Standards & Ethics Committee

Members were reminded that Appendix B of the report contained exempt information and was therefore confidential. Should discussion of its contents be required, the committee would move into a closed session. The Monitoring Officer introduced the report, highlighting the following key points: • The report includes completed proformas in the main agenda pack and two additional submissions in the supplementary papers. • It provides the committee with its annual opportunity to consider submissions from political group leaders regarding the discharge of their statutory duties (as outlined in paragraph 2A). • Paragraph 2B outlines the committee’s responsibilities: o Monitoring compliance by political group leaders. o Advising on training where appropriate. o Assessing overall compliance for inclusion in the committee’s annual report. • Details of ongoing complaints have been removed from the proformas and summarised in the main body of the report. • Paragraph 11 notes that four complaints were received during the reporting period; none progressed to investigation by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. • Paragraph 9 reiterates the committee’s previous decision that political Group Leaders to attend the Standards & Ethics Committee to present the same on an annual basis on a date to be specified by the Committee; with additional attendance at Committee by Group Leaders to be by exception and as requested by Committee. The Monitoring Officer invited Members to review each proforma and engage with relevant group leaders as needed, this discussion of exempt information would take place in private session. 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. The Committee returned to public open session and the Chairperson invited Members to note or consider the submitted reports. Following the review, the Chairperson asked Members to confirm whether they were satisfied that all group leaders had met their statutory duties. This assessment would be incorporated into the committee’s annual report. The Chairperson also proposed that the committee agree to receive an update report from group leaders in 12 months’ time. Rashpal Singh proposed acceptance of the recommendations, this was seconded by Louise Evans. RESOLVED that: a. The Group Leader’s Reports had satisfied their statutory duties in relation to standards of conduct and that this would be incorporated into the Standards and Ethics Committee Annual report; b. An update report from Group Leaders be brought to Committee in twelve months’ time.

Members were advised that Ruth Davis had submitted her resignation from the committee via email in July, with immediate effect. The Chairperson wished to take the opportunity to thank Ruth for her contributions and service to the committee. As a result of the resignation, the Committee now has a vacancy for an Independent Member on the committee. The report outlined the relevant regulations governing the appointment process. Details were provided regarding the public advertisement, which was published on 1st September. The vacancy had been advertised in the publications listed in paragraph 11 of the report, with the closing date for applications set as 21st September. At this stage one application has been received. This will be considered by the Appointments Panel during the shortlisting process. In terms of the panel’s composition, the regulations require: • One lay member, • One Cardiff Community Councillor, and • Up to three additional panel members. The proposed timescales for the appointment process were set out in paragraph 16 of the report. The recommendations in the report were outlined and the Chairperson invited questions or comments from committee members, of which there were none. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee agrees the recommendations in the report, this was seconded by Rashpal Singh. RESOLVED: a) Noted the arrangements for the appointments process as set out in the report; b) Agreed the establishment of an Appointments Panel comprising of three members, as set out in paragraphs 13 to 15 of the report, with delegated authority to shortlist and interview candidates and make a recommendation on appointment to full Council; c) Authorised the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to make all necessary arrangements for the appointments process, including appointment and convening of the Appointments Panel; and d) Noted that the recommendation of the Appointments Panel on the appointment of the new independent member of the Committee would be submitted to full Council for approval.

Members were advised that this item provided the Committee with an update on the meeting of the National Standards Committee Chairs’ Forum, which took place in June 2025. The report was presented for information and noting. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from Committee Members, of which there were none. The Chairperson asked for a proposer that the Committee note the report, this was proposed by Louise Evans and seconded by Rashpal Singh. RESOLVED to note the contents of the report.

The Chairperson advised Committee that the Monitoring Officer had left the room, having declared a prejudicial interest in this item. The Deputy Monitoring Officer, Leanne Weston, was in attendance remotely to present the report. The Chairperson reminded Committee Members that Appendix B to the report contained confidential information, therefore any questions relating to this would need to be asked in closed session. Committee were advised that the report enabled them to review the personal interest declarations made by senior officers of the Council. The Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Monitoring Officer had left the room due to a conflict of interest, as she was one of the senior officers referenced in the report. The legal advice and content of the report dated 18th September had been prepared and presented by the Deputy Monitoring Officer. The report related to officers’ personal interests and secondary employment. Council employees are subject to the Employees’ Code of Conduct, which requires them to ensure that their private interests do not conflict with their public duties. They must also comply with the Council’s rules on the registration and declaration of financial and non-financial interests. The Committee has a role in advising Council on this matter, in consultation with the Monitoring Officer, and has overseen the Officer Personal Interests and Secondary Employment Policy since its adoption in 2015. The Council also maintains a public register of senior officers’ outside business interests, following a recommendation from this Committee in March 2019. This register is updated annually or when changes are notified. The report presented two key matters for review: 1. The Council’s policy on officers’ personal interests and secondary employment, including the new digital system introduced to manage this process. 2. The personal interest declarations made by senior officers, in line with the policy. Focusing firstly on the digital system, which was referenced in the Deputy Monitoring Officer’s previous report to the Committee in October 2024: • It has been developed to support the Council’s commitment to digitising internal processes and follows a recommendation from Internal Audit. • It does not change what employees are required to disclose under the policy. • It requires all employees to confirm they have read the policy and either made a declaration or confirmed they have nothing to declare. This must be updated annually. • For non-PC users, forms can be completed manually and uploaded by administrators, or declarations can be submitted via a virtual point of contact system. As a result of the new system, minor amendments were made to the policy. These were authorised by the Monitoring Officer under her delegated authority. Members were referred to Appendix A, particularly paragraphs 35–39, which outlined these changes. The system was successfully trialled and launched Council-wide on 1 September 2025, with appropriate communications issued to staff. With reference to senior officers’ declarations, these officers are subject to additional disclosure requirements, as outlined in paragraph 16 of the report. The digital system includes a separate process for senior officers, enabling: o The Monitoring Officer to extract data for the public register and for reporting to this Committee. o Finance officers to access information required for related party disclosures in the Council’s Statement of Accounts. Appendix B contained the current declarations and was exempt from public disclosure. Committee Members were advised that going forward, the format of information presented to the Committee may change slightly due to the digital system, but the nature and scope of the information would remain the same. The recommendations in the report were outlined. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from Committee Members, on the open and publicly available information. There were no questions. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from Committee Members, on the information contained in confidential Appendix B. There were no questions. The Chairperson sought agreement to the recommendations. This was proposed by the Chairperson and seconded by Rashpal Singh. RESOLVED: The Committee reviewed and noted the Officers’ Personal Interests and Secondary Employment Policy (Appendix A), in light of the information set out in the report, including the new digital system which had been introduced for processing officers’ personal interests and secondary employment; and the Senior Officers’ Personal Interests Declarations attached as Appendix B (Exempt).

