Agenda item

To submit the report of the Cabinet Member for Corporate and Legal Services.

The amended Internal Resolution Procedure was adopted.

The report was submitted, noting that there was a local resolution procedure included within the Constitution. This was a system to deal with situations, with Members mainly, regarding low-level complaints where there was no justification to approach the Ombudsman. It was explained that the procedure had been in place since 2013 and it responded to complaints and sought reconciliation following allegations of lack of respect in the chambers or in discussions, in the main. 

Last year, the Ombudsman had collated information on all local resolution procedures across Wales, and it was highlighted that on the whole it was well implemented in Gwynedd.  The procedure in Gwynedd was highlighted as follows: the first step was the Investigation and seeking a simple resolution; the second step was mediation on a more formal level, and the third step was a discussion at the Standards Committee. It was noted that Counsel opinion noted that there was no role for the Standards Committee as there was no framework for the Committee in terms of mediation, and if the complaint went to the Ombudsman, there would be no role for the Standards Committee as it was already a part of the procedure. As a result, it was asked to agree to remove the role of the Standards Committee from the local resolution procedure.  

It was noted that the Standards Committee had discussed a response back in November and had approved changing the procedure and to obtain more clarity on cases within the procedure. 

Members were given an opportunity to ask questions and offer observations.  

A request was made for a copy of the Ombudsman's views and Counsel's observations. ⁠The response stated that it had been shared in full with the Standards Committee and that a summary had been shared, but that anyone could contact the Monitoring Officer to view the document; however, it was explained that there was a need to be careful in terms of sharing it publicly, due to the legal implications. 

Reference was made to the Equality Act, noting that translations of the definitions of "gender" and "gender identity" had been wrongly translated in the document, and that the High Court had noted "gender" and "gender identity" as an ideology, instead of fact. As a result, it was noted that it was not appropriate to be noted in the code of conduct, which could lead to members being accused and investigated for breaching it in reality when acting to safeguard women. A question was asked about who decided on the definition of when a Member breached the Code of Conduct, as the above statement could lead to prosecution if the Member did not agree with the views or beliefs of the Monitoring Officer. It was emphasised that the wording of the document corresponded with the Ombudsman's guidance, but that he was willing to change if it required. It terms of determining who breached the Code of Conduct, it was noted that noted that it fell on the Code of Conduct, Standards Committee, Monitoring Officer, and the public could also note this. It was reiterated by explaining that the Tribunal being chaired by a Judge had the final say. It was expressed that the Code of Conduct was a very detailed document, and that the discussion and view of the Monitoring Officer was given on a professional level with legal principles central to this view.  

An enquiry was made regarding the Ombudsman's arrangements in Wales, as there were adaptations to it, in comparison to England. It was explained that the Ombudsman's arrangements in Wales had a different procedure, highlighting that final decisions on cases and appeals were made by the Tribunal.  

RESOLVED 

The amended Internal Resolution Procedure was adopted.