Loading
The Committee considered reports on member complaints, officers' interests, a member survey, the Ombudsman's annual report and its 2026/27 work programme. It approved a longer deadline for written hearing decisions, allowed official recording of hearings at the Chair's discretion, and agreed the work programme. Part of item 7 was discussed in closed session.
Apologies had been received from Cllr Brown-Reckless.
None received.
The Chair invited comments on the draft minutes. A member noted a minor typographical amendment on Minute 144, where the final paragraph should read that the Monitoring Officer was satisfied with the appendix "being in the public domain". Further comments were raised regarding page 9. It was proposed that the first paragraph, be amended to read: "David Mills suggested that the Committee note Councillor Brown-Reckless' comments, which had previously been raised and addressed." A further amendment was proposed to the final paragraph on the same page to better reflect the discussion at the meeting. It was agreed that the minute should be amended to read: "David Mills responded to Councillor Brown-Reckless by reminding her that a working party had previously been established to consider the concerns raised by the Conservative Group. The working party's findings and recommendations had been accepted by the Standards and Ethics Committee and he saw no reason to revisit the matter." An additional amendment was proposed to the fifth paragraph on page 9. It was noted that the wording could imply that Councillor Brown-Reckless was the only elected Councillor on the Standards and Ethics Committee, whereas the intention was to record that she was the only elected Member present at that particular meeting. It was agreed that the minute would be amended accordingly for clarity. There being no further amendments, the Committee agreed the minutes, subject to the changes outlined above. The Chair confirmed that the amended minutes would be signed as a correct record.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • That the contents of the report be noted. • To incorporate the amendments suggested by Members to the Behaviours Section of the draft survey. • That subject to those amendments, the questions contained within the Behaviours Section of the Combined Member Survey for February 2027 be approved.
The Committee considered a report of the Director of Governance and Legal Services and Monitoring Officer and the Head of Democratic Services regarding proposals to continue the collaboration between the Democratic Services Committee and the Standards and Ethics Committee in delivering a Combined Member Survey to seek the views of elected, independent and co-opted members. The report outlined the background to the survey process, which had been established prior to the 2017 local government elections and subsequently adapted to reflect legislative changes relating to member behaviour, political group leaders' responsibilities and standards committees' duties. The Head of Democratic Services introduced the report and advised that the proposed 2027 survey would comprise four sections: an introduction, a Democratic Services section, a Behaviours section and demographic monitoring questions. Committee members were informed that the Behaviours section would retain questions previously used in the 2023/24 survey, allowing comparisons to be made with earlier survey results. Particular focus would be placed on members' experiences of bullying, harassment and discrimination, the reporting of unacceptable behaviour, observations of misconduct and confidence in reporting mechanisms. The Committee noted that the survey would be administered through Microsoft Forms, with appropriate routing built into the questionnaire to ensure Members were only required to answer relevant questions. Members would also have the option of completing a paper copy if preferred. The survey would be anonymous, with arrangements in place to maximise participation while protecting respondents' identities. Committee members were advised that identification numbers would be allocated through political group whips to facilitate monitoring of response rates without compromising anonymity. During discussion, clarification was sought regarding confidentiality arrangements for smaller political groups and non-grouped members, noting that anonymity could be more difficult to maintain where group numbers were limited. In response, officers acknowledged the issue and advised that further work would be undertaken with Democratic Services to ensure that reporting categories and monitoring arrangements protected the anonymity of respondents from smaller groups and non-grouped members. David Mills raised several detailed comments on the draft questionnaire. These included the need for additional routing instructions where questions were not applicable to members who did not belong to a political group, together with a number of drafting and grammatical amendments to questions relating to discrimination and reporting behaviours. Officers welcomed the comments, agreed to review the wording and undertake the necessary revisions before the survey was finalised. Further observations were made regarding the survey introduction, Cllr Wood suggested that the anonymity of responses should be stated explicitly to provide reassurance to participants. Attention was also drawn to a minor formatting issue within the questionnaire and to the ranking methodology proposed for one of the questions. In response, officers agreed that the wording would be revised to make clear that respondents could allocate equal rankings where they considered multiple options to be of equal importance. The Committee also discussed whether the survey would be circulated to community councils. Officers confirmed that the survey was intended for Cardiff Council's elected, independent and co-opted members only and would not be issued to community