Members were advised that the report covers the period from 1st April to 30th June 2025. During this quarter, the Monitoring Officer was notified by the Ombudsman of two complaints alleging breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct: • one complaint was submitted by a member of the public, • with the second being a member-on-member complaint. Of these: • one complaint remains under consideration by the Ombudsman, • the other, submitted by the member of the public, was not progressed to investigation. Members were referred to Paragraph 8 of the report which is an anonymised extract from the Ombudsman’s decision letter, as a learning point . Paragraph 9 provided an update on a complaint previously reported to the Committee. This matter was referred to the Ombudsman in October 2024, with relevant information submitted on 6th November 2024. The Ombudsman has now confirmed that there is no evidence of a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from Members. Councillor Brown-Reckless considered it was worth noting how few complaints actually proceed to investigation. She stated that this reflects well on the overall standards of conduct among Members, which is encouraging. However, she did express a concern about the volume of documentation and protocols having to be maintained to uphold these standards. She added that she understood the importance of good governance, but questioned whether the resources, both time and financial, devoted to this area are proportionate, especially when the actual number of serious complaints is so low. Councillor Brown-Reckless also stated that she was concerned about whether resources are being allocated in the most effective way, noting thatCardiff Council is a major organisation, with a budget in the region of a billion pounds and she considered that the risk of financial impropriety is a far greater concern than isolated conduct issues among Members. She wondered whether more focus should be placed on auditing and financial oversight, rather than continually refining standards protocols. The Chairperson commented that he agreed that, overall, Member conduct is of a high standard, and that was something to be acknowledged. However, it could be argued that the work of the Standards and Ethics Committee had contributed to that, such as the recent decision to remove the Cardiff Undertaking. The Monitoring Officer echoed the comments made by the Chairperson and said that it’s important to remember that the Members’ Code of Conduct is a statutory requirement, and the Council is legally obliged to have it in place. The role of the Committee includes monitoring and reporting on compliance, which is why these reports are necessary. The Monitoring Officer explained that officers are mindful of resource efficiency. For example, officers use standardised report templates with variable content inserted as needed, which helps reduce the time and cost of producing the update reports. Louise Evans commented that her understanding was that the purpose of these reports is not just to count complaints, but also to identify any themes or patterns over time. Since none have been mentioned, she asked if she could assume that no such patterns have emerged. The Monitoring Officer said that was correct. At this time, there are no recurring themes or patterns in the complaints received. Louise Evans noted that at the last meeting, Committee discussed a complaint that was still under consideration by the Ombudsman and asked whether there was any update on that, or any indication of when a decision might be made. The Monitoring Officer explained that is the matter referred to in paragraph 9 of the report. The Ombudsman’s request for information came in on 30th October and was responded to promptly. The Ombudsman has since confirmed that there was no evidence of a breach, so that matter is now closed. The Chairperson proposed that the Committee note the report, this was seconded by Rashpal Singh. RESOLVED to note the contents of the report.

