduled to meet to discuss updates to the Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints. The proposed changes included introducing a Standards Assessment Board, offering informal resolutions to code of conduct breaches, and clarifying the process for handling complaints. The committee was also expected to discuss delegating authority to the Director of Legal and Democratic Services to make minor amendments to the procedure.

Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints

The main item for discussion was the revised Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints, which was last updated in December 2024. The Chair and Vice-Chair of the committee had reviewed the procedure and proposed a number of amendments. A table summarising the proposed changes could be found in Appendix 3 - Table of Changes, a tracked change copy of the revised procedure in Appendix 4 - Revised Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints Track Changes, and a clean copy in Appendix 5 - Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints Clean copy.

The report pack stated that the Localism Act 2011 requires the council to have arrangements in place to consider allegations that an elected or co-opted member has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct¹. The key proposed changes to the procedure were:

Standards Assessment Board

The report pack stated that it was proposed to introduce a Standards Assessment Board to consider complaints where the Code of Conduct is engaged. It was explained that this is where the Subject Member was acting as a Councillor or giving the impression that they were acting as a Councillor, or a representative of the Council and that the member was in office at the time of the alleged conduct.

The Standards Assessment Board would be a sub-committee of the Standards Committee, comprising three members, including either the Chair or Vice-Chair of the Standards Committee. The board would be politically balanced and meet regularly, initially twice a month, in private.

The Monitoring Officer would produce a report for the Standards Assessment Board to consider for each complaint where the code is engaged. The report would:

• Identify the Complainant, except in exceptional circumstances.
• Identify the Subject Member(s).
• Outline the Complaint.
• Outline the Subject Member's response(s).
• Outline any witness evidence.
• Where appropriate, outline the views of the Independent Person.
• Outline any other relevant evidence/information.
• Make a recommendation to the Standards Assessment Board as to the outcome of the complaint.

The Standards Assessment Board may decide that no further action should be taken, or that informal resolution should be sought. If informal resolution is unsuccessful, the Monitoring Officer would prepare an update report with recommendations for the Standards Assessment Board, who may then decide that no further action should be taken, that the complaint should be referred for investigation, or that the complaint should be referred to a Standards Committee Hearing Panel.

If the Monitoring Officer recommends that a complaint be referred for investigation, their report must outline whether the investigation can be carried out in-house by Durham County Council Legal Services, or if an external investigator will be required.

The Standards Assessment Board would deliberate the outcome in private, then consult with the Monitoring Officer, outlining their reasons for the decision. The Monitoring Officer would then produce a written decision including the main points considered by the Standards Assessment Board, the conclusion reached, and the reasons for that conclusion. The decision would be sent to the Complainant and the Subject Member(s) as soon as possible.

The report pack stated that it was proposed that a short report would be prepared for each meeting of the Standards Assessment Board, updating the Board on the progress of all ongoing complaints.

Informal Resolution

The revised procedure would make it a requirement that informal resolution must be offered to all Subject Members before a referral to a Standards Committee Hearing Panel, or for Investigation.

Informal resolution may involve:

• Exploring whether the Subject Member(s) are prepared to apologise for the act or omission complained of.
• Recommending that the Subject Member(s) attend training.
• Offering to facilitate a process of mediation between the Subject Member(s) and the Complainant.
• Such other steps (not including an investigation), as appear appropriate to the Standards Assessment Board.

Investigations

When considering whether to refer a complaint to Investigation, the revised procedure requires the Standards Assessment Board, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer, to take the following additional considerations into account:

• Whether the complaint has already been subject of an investigation or other action either at the Council or another regulatory authority in the last 12 months, rather than 3 years as per the current procedure.
• Whether the Subject Member(s) has already apologised or offered an apology or a remedy.
• Whether the resources required for an investigation are proportionate to the conduct complained of and the potential outcomes of any Standards Committee Hearing Panel.
• The reasons why informal resolution has not been successful.

The revised procedure provides that if the Standards Assessment Board decide to refer a complaint to investigation, the Monitoring Officer will appoint an Investigating Officer who may be another officer of the council, an Officer of another Council or an external investigator.

The revised procedure deletes the provision that if the Monitoring Officer is not satisfied that an investigation has been conducted thoroughly, the Investigating Officer may be asked to reconsider the report and conclusions.

The revised procedure includes an amendment that the Monitoring Officer may invite the Standards Assessment Board to reconsider the complaint at any time if as a result of new evidence or information presented by the Investigating Officer, they are of the opinion:

• The matter is materially more or less serious than may have seemed apparent when they referred it for investigation.
• The Standards Assessment Board would have made a different decision had they been aware of that new evidence or information.
• The person who is the subject of the complaint has died, is seriously ill, or has resigned from the Council, and in the circumstances, it is no longer appropriate to continue with an investigation.

If a matter is referred back to the Standards Assessment Board, they will reconsider and make one of the decisions set at paragraph 28 of this report (Paragraph 7.11 of the Revised Procedure). In forming an opinion for the purposes of paragraph 28(a) of this report (Paragraph 7.11 of the Revised Procedure), the Standards Assessment Board may take account of:

• The failure of any person to co-operate with an investigation.
• An allegation that the Subject Member(s) concerned has engaged in a further breach of the Council's Code of Conduct or that of another relevant authority.
• An allegation that another member has engaged in a related breach of the Council's Code of Conduct or that of another relevant authority.

If the Investigating Officer finds no breach of the Code, the Monitoring Officer shall confirm there has been no breach and shall inform the Standards Assessment Board of this.

Where the Investigating Officer's report finds that the Subject Member(s) has failed to comply with the Code of Conduct, the Monitoring Officer will review the Investigating Officer's report and will then, having consulted the Independent Person will prepare a report for the Standards Assessment Board to consider Informal Resolution.