councils. However, it was suggested that, once finalised, the survey could be shared with community council clerks and chairs as an example for local use (if required). Officers welcomed the suggestion however it was noted that resources were only available to analyse the Council's own survey responses and that any surveys undertaken independently by community councils would need to be analysed locally. Having considered the report and the comments made during the discussion, the Committee supported the proposed amendments to the Behaviours Section and approved the survey questions, subject to the agreed revisions. RESOLVED: • That the contents of the report be noted. • To incorporate the amendments suggested by Members to the Behaviours Section of the draft survey. • That subject to those amendments, the questions contained within the Behaviours Section of the Combined Member Survey for February 2027 be approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • That the contents of the report be noted. • That the draft minutes of the Hearings Panel hearing held on 10 June 2026, attached as Appendix A, be approved as a true record. • That the recommended amendments to the Hearings Panel Procedure be approved, namely: • extending the timescale for issuing a full written decision from five working days to seven working days; and • permitting hearings to be officially recorded by the Council, subject to the availability of suitable facilities and at the discretion of the Chair of the Hearings Panel. • That authority be delegated to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Standards & Ethics Committee, to make the necessary amendments to the Hearings Panel Procedure.
The Committee received a report from the Director of Governance and Legal Services (and Monitoring Officer) providing an update on complaints made against Members of Cardiff Council and Cardiff’s Community Councils alleging breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct during Quarter 2 of 2026/27, together with proposed amendments to the Hearings Panel Procedure. The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and advised that four new complaints had been notified by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales during the quarter. Committee members were referred to the summary information contained within the report, including comparative complaint data from previous quarters and the types of complaints received. The Committee noted that all four complaints had been submitted by members of the public and that, in each case, the Ombudsman had decided not to proceed with an investigation or the complaint had been withdrawn. The Monitoring Officer also provided an update regarding the hearing held on 10 June 2026 concerning a complaint referred by the Ombudsman. Committee members were advised that the Councillor who had been suspended for two months following the Hearings Panel decision had now completed the period of suspension, which ended on 8 September 2026, and had resumed full duties. The Committee noted that draft minutes of the hearing were attached as Appendix A for approval. In relation to the Hearings Panel Procedure, the Monitoring Officer advised that, whilst the Procedure remained fit for purpose, experience gained from the June 2026 hearing had highlighted two areas where amendments would be beneficial. Firstly, it was proposed that the timescale for issuing a full written decision following a hearing be extended from five working days to seven working days. Committee Members were advised that whilst the existing timescale was achievable in straightforward cases, it could prove challenging in more complex matters and the proposed extension would provide a more realistic period within which comprehensive written reasons could be prepared. Secondly, it was proposed that the procedure be amended to allow hearings to be officially recorded by the Council, subject to the availability of suitable facilities, with any decision resting with the Chair of the Hearings Panel. It was noted that this would improve transparency, provide an accurate record of proceedings and remove any need for participants or members of the public to make their own recordings. Committee discussed both proposed amendments. Those who had served on the previous Hearings Panel considered that extending the timescale to seven working days was sensible and proportionate, noting that the June hearing had been relatively straightforward and uncontested. Committee members agreed that more complex cases could require additional time to ensure that decisions and reasons were fully considered and properly recorded. It was also observed that the amendment did not prevent written decisions from being issued sooner in straightforward cases. In discussing the proposal relating to recording hearings, clarification was sought on how requests to record proceedings had previously been handled and Officers advised that such requests had been declined. Committee considered that the availability of an official recording could assist in providing an accurate record of proceedings and could be useful should any procedural issues arise subsequently. The Committee supported the proposal, noting that any decision to record would remain at the discretion of the Chair of the Hearings Panel. The Chair noted the broad support expressed by Committee members for both proposed amendments and confirmed that he considered the changes to be practical and sensible improvements to the existing Procedure. The Monitoring Officer then sought confirmation from those Committee members who had served on the Hearings Panel on 10 June 2026 that they were content for the draft minutes attached at Appendix A to be approved as a true record. Those Committee members indicated their agreement. RESOLVED: • That the contents of the report be noted. • That the draft minutes of the Hearings Panel hearing held on 10 June 2026, attached as Appendix A, be approved as a true record. • That the recommended amendments to the Hearings Panel Procedure be approved, namely: • extending the timescale for issuing a full written decision from five working days to seven working days; and • permitting hearings to be officially recorded by the Council, subject to the availability of suitable facilities and at the discretion of the Chair of the Hearings Panel. • That authority be delegated to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Standards & Ethics Committee, to make the necessary amendments to the Hearings Panel Procedure.