Members were advised that the report outlined the Local Dispute Resolution procedure and the associated hearings panel process, taking into account the recommendations made by the Monitoring Officers Group. The recommendations follow a review conducted by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, which examined all local resolution protocols of principal local authorities across Wales. The report also considered the legal opinion regarding the status of certain provisions. Members were reminded that Appendix C attached to the report was confidential and any questions on the Appendix would mean that the Committee would need to move into a closed session. The Monitoring Officer advised that to assist the Committee, she had extracted and highlighted a number of the recommendations in Appendix D, allowing Committee to discuss them in open session, hopefully avoiding the need to move into private session, although that decision ultimately rested with Committee. Members noted that the impetus for this work stemmed from a legal opinion obtained by the Ombudsman’s office and the deliberations of a Monitoring Officer Working Group on the same, of which the Monitoring Officer was one of six Monitoring Officers making up the Working Group. The Working Group reviewed the legal opinion and the guidance provided by the Ombudsman. While the Working Group did not feel it appropriate to propose a single template for all local authorities, it was agreed that it would be helpful to identify key areas for consideration. That was the aim of the recommendations reflected in Appendix D. Members were advised that Appendix A contained Cardiff Council’s current Local Resolution Protocol, which remains in effect. Since the Monitoring Officer had joined Cardiff Council, no matters have progressed to the hearing stage. The corresponding procedures were also appended to the report. Members heard that Appendix D summarised the recommendations from the Monitoring Officer Working Group. The recommendations were not binding on Committee but were shared for information and were being circulated among principal councils across Wales. The first column of Appendix D listed the recommendations, the second column compared them with Cardiff’ Council’s existing Local Resolution Procedure,with the third column containing suggested amendments or areas for discussion. The Monitoring Officer proceeded to go through each point for discussion with Committee: The first recommendation, which had been consistently reflected in Ombudsman guidance over the past two decades, was that Local Resolution Procedures should apply only to low-level complaints between Members of principal councils. For Cardiff Council, this means complaints between elected Members of the County or County Borough Council. Separate protocols exist for Community Councils. Cardiff Council’s current protocol does reflect that it applies to low-level Member-on-Member complaints. However, it also refers to complaints from Members of the public. While this reference does not formally form part of the protocol, it does suggest that if a Member of the public were to make a complaint, the Monitoring Officer would attempt to address the matter informally, while also informing the individual of their right to escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman. In the third column, the Monitoring Officer had suggested an amendment to exclude references to complaints from Members of the public, as this may cause confusion. While informal discussions with Members of the public can still take place, including such references in the protocol may blur its intended scope. Councillor Brown-Reckless agreed with the recommendation to exclude complaints from Members of the public. Louise Evans agreed with the recommendation to exclude complaints from Members of the public, stating that any case that can be resolved informally is preferable. David Mills supported the recommendation. He considered it provided clarity and streamlined the process, stating that there are other appropriate avenues for public complaints. Rashpal Singh agreed with the recommendations stating that it gives clarity, however, he asked whether there was any record kept of informal discussions. The Monitoring Officer advised that she does sometimes keep a note for her own reference, but she does not share these notes with the Standards and Ethics Committee. Each case is fact sensitive. If a pattern of behaviour emerges, she may consider sharing information confidentially with the group leader. The Ombudsman does refer to patterns of conduct, and this is something to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Chairperson stated that it seemed the Committee was in agreement with the recommendation and asked for clarification. All Members agreed. Discussing Recommendation 2, the Monitoring Officer Working Group suggested that the Local Resolution Procedure may include the option for Officers to raise complaints under the protocol. Cardiff Council currently permits Officers to make complaints under this procedure, and therefore, no amendment has been proposed. Councillor Brown-Reckless wanted to express her disagreement with this recommendation. She did not believe Officers should be permitted to raise complaints under this process. If an officer wishes to make a complaint, they should do so through the formal Ombudsman route. For that reason, she would not support the inclusion of Officers in this protocol. Councillor Wood stated that he respectfully disagreed with Councillor Brown-Reckless. Officers work closely with Members and may encounter situations where they feel a complaint is necessary. He believed they should have access to this protocol, and he wished to have his view noted. The Monitoring Officer stated that she believed it can be helpful for Officers to have someone to speak to when issues arise. This process allowed the Monitoring Officer to provide context and help resolve concerns informally. It could be a way to address misunderstandings or unintended offence, simply by bringing it to the Member’s attention. There would be no formal sanction involved, just an opportunity for informal resolution. She understood Councillor Brown-Reckless’ s concerns but believed this approach could help address issues at an early stage to prevent escalation. Louise Evans agreed that Officers should be included. She didn’t see a reason why they shouldn’t be. She asked Councillor Brown-Reckless to elaborate on her concerns so she could better understand her position. Councillor Brown-Reckless explained that her concern was about the necessity of the protocol itself. It is a consensual process with no statutory powers. If the Monitoring Officer or the Standards and Ethics Committee wishes to have informal conversations, they can do so without a formal protocol. Introducing a document such as this risks implying powers that don’t exist. There is already a defined process for breaches of the Code of Conduct, which involves the Ombudsman and, if necessary, a hearings panel. Creating a parallel process could lead to confusion or even legal complications. This was why she believed Committee should be cautious. The Monitoring Officer asked for clarity from the Committee on whether there is support for retaining officer access to the protocol. The Chairperson was content with retaining the protocol. He believed it was important for Officers to know that such an avenue exists. David Mills, Rashpal Singh and Louise Evans were happy to support the recommendation. The Chairperson stated that it appeared the Committee was in agreement to retain officer access to the