If Informal Resolution is unsuccessful, or the Subject Member(s) refuses to engage, a further report will be prepared for the Standards Assessment Board to consider whether the complaint shall be referred to a Standards Committee Hearing Panel.

Standards Committee Hearing Panels

A definition of the Standards Committee Hearing Panel has been incorporated into the Procedure.

The section in the current procedure titled Hearings has been split into three sections for ease of navigating the revised procedure. The three sections, and changes within each, are as follows:

Section 8. Standards Committee Hearing Panels

Changes include:

• Deletion of references to Local Determination as these are historic references to an earlier version of the procedure.
• Deletion of the Terms of Reference of the Hearing Panel as this has moved to the Definitions Section of the Procedure.
• Deletion of the Provision for the Hearing Panel to recommend the removal of the Subject Member from a committee.
• Clarification that the written decision shall be signed by the Chair of the Hearing Panel.
• Clarification as to the contents of the written decision.
• Explicit mention that the written decision will be published on the Council's website.

Section 9. Standards Committee Hearing Panels: Pre-Hearing Process

Changes include:

• Amendments to the requirements of the Subject Member's response to clarify that the Subject Member should endeavour to make clear all of their disagreements with the findings of fact in the Investigating Officer's report during this pre-hearing stage.
• Removal of the Provision allowing the Chair of the Hearing Panel, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer to decide which witnesses will be needed.
• Inserting provision for the Chair of the Hearing Panel to decide to allow the Subject Member to raise any new disagreements over findings of fact in the Investigating Officer's report at the Hearing Panel itself, if there are good reasons for doing so, such as new evidence becoming available.

Section 10. Standards Committee Hearing Panels: Hearing Procedure

Changes include:

• Amendment of provision to allow the Subject Member to be co-represented.
• Removal of requirement to consult Independent Person as to whether the Public and Press should be excluded from the Hearing.
• Removing the provision allowing the Independent Person to question the Investigating Officer and witnesses on any matter within their competence.
• Amendment to clarify The Subject Member(s) (or their representative) should try to address only the issue of whether he/she has acted in breach of the Code of Conduct. Addition that additional evidence or dialogue may be allowed at the discretion of the Chair.
• Removing the provision allowing the Independent Person to question the Subject Member(s).
• Amendment that the decision whether to admit or not admit new dispute raised by Subject Member(s), or to adjourn the hearing for further investigation is a decision for the Chair of the Hearing Panel.
• Amendment that the Hearing Panel will adjourn without the Monitoring Officer or Legal Advisor to consider their decision. Addition that Panel can seek Legal Advice at any point.
• Addition that the Hearing Panel will outline their decision, and reasons for the decision to the Legal Advisor.
• Amendment that the Hearing Panel will adjourn without the Monitoring Officer to consider whether to take any action in respect of the Subject Member(s) and what form any such action should take.

Other Changes to the Procedure

In addition to the introduction of the Standards Assessment Board, the revised procedure also includes the proposed amendments:

• Formatting changes throughout the whole document.
• Addition that the Standards Assessment Board will be told that a Complainant has made a complaint, including being told the complainant's name (with the exception of the Monitoring Officer agreeing to withhold a Complainant's identity), and given a copy of the complaint.
• Addition that the Monitoring Officer will consult with the Standards Assessment Board to decide if a Decision Notice should not be available for public inspection or shared by the parties to the complaint without the Monitoring Officers consent.
• Amendment that if a Complainant withdraws their complaint, No Further Action will be taken.
• Minor amendments to the considerations taken into account by the Monitoring Officer when deciding if a complaint warrants further assessment by the Standards Assessment Board, including:
  • Where the complaint has already been subject of an investigation or other action either at the Council or another regulatory authority in the last 12 months. This is an amendment for 3 years.
  • Where the Subject Member has already apologised or offered an apology or remedy.
• Clarification that where multiple complaints are submitted concerning the same Subject Member(s) arising out of the same facts (e.g. conduct at a meeting or a particular social media post) and are similar in nature, the Monitoring Officer may decide that the complaints should be assessed collectively by the Standards Assessment Board.
• Clarification that where multiple complaints are submitted concerning the same Subject Members(s) but arise out of different facts, the Standards Assessment Board will consider the complaints separately.

Implementation of the Revised Procedure

The report pack stated that if the Standards Committee were supportive of the proposed amendments, it was suggested that the changes are implemented with effect from 1 November 2025. This would provide time for the Council's website to be updated with the revised Procedure and to advise the public of the changes.

The revised procedure would apply to complaints received on or after 1 November 2025. Any complaints received prior to the 1 November 2025, would be considered in accordance with the current procedure.

The report pack stated that it was not uncommon when updating or revising procedures for minor points to require clarification once proposals have been adopted. It was therefore recommended that the committee delegate authority to the Director of Legal & Democratic Services in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee to make any such changes to ensure that the revised Procedure can be implemented from 1 November 2025 without the need to be referred back to the Committee.

It was also recommended that the Procedure is reviewed annually to ensure it remains fit for purpose, legally compliant and meets the requirements of the Council.

Implications

Katherine Marley, Legal Officer (Governance) prepared Appendix 1: Implications for the report pack.

In terms of legal implications, it was noted that the council has a duty under section 28 of the Localism Act 2011 to ensure that arrangements are in place under which allegations relating to the Code of Conduct can be investigated and decisions can be made, and that the Procedure for Member Code of Conduct Complaints ensures that this is complied with.

It was stated that there were no direct Human Rights implications arising out of the report, but that when considering the Member's Code of Conduct, it is necessary to consider a balance between a Councillor's conduct and complying with Article 10 - Freedom of Expression of the European Convention of Human Rights².