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Committee received a report from the Director of Governance and Legal Services (and Monitoring Officer) enabling Members to consider the relevant sections of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW) Annual Letter and Annual Report and Accounts 2025-26 relating to matters within the remit of the Standards and Ethics Committee. In introducing the report, the Monitoring Officer explained that the report had been prepared to extract only those sections of the PSOW documentation relevant to the Committee’s terms of reference. She noted that other aspects of the PSOW’s report, particularly complaints from officers and members of the public unrelated to Members’ Code of Conduct matters, were considered by the Governance and Audit Committee. She also highlighted that some elements of the annual report reflected all-Wales data rather than Cardiff-specific information. In particular, she referred to commentary regarding allegations of bullying and harassment involving council staff, stressing that this was an all-Wales observation and not a concern identified within Cardiff Council. Referring to the Cardiff-specific complaints data, the Monitoring Officer highlighted that during 2025-26 the PSOW had closed 14 Code of Conduct complaints relating to Cardiff Council, comprising one discontinued investigation not being in the public interest to pursue, one investigation where no evidence of a breach was found, eleven complaints where there was no prima facie evidence of a breach, and one case referred to the Standards and Ethics Committee. She noted that Members would recognise these figures from the quarterly monitoring reports presented to the Committee throughout the year. Turning to the information relating to Cardiff’s Community Councils, the Monitoring Officer welcomed the fact that no complaints had been recorded against any Community Council during the reporting period. She considered this a positive outcome and noted that it reflected the constructive observations made by independent members during their visits to Community Councils. During discussion, Louise Evans suggested that future reports could include a graphical representation of complaint data over a six-month or annual period to enable Members to identify trends more easily and gain a broader view of standards and ethics performance. In response, the Monitoring Officer agreed that such a visual presentation could be useful but noted that the relatively low number of complaints currently received might limit the value of trend analysis. She advised that if emerging trends became apparent in future reporting periods, she would incorporate graphical information into the quarterly update reports. Community Councillor Julia Charles queried whether there was more she could do in her role as the Community Council representative on the Committee to support Community Councils across Cardiff. In response, the Monitoring Officer reassured her that her participation brought an important Community Council perspective to the Committee’s deliberations and ensured that Members remained aware of the work and challenges facing Community Councils. She offered to give further consideration to the matter and discuss any additional opportunities for engagement outside the meeting. The Chair supported this approach. David Mills welcomed the positive position regarding Community Council complaints but noted that the table contained within the report identified only five Community Councils and omitted Tongwynlais Community Council. The Monitoring Officer thanked him for highlighting the omission and confirmed that no complaints relating to Tongwynlais Community Council had been received during the reporting period. Committee were assured that the omission would be addressed for future reports. Rashpal Singh commented that Julia Charles already made a valuable contribution through her membership of the Committee, providing a link between the Committee and the Community Council sector and helping to share learning between the two. Julia Charles acknowledged these comments and explained that she had been considering whether further engagement with other Community Councils would be beneficial. In response, the Monitoring Officer advised that she met quarterly with Community Council clerks and routinely provided feedback on the work of the Committee and that Julia Charles would be welcome to attend these meetings if that would be helpful noting that existing arrangements ensured there were no communication gaps. In closing the item, the Chair welcomed the positive position reflected in the report, particularly the absence of complaints relating to Community Councils, and noted that this demonstrated the value of the engagement and support arrangements already in place. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 12 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. Following consideration of the exempt appendix in closed session, the Committee resumed in open session. RESOLVED: • That the report be noted following the Committee’s review of the Officers' Personal Interests and Secondary Employment Policy and the Senior Officers' Personal Interests Declarations for 2026. • The Committee noted the improved presentation of the information contained within Appendix B, which assisted Members in undertaking their review.