Local Resolution Protocol. For recommendation 3, the Chairperson opened the discussion by stating that if Members were content, the Committee could proceed to the next stage. For the benefit of the minutes, it was noted that Councillor Brown-Reckless’ comments would be picked up at this point. The Monitoring Officer advised that Recommendation 3 concerns the inclusion of a list of behaviours. Councillor Brown-Reckless highlighted that Members are already subject to the Members’ Code of Conduct, which outlines the expectations and requirements for elected Members. This Code is informed by the ten standards, comprising the seven Nolan principles and three additional principles specific to Wales. There is also existing guidance available to support interpretation. The Chairperson acknowledged that while some authorities have adopted a standard list to help clarify expectations, the current local resolution procedure does not specify expected standards of behaviour. The Chairperson expressed no objection to continuing without such a list, noting that the majority of the working group had considered that a list could be beneficial. However, The Chairperson did not view this as a significant issue and left it as a matter for the Committee to decide. David Mills supported the idea of providing guidance on expected behaviours, suggesting that if a list were to be included, it should be described as a list of examples rather than a definitive or exhaustive list. This would help clarify that the list is illustrative and not intended to cover every possible scenario. Councillor Brown-Reckless expressed concern about Recommendation 3, referencing the concept of "Lucifer’s Gold Painting" where a legal or regulatory rule is expanded beyond its original scope. She emphasised that the Code of Conduct is the statutory basis for Councillor behaviour and cautioned against creating additional behavioural standards that extend beyond this Code. She considered that doing so could be legally and ethically problematic, potentially infringing on Councillors’ rights, including their Article 10 right to freedom of speech. She stressed that any concerns about conduct should be addressed within the framework of the Code of Conduct and not through supplementary rules or expectations. The Monitoring Officer responded by clarifying that the suggestion was not to incorporate a list into the Code of Conduct itself, but rather to provide broader context or examples of expected behaviours. She acknowledged the concerns raised and reiterated that the current protocol appears to be functioning effectively without a formal list. The Monitoring Officer noted that there is a wealth of guidance and evolving case law available to inform standards, and that her preference would be to rely on statutory guidance rather than introduce additional expectations that could complicate matters. The Chairperson invited further comments from Members. Councillor Brown-Reckless responded by pointing out that statutory guidance is not binding on Councillors and expressed concern that referring to it as "statutory" may imply a level of authority it does not possess. She stated that any assessment of a Councillor’s conduct should be based solely on whether they have breached the Code of Conduct. Councillor Brown-Reckless emphasised that while it may be appropriate to explain guidance to Members, it should not be used to assert that a Councillor has breached it, as they are not required to comply with guidance. She expressed concern that this approach could lead the Committee into dangerous territory. Councillor Brown-Reckless raised a point regarding the intention behind the protocol. She questioned whether the protocol was designed to enable standards matters to be raised with Councillors for conduct that does not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct. She strongly opposed this idea, stating that standards matters should only be pursued if there was a clear breach of the Code. If a Councillor’s behaviour did not meet that threshold, then it should not be treated as a standards issue. The Chairperson responded briefly, noting that sometimes informal discussions can help resolve issues before they escalate. The Monitoring Officer was then invited to comment. The Monitoring Officer addressed the latter point and explained that certain behaviours can form a pattern over time, and it is important to address concerns early to avoid escalation. She noted that a Member may not realise how their behaviour is being perceived, and the first time they become aware of it should not be through a formal complaint to the Ombudsman. The aim is to resolve matters informally and early, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. The Monitoring Officer acknowledged that there may be differing views and suggested that the Committee may need to agree to disagree on this point. She reminded Members that she had delivered training on statutory guidance in August of the previous year. While she recognised that Councillor Brown-Reckless did not agree with her interpretation, she clarified that the Ombudsman’s guidance on the Members’ Code of Conduct, issued separately for principal councils and community councils, is statutory guidance. As such, it is appropriate to have regard to it and to bring it to Members’ attention. The Monitoring Officer asked the Committee to clarify its position on the specific point regarding the list of behaviours, noting that broader issues could be addressed separately. Councillor Brown-Reckless requested to speak and was asked to be brief. She reiterated her position, stating that the Ombudsman’s guidance implies that statutory guidance is binding, but in reality, it was not binding on Councillors. She argued that the guidance cannot be used to compel Councillors to act in a certain way and that this creates a false sense of legitimacy. She maintained that only group leaders have a duty to have regard to the guidance, and even then, they are not required to follow it. She expressed serious concern that the protocol could be misused to impose expectations on Councillors that have no legal basis. Councillor Brown-Reckless responded to earlier comments by reiterating that while the idea of identifying patterns of behaviour and addressing them early may be presented as benign and well-meaning, she viewed it differently. She expressed concern that in politicised meetings, particularly those dominated by the majority party, Members of minority parties may feel targeted or silenced. She cited an example where a Councillor from her group felt they were being unfairly spoken over and misrepresented, leading to internal upset. She argued that such situations can evolve into freedom of speech issues, where Councillors feel intimidated or discouraged from expressing their views for fear of repercussions. She warned against the standards regime being used in a way that suppresses legitimate political expression, particularly for minority party Members, and stated that this was deeply concerning. The Chairperson invited Committee Members to share their thoughts. David Mills followed up on Councillor Brown-Reckless’ remarks, seeking clarification on whether there had been formal reports of bullying or intimidation. He asked whether these concerns had been raised by individual Councillors. Councillor Brown-Reckless clarified that she was not referring to Members of the Standards and Ethics Committee, but rather to Councillors serving on other Committees. She confirmed that her group had experienced a situation that caused internal concern, where a Councillor felt unfairly treated during a