To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution, which is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is midday on Wednesday 1 October 2025 [midday 3 clear working days before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Monday 6 October 2025 [midday the working day before the meeting].
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Monday 22 September 2025 [10 working days before the meeting].
Minutes:
The following questions and statements were received from Mr Alex McKinstry.
In relation to Agenda Item 6:
Question 1.
Five complaints have been closed after the councillor who was subject to those complaints failed to apologise as directed by this Committee. The Constitution is silent on how to proceed in such situations, but the convention until now has been for the non-compliance to be referred to this Committee, after which a report is almost always issued to full Council naming the councillor and sketching out their misconduct. This has been the practice on this Committee since 15 December 2021. Why, then, has there been a change of approach; was the Committee consulted in advance on this new approach (which entails closing the complaints, then inviting complainants to submit further complaints under 8.4 of the Code); and did the Committee support this new approach unanimously? Can you also clarify if this is how matters of non-compliance are to be dealt with henceforward?
Response from the Chair:
Thank you for your question. Since 2019, we have seen a number of complaints taking an excessive amount of time to resolve as a result of non-compliance or a lack of co-operation with the process. You are correct that we have previously resolved to refer non-compliance complaints direct to full council. It was considered by officers that this was still an exhaustive process and, in the view of the former Monitoring Officer, outside the scope of the agreed arrangements which may only determine complaints against alleged breaches. Neither I nor the Committee was made aware of this change of approach and this is not necessarily a view that I take as the LGA guidance on the Code of Conduct states that under the Model Code of Conduct failure to comply with a sanction may of itself be a breach of the Code.
We will consider the action to take against any non-compliance reported within the Code of Conduct Complaints Review Report as part of our deliberations this evening. We are also planning to review our arrangements for handling complaints and this is one aspect that needs to be reviewed as part of that process.
Question 2.
Have any responses been received from the subject councillors in complaints BCP-220, 221, 224, 226, 227 or 228 since the agenda papers were published on 29 September 2025?
Response from the Chair:
Again, thank you for question. Since the publication of the agenda, officers have received responses from the subject councillors relating to complaints referenced BCP-221 and BCP-224.
Question 3.
Noting the seriousness of the upheld allegations in complaint TPC-021 - including bullying, disclosure of confidential information, and attempting to use one's position as councillor to confer an advantage - can we be told which town or parish council was involved?
Response from the Chair:
I can advise that complaint reference TPC-021 related to a Christchurch Town councillor.
In relation to Agenda Item 8:
Question 1.
What was the sum paid to the investigator (or his LLP) for his work on complaint TPC-022, and is this inclusive or exclusive of VAT?
Response from the Chair:
The invoiced sum paid for the investigation of complaint TPC-022 to date, exclusive of VAT, is £7,118.50
Statement received from Mr Alex McKinstry in relation to Agenda Item 6:
The closing of complaints, where a councillor hasn't complied with sanctions, is catastrophic for this Committee. There is now no incentive for errant councillors to comply with the Code of Conduct - other than the possibility that a further complaint might be made against them under Part 8.4 of the Code, "I comply with any sanction imposed on me following a finding that I have breached the Code of Conduct." I have seen nothing to indicate that these subsequent complaints won't be closed either, should non-compliance continue; and of course this new approach means justice postponed - if, indeed, the complainant decides to make a further complaint anyway. I only hope that, should recalcitrance persist, such members will be named at full Council with a detailed description given of their original misconduct, to be entered into the minutes as a permanent record. Nothing in the current Constitution prevents this.