The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Monitoring Officer regarding Officers' Personal Interests and Secondary Employment. Prior to consideration of the item, the Chair reminded Members that Appendix B to the report contained exempt information relating to individual officers and that, should Members wish to discuss the specific contents of those declarations, the Committee would be required to move into closed session. The purpose of the report was to enable the Committee to review personal interests declarations made by the Council's Senior Officers and to fulfil its oversight responsibilities in relation to the Council's arrangements for the registration and declaration of interests. In presenting the report, the Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that the matter had previously been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 8 July 2026. On that occasion, formatting difficulties had affected the presentation of the information contained within Appendix B. Although Members had been satisfied that there were no significant concerns arising from the declarations themselves, it had been agreed that the report should be brought back to a future meeting with an amended and clearer presentation of the information. He advised that the report before Members was substantially the same as that previously considered, with the exception of an updated Appendix B that set out the Senior Officers' declarations in a clearer format to assist the Committee's review. In discussion, Committee thanked officers for revising the presentation of the information and noted that concerns raised at the previous meeting regarding the clarity of one declaration had been addressed. It was indicated that the revised format was significantly clearer and assisted Committee members in reviewing the information. The Chair noted that no further questions had been raised in open session. However, a Committee member indicated that they wished to discuss matters contained within Appendix B. Consequently, the Chair proposed that, in accordance with paragraph 12 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for consideration of the exempt information contained within Appendix B. RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting at this point during consideration of this item as the Committee discussed exempt information of the description contained in paragraph 12 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Action 1972. The public may be excluded from the meeting by resolution of the Committee pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 during discussion of this item. Following consideration of the exempt appendix in closed session, the Committee resumed in open session. RESOLVED: • That the report be noted following the Committee’s review of the Officers' Personal Interests and Secondary Employment Policy and the Senior Officers' Personal Interests Declarations for 2026. • The Committee noted the improved presentation of the information contained within Appendix B, which assisted Members in undertaking their review.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: • The information contained within the report and appendices regarding the meeting of the National Standards Committee Chairs Forum held on 29 June 2026 was noted; and • The recommendations contained within the report were approved.
The Committee received a report from the Monitoring Officer providing information on the meeting of the National Standards Committee Chairs Forum held on 29 June 2026 and highlighting key issues discussed by the Forum. The Monitoring Officer, introduced the report and advised that the key areas of discussion from the Forum meeting had been summarised within the report and accompanying appendices. She noted that the matters discussed were largely consistent with ongoing developments and emerging themes already familiar to the Committee. In relation to the cases of interest considered by the Forum, Committee members were advised that one of the cases referenced concerned Cardiff Council. It was confirmed that this matter had previously been reported to the Committee through the usual quarterly update reports and Committee members had therefore already been made aware of the case. The Committee was informed that significant work was currently being undertaken by the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA), in partnership with a small working group of Monitoring Officers from the All-Wales Monitoring Officers Group, to develop a suite of induction training materials for elected members following the 2027 local government elections. It was reported that further amendments and additional slides were expected before the materials were finalised. The Monitoring Officer advised that the draft materials reviewed to date were of a very high standard and would be utilised by Cardiff Council as part of its induction programme. However, she noted that the volume of material was substantial and consideration was being given to how best to structure the training to ensure members remained engaged. Committee noted the update and welcomed the collaborative work being undertaken at an all-Wales level to support member development and promote consistent standards of conduct across local government in Wales. No questions were raised by Committee members. RESOLVED: • The information contained within the report and appendices regarding the meeting of the National Standards Committee Chairs Forum held on 29 June 2026 was noted; and • The recommendations contained within the report were approved.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED THAT: • The meeting observation feedback received in respect of St Fagans Community Council and Lisvane Community Council be noted. • The Committee continue to observe meetings of the Council, Committees and Community Councils and provide feedback to future meetings of the Committee.