meeting. She emphasised that the issue was not about one Councillor bullying another, but rather about the standards regime itself being perceived as the aggressor, imposing restrictions on what Councillors can say or do. She expressed strong concern about the potential for the standards regime to be weaponised, creating an environment where Councillors feel unable to speak freely. The Monitoring Officer responded by clarifying that conduct within formal meetings is ordinarily dealt with under the relevant procedure rules, and it is the responsibility of the Chairperson to manage such matters. She referenced a recent decision from the Ombudsman that reinforced this approach. The Monitoring Officer noted that most Councils have procedure rules that Officers must follow, and that issues relating to those rules fall outside the remit of the Standards and Ethics Committee. Instead, such matters would be more appropriately considered by the Constitution Committee. David Mills acknowledged the clarification and noted that the discussion had broadened beyond the scope of the current meeting. He expressed interest in the concerns raised about Councillors feeling unable to speak out but cautioned that the conversation could become nebulous when referring to regimes rather than specific incidents. The Chairperson then returned to the matter of Recommendation 3, asking Members to confirm whether they were content not to include a list of expected behaviours. Rashpal Singh shared his view that having a framework, such as the Nolan principles and the ten standards, is important. David Mills agreed, stating that it is important to have standards in place. Next followed a discussion on the Inclusion of Behavioural Examples and Committee Authority. The Chairperson began by framing the question: Should the Committee include examples of expected behaviours? It was confirmed that this was the matter under discussion. Members expressed a range of views. David Mills stated that he was comfortable referring to the Nolan principles and agreed with Councillor Brown-Reckless that these principles already provide a sufficient framework. He added that including further guidance or examples to clarify expectations would be acceptable and saw no reason why such examples could not be provided, as they would serve a governance purpose. Louise Evans commented that she did not have strong feelings either way. She noted that any examples provided must be clearly identified as non-exhaustive, as no list could cover every eventuality. She felt that the examples reviewed appeared consistent with the Nolan principles and did not contradict them. However, she questioned whether such examples added significant value beyond what is already known and accepted. The Chairperson responded by acknowledging that while the examples may not be strictly necessary, they could be helpful in resolving issues fairly and swiftly. He considered that they emphasised the importance of resolution and felt that examples could support that aim. The Monitoring Officer suggested that further work may be needed and proposed putting the matter on hold. She recommended reviewing the examples to determine whether they are embedded in case law and returning to the issue at a later date. This approach was agreed by the Committee, recognising that views were split. Councillor Brown-Reckless then raised a concern about the Committee’s authority. She expressed unease at comments suggesting that the Committee could create a list of rules for Councillors to comply with. She argued that this was not within the Committee’s powers and that such actions would undermine the purpose of the Code of Conduct. She warned against what she perceived as a “power-grabbing” exercise and objected to the idea of the Committee setting new standards. The Chairperson responded firmly, stating that he took objection to the remarks and felt that Councillor Brown-Reckless had crossed a line. He emphasised the importance of respectful behaviour and noted that he had witnessed similar conduct on previous occasions. David Mills was invited to comment and echoed The Chairperson’s concerns. He stated that the Committee was not attempting to create new standards or “gold-plate” existing ones. Rather, the intention was to provide illustrative examples that align with the Nolan principles and support Councillors in understanding expectations. He stressed that guidance can be helpful and that the absence of information can lead to confusion. He asked Councillor Brown-Reckless to reflect on the nature of the discussion and the Committee’s intentions. Councillor Brown-Reckless responded by objecting to the suggestion that she had crossed a line. She maintained that she had simply stated what she believed to be the correct legal position. She also objected to the implication that she had been disrespectful, asserting that she had always shown respect to Committee Members. She disagreed with the Chairperson’s characterisation of previous interactions and expressed concern about being denied opportunities to speak.and she felt unfairly accused of being disrespectful. She clarified that no disrespect was intended toward any Member of the Committee, either during the current meeting or previously. She emphasised that this should not prevent her from raising legitimate points about the Committee’s authority, particularly regarding whether it is entitled to draft new lists of behaviours or expectations for Councillors. She also noted that there were two earlier points she had not been permitted to respond to. Firstly, she addressed a comment made by the Monitoring Officer regarding the Constitution Committee and the conduct of Chairs in meetings. She clarified that she had not raised any concerns about Chairs’ conduct or their adherence to constitutional procedures. Secondly, she raised a concern about the recent practice of Independent Members of the Standards and Ethics Committee attending other Committee meetings and reporting on Councillors’ conduct. She felt this could have a chilling effect on debate and, when combined with any new local resolution protocol, could suppress freedom of expression. The Chairperson moved the discussion on to Recommendation 4, suggesting that, in line with the approach taken for Recommendation 3, further work be undertaken to revisit relevant case law. This would help inform the Committee’s understanding of what has previously been regarded as high-level complaints. The proposal was supported by Members and Councillor Brown-Reckless asked for clarification on the proposal and confirmed she was happy to wait for it to return to Committee. The Committee then considered Recommendation 5 from the Monitoring Officer Group. The Monitoring Officer explained that the current process makes it difficult for the Monitoring Officer to appear unbiased if they are also the complainant in a matter referred to the Ombudsman. She suggested that the protocol should clarify that referrals should be made by the complainant, not the Monitoring Officer. Cardiff Council’s local resolution procedure does not currently specify who should make such referrals, and the Monitoring Officer proposed that this be addressed either through explicit reference or left to the discretion of the Monitoring Officer. Louise Evans questioned whether this would add an unnecessary step to the process. The Monitoring Officer responded that the clarification could be included in the preamble of the revised protocol and that she would bring a final document back to the Committee for review. David Mills had no further comments, Rashpal Singh agreed with the proposal. Councillor Brown-Reckless raised a concern about the use of the word “urged” in the protocol, suggesting it be removed. She felt that Councillors should not be urged to refer matters to the Ombudsman but rather informed of the appropriate process. She also highlighted the issue of predetermination, noting that if the Monitoring Officer or Committee Members are involved informally in a matter, it may complicate their ability to deal with it formally later. She reiterated her view that only matters which meet the threshold of a breach of the Code of Conduct should be treated as standards issues. Councillor Wood agreed with the proposal and suggested that the wording be revised to explain the process clearly, rather than urging action. The Committee agreed with this approach. For Recommendation 6 – Complainant Consent to Use the Protocol, the Committee discussed the importance of ensuring that the complainant agrees to engage with the local resolution protocol. It was noted that while this is often implied in informal arrangements, it is not explicitly stated in Cardiff’s existing protocol. Members agreed that participation should be voluntary and that both parties must be willing to engage. The Chairperson suggested that including a clear statement of consent would strike the right balance and avoid any misunderstanding. Louise Evans, David Mills, Rashpal Singh and Councillor Wood all agreed with the proposal. Councillor Brown-Reckless supported the recommendation and added that the protocol should explicitly state that it is a voluntary process. She emphasised that Councillors should be clearly informed in writing at the outset that they are not obliged to participate. The Committee agreed with this approach. Discussing Recommendation 7 – Scope of Complaints, the Committee considered whether the protocol should apply to complaints from Members of the public or complaints by Members about Officers. It was noted that Cardiff’s current policy does not explicitly exclude these types of complaints, although in practice they are signposted to other procedures. The Monitoring Officer clarified that while complaints from Members are covered, complaints by Members about Officers are not included in the protocol. She recommended explicitly excluding these categories for clarity. All Members agreed with this recommendation. Discussing Recommendation 8 – Right to Refer to the Ombudsman, the Committee reviewed a proposed amendment to strengthen the wording of the protocol to clarify that the statutory right to refer a complaint to the Ombudsman exists at any time. Members agreed with the amendment. Councillor Brown-Reckless added that this right should apply not only to the complainant but also to the other party involved, particularly in cases where both parties feel aggrieved. The Monitoring Officer acknowledged the point and confirmed that both parties retain the right to refer matters to the Ombudsman, although it may not need to be explicitly stated in the protocol. The Committee agreed with this clarification. Discussing Recommendation 9 – Number of Stages in the Procedure, the Committee discussed the structure of the local resolution protocol, specifically the number of stages involved. Feedback from the Monitoring Officer Group indicated that a two-stage process is most common. Cardiff Council’s current protocol includes an informal stage followed by a hearing panel. The Monitoring Officer noted that the Ombudsman’s office has expressed discomfort with references to hearings and determinations of breaches within local protocols. She suggested that the Committee consider alternative approaches that avoid formal hearings and instead focus on resolution. The Chairperson proposed broadening the discussion to consider what Cardiff’s local resolution protocol should look like going forward. Members agreed that further work should be undertaken to review the structure and terminology used, particularly in relation to hearings and breach determinations. The Chairperson considered it was time to move away from the current protocol. At present, there are a series of sanctions in place, but he considered there was a need to shift towards a more constructive and collaborative approach, specifically, mediation. One possible model could involve two stages. Initially, an attempt to resolve matters informally between willing parties. Participation in such a process must be voluntary; no one can be compelled to engage. The aim would be to bring parties together to reflect on the issue and explore a way forward. If that initial step does not resolve the situation, and if the individuals are still willing to participate, a second stage could involve the support of group leaders. Their presence might facilitate another attempt at resolution. The Chairperson advised that ultimately, it was for the Committee to decide, based on the information provided and the discussions that have taken place, what the process should look like. Before inviting others to share their views, the Chairperson wanted to note that the Committee, both currently and in the past, has successfully used mediation and that among reasonable individuals, it seemed to be the most effective way forward. Louise Evans stated that she thought Committee needed to consider what it’s trying to achieve. The goal isn’t necessarily to escalate matters into formal complaints where someone either breaches the code or doesn’t. Often, there may be a misunderstanding between individuals that, if addressed early, wouldn’t result in a formal complaint. Of course, people always have the option to pursue that route if they choose. She considered that a process that brings parties together to discuss the issue, whether that’s through an informal conversation or a facilitated meeting, seems appropriate. This would be more in line with a mediation approach. It helps avoid the binary “yes or no” outcome of a formal investigation, which can have serious consequences, especially if someone is unaware that their actions technically breached the Code. Mediation allows for resolution and learning without removing the option of a formal complaint. The Monitoring Officer added that the use of language such as “breach” is often used, but it’s important to clarify that, as Officers, even with the involvement of group leaders, are not making determinations. Officers are not defining whether something is a breach. The aim is simply to mediate and bring parties together to address concerns about conduct. David Mills stated that when talking about steps or stages, it’s important to remember that this is fundamentally a conversation. The Monitoring Officer should have the discretion to decide the best way to facilitate that conversation, who should be involved and in what order. He did not consider that it mattered if a document specifies that group leaders should be involved at a certain point, rather it should be up to the Monitoring Officer to determine the most appropriate approach. He added that looking at some of the concepts discussed, if there’s no statutory basis for sanctions, then introducing them could lead to challenges, appeals, or even prejudice. There’s mention of an advisory role that could support the Monitoring Officer in resolving issues without escalation, and that could be another option. He considered that ultimately, it was about having a conversation and allowing the Monitoring Officer to decide how best to proceed and who to involve to achieve resolution without needing to escalate further. Rashpal Singh stated that he strongly believed there was a need to move away from the language and framework of breaches and sanctions, stating