The Committee considered the report from the Monitoring Officer regarding observations undertaken by Committee Members at Community Council meetings. The report advised that feedback had been received following observations of meetings of St Fagans Community Council and Lisvane Community Council. Committee noted that no concerns had been raised in relation to member conduct, standards and ethics issues, or the management of the meetings observed. The Monitoring Officer reported that both observation reports had been very positive. In relation to St Fagans Community Council, the observation highlighted that the meeting had been conducted professionally, voting procedures had been clear, declarations of interest had been appropriately recorded, and the meeting had been conducted in a professional and friendly manner. The observation of Lisvane Community Council similarly identified positive practice, noting that the meeting had been well managed by the Clerk and Chair, the exclusion of the public from the private session had been undertaken correctly, and decisions had been reached clearly following full discussion by Members. The Committee was advised that the feedback had been shared with the relevant Clerks and would be discussed further at a forthcoming meeting with Community Council Clerks. Committee welcomed the positive nature of the reports. Stephanie Yung, who had undertaken her first observation, commented that she had found the process both helpful and informative. In addition to enabling scrutiny of meeting procedures, the observation had enhanced her understanding of how Community Councils operated in practice. Stephanie Yung further referred to comments made at a previous meeting regarding the value of observation visits and advised that, following her observation of Lisvane Community Council, she had sought feedback from the Community Council Clerk regarding the Community Council's views on the process. The Clerk had responded positively, stating that observations were worthwhile as they provided reassurance when Councils were operating correctly and constructive guidance where improvements were required. Stephanie Yung felt this feedback demonstrated the benefit of the observation programme. Community Councillor Julia Charles welcomed the practice of sharing feedback with Community Council Clerks but emphasised the importance of ensuring feedback was provided promptly following observations so that any issues identified could be addressed without delay. In response, the Monitoring Officer agreed that this was an important point and confirmed that the feedback had already been issued to the relevant Clerks following approval. Having considered the report and comments made, the Committee welcomed the positive feedback arising from both observations and acknowledged the value of the observation process for both the Committee and Community Councils. RESOLVED THAT: • The meeting observation feedback received in respect of St Fagans Community Council and Lisvane Community Council be noted. • The Committee continue to observe meetings of the Council, Committees and Community Councils and provide feedback to future meetings of the Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Work Programme for 2026/27, as set out in Appendix A of the report, be agreed.
The Committee received a report from the Monitoring Officer regarding the proposed Work Programme for 2026/27. The report invited the Committee to consider the draft programme and agree the items to be considered during the forthcoming municipal year. The Monitoring Officer, introduced the report and drew Committee members' attention to Appendix A, which set out the draft Work Programme for 2026/27. She advised that the programme had been developed in liaison with relevant officers and included reports anticipated to be brought before the Committee during the municipal year. Committee members were invited to comment on the proposed programme and suggest any additional items they wished to be included. The Chair invited comments from Committee. No amendments, additions or observations were raised by the Committee. RESOLVED – That the Work Programme for 2026/27, as set out in Appendix A of the report, be agreed.
None received.
The next meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee is scheduled for 3rd February 2027, 5pm.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.