it was important not to overcomplicate the process. He considered that it should be kept simple, while allowing the Monitoring Officer to intervene in a way that is advisory and directional, with the aim of reaching a satisfactory outcome. Councillor Wood agreed with all the contributions made so far. He believed a mediation-based system would be preferable to a formal hearing approach, which tended to carry an accusatory tone and a sense of judgement. He considered that what was trying to be achieved was resolution, something acceptable to all parties involved. This could include a bespoke agreement tailored to the nature of the issue, allowing everyone to move forward constructively. Formal processes remain available if needed, particularly where a determination of breach is required. He supported the idea of mediation for the reasons already outlined. Regarding the involvement of group leaders, he considered that should depend on the nature of the complaint. Their participation could be beneficial in some cases, but it should be left to the discretion of the Monitoring Officer. Councillor Brown-Reckless had several points to raise. Firstly, regarding the question of whether there should be a hearings panel, she agreed with the recommendation that there should not be one at this stage. That should be reserved for the formal process, after referral to the Ombudsman. On the matter of sanctions, Committee had already discussed that formal sanctions are not possible and listing them could raise liability issues. The idea of involving group leaders was important, but it must be made absolutely clear that participation in this process is voluntary. This should be communicated both verbally and in writing within the local resolution protocol. She considered that group leaders should not be pressured to participate. She did not believe that the Section 52A duty to promote high standards obliges group leaders to engage in these processes. That interpretation extends their duty beyond what is reasonable. Group leaders have many competing demands on their time, and standards matters can be time-consuming. There are professional staff, including the Ombudsman and the Monitoring Officer, whose roles are specifically designed to handle these issues. She added that involving group leaders in these processes can be problematic. Their role involves managing their teams, navigating political agendas, and dealing with complex personalities. It is not solely about raising standards. In some cases, a group leader may not agree with the complainant’s perspective and may wish to support the individual involved rather than participate in a mediation process against them. Councillor Brown-Reckless stated that she was speaking from direct experience in saying this. The Chairperson wanted to acknowledge that Councillor Brown-Reckless’ comments have been clearly heard. He reiterated his view that he considered that mediation was a constructive way forward. Most of the Committee seemed to agree that formal hearings were not the best approach. He would still consider involving group leaders if a resolution could not be reached otherwise. He agreed they should not be compelled to participate, but their involvement could sometimes help bring balance and lead to a positive outcome. In conclusion, the Monitoring Officer explained that she would be bringing a further paper to encapsulate Committees comments in a proposed draft. Rather than seeking delegated authority to proceed, she would prefer the Committee to review it again in its November meeting. Regarding the points raised by Councillor Brown-Reckless about group leaders, the Monitoring Officer acknowledged her interpretation of their duty. However, she wished to remind Members that one of the responsibilities under Section 52A was to take reasonable steps to promote and maintain high standards of conduct within their group. It also includes cooperating with the Council’s Standards Committee in the exercise of its functions. The Monitoring Officer suggested that the discussion is paused and revisited when the report is brought back to Committee. Councillor Lancaster asked to speak (the Committee agreed albeit noting that he was not a Member of the Committee) .He stated that it would be remiss of him not to comment as Group Leader. He understood that he did not have a vote on this matter but sought clarification on the point around group leaders being brought into this process, should they be required to attend and what their role would be. Whether they would be expected to support the standards regime in enforcing something against one of their own Members, or whether they would be free to speak openly and, if they feel it appropriate, support their group Member through the process, particularly if they do not believe that Member has breached any standards. The Monitoring Officer considered this was a very important point. The intention was that group leaders would be involved in a support role. If discussions between the two parties had reached an impasse, it could be helpful to involve a group leader who could assist in moving matters forward. Ultimately, the formal route via the Ombudsman remained available, but the aim was to resolve matters quickly and amicably. The Monitoring Officer reiterated that at this stage, these were exploratory discussions. There was no requirement or expectation that group leaders must take a particular stance. Their presence could simply add value to the process. The Monitoring Officer thanked Councillor Lancaster, stating that although he is not a Member of the Committee, his comment highlighted a key issue. The Monitoring Officer stated that her view was that a group leader’s willingness to participate would satisfy their duty under the standards framework. There should be no expectation that they must take a specific position. Their role would be to support and advocate where appropriate, not to enforce or judge. This distinction should be clearly reflected in the draft protocol that will be brought back to the Committee. Rashpal Singh added that sometimes, individuals can become consumed by a situation. Involving a group leader could bring a sense of common sense and perspective, which could help resolve matters before they escalate unnecessarily. Councillor Brown-Reckless added that while Committee were discussing hypotheticals, it was worth noting that, based on the statistics presented earlier, there were not a high volume of Member-on-Member complaints. She added that regarding group leaders, there had been a situation earlier in the meeting where the Conservative group leader was asked to explain why he submitted a letter instead of completing the formal group leader’s report. His response was simple: he is not required by legislation to do so. Councillor Brown-Reckless considered that this falls into the same category. She did not believe the duty under the standards framework requires group leaders to attend mediation meetings. A group leader should be entirely within their rights to decline participation and leave the matter to professional staff, namely, the Monitoring Officer and the Standards Committee team. The Chairperson thanked Councillor Brown-Reckless, stating that he had noted her comments, and her points would be considered in the drafting of the revised protocol and revisited in the next meeting. RESOLVED: to bring a revised Local Dispute Resolution report to the November 2025 meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee, noting that with regard to recommendations 3 & 4 of the Monitoring Officers’ Working Group that further consideration be given.

The Monitoring Officer introduced the draft annual report, noting that it aimed to comprehensively reflect the committee’s work during the financial year. She welcomed comments and amendments, with the intention that the final version of the Report be presented to the October Council meeting. Louise Evans had no comments. David Mills confirmed he was broadly satisfied with the report but raised a point regarding the Vice Chairperson role. He noted that the former Vice Chairperson resigned in December 2024 and he was listed as Vice Chairperson from January 2025. He sought clarification on whether his appointment had been formally confirmed, given his initial concerns about his availability. The Chairperson recalled previous discussions about David Mills’ time commitments and confirmed the report refers to David Mills as Vice Chairperson from January 2025. The Monitoring Officer clarified that, to her knowledge, David Mills remained listed as Vice Chairperson and no formal decision had been made to change this. Rashpal Singh expressed satisfaction with the report’s content. Councillor Wood had no additional comments. Councillor Brown-Reckless raised a concern about a significant omission in the report. She stated that both she and the Conservative Group Leader, along with other Councillors, had submitted correspondence raising serious concerns about the standards regime. These concerns were not addressed in a public meeting of the Standards and Ethics Committee, as requested, but were instead referred to a working group. She expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency and the absence of any mention of this matter in the report. The Chairperson invited the Monitoring Officer to respond. The Monitoring Officer stated that the report reflects the Committee’s decisions and the work of the working group. She agreed that a reference to the group’s work could be added, subject to final sign-off in consultation with the Chair. The Chairperson asked Louise Evans for her view. Louise Evans supported including a reference to the working group and its broad areas of work but cautioned against including detailed specifics, which could turn the annual report into a verbatim report. The Chairperson noted that David Mills had chaired the working group and sought his views. David Mills confirmed this and pointed out that pages 194–195 of the Committee’s agenda pack in relation to the Committee’s Annual Report for 2024–25 already referenced the group’s terms of reference, member representations, and background. He agreed that the report should remain a summary. The Chairperson sought confirmation from other Members. Rashpal Singh was satisfied with the proposed approach. Councillor Wood had no further comments. The Chairperson invited final comments from Councillor Brown-Reckless. Councillor Brown-Reckless reiterated her concern that the proposed reference was too general and would not adequately inform the public. She requested that the report clearly state that the Conservative Group submitted correspondence raising serious concerns and remained dissatisfied with how the matter was handled. The Chairperson proposed including a paragraph to reflect the Conservative Group’s concerns and asked for Committee’s agreement. David Mills supported the inclusion, noting it would reflect the Group’s known position. Louise Evans agreed to include a reference to the Group’s dissatisfaction but cautioned against further detail to avoid politicising the report. Councillor Brown-Reckless responded that the standards regime had already been politicised, which was the basis of her Group’s concern. The Chairperson concluded that a short paragraph would be added to reflect the Conservative Group’s concerns. The Monitoring Officer and the Chairperson would agree the wording, and the final version will be submitted to Council. RESOLVED to: (a) Delegate authority to the Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Chair, to finalise the Annual Report, having regard to comments provided by Members of the Committee, specifically the inclusion of a paragraph highlighting that the Conservative Group had submitted correspondence stating their concerns around the Working Group and that they remained dissatisifed with its outcomes. (b) Request that the Chair present the Committee’s Annual Report 2024/25 to the October meeting of full Council; and (c) Request that the Monitoring Officer send the Committee’s Annual Report 2024/25 to each of the Community Councils in Cardiff, and a copy to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

The Chairperson advised that this item allowed Committee Members to consider the relevant sections of the 2024–2025 Annual Letter for Cardiff Council, issued by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. It also included their Annual Report and Accounts for 2024 and 2025. The Monitoring Officer explained that it was a comprehensive report, with the Annual Report appended. Committee Members’ attention was drawn to the statistics on page 213, specifically paragraph 9, which reflected the discussions Committee has had. The data indicates generally good conduct across the board among councillors. Additionally, some of the statistics had been incorporated into paragraphs 14 through 16, which the Monitoring Officer considered were worth noting. The Chairperson invited questions and comments from Committee members. Councillor Brown-Reckless referred to page 29 of the Ombudsman’s report, where the issue was addressed regarding a senior member of the Ombudsman’s team, responsible for enforcing the standards regime, who posted a number of unacceptable comments about the Conservative Party on social media. Councillor Brown-Reckless said it was, in her view, a deeply troubling episode. She had found some of the press coverage surrounding it quite difficult to read. A significant number of Conservatives from across Wales came forward to express concerns about mistreatment under the standards regime over many years. There were numerous calls from senior Conservative Party members for the Ombudsman to resign. However, the Ombudsman did not resign and instead produced a report which, from a Conservative perspective, appears to be a whitewash, essentially marking her own homework. Councillor Brown-Reckless wished to formally record that the section of the report addressing this issue (pages 29 to 31) is not acceptable from a Conservative standpoint. The Monitoring Officer wanted to clarify that, as referenced on page 29 of the Ombudsman’s Annual Report, Dr McCulloch undertook an independent review of the matter. That review was appended to the report. It was important to note for the record that an independent review was conducted. The Chairperson proposed that the recommendations in the report be agreed, this was seconded by Rashpal Singh. RESOLVED to note the relevant extract of the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Annual Letter 2024-25 and the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales Annual Report and Accounts 2024-25.

None received.

5th November 2025, 5.00pm.