Agenda item

            The Committee was advised that the Department of the Environment was seeking comments in relation to a consultation on the Apportionment of Costs Associated with the Ethical Standards Framework between Councils.  The deadline for the response had been extended recently until 31st October.

            The Committee was advised that the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 had put in place a new ethical standards regime for Local Government, including a mandatory Code of Conduct for Councillors.  The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints would be responsible for handling any allegations made against Councillors in relation to breaches of the Code.  Part 9, Section 64 of the Local Government Act set out that before the commencement of each financial year the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints’ office must prepare an estimate of the expenses of the Commissioner for dealing with complaints.  The Department must then apportion the amount estimated between all councils in Northern Ireland in such a manner as the Department, after consultation, considered appropriate.

            The set up costs and any costs relating to casework of the ethical standards framework this year were being met by the Executive.  The consultation, therefore, sought views on the proposed method for apportioning costs from April, 2015 onwards.  Four options for appointing costs had been identified and are set out as follows:

·        Option A - number of councils(11).  This option would result in an equal split in costs between the councils which would put an inequitable pressure burden on the budgets of those less wealthy council clusters.  This option is the easiest to administer.

·        Option B - number of councillors (462).  This method would give a more accurate representation as it includes the councillors in each cluster and has a clear link to the work and costs of the Commissioner.  This option requires minimal calculation to apportion the cost and provides the most equitable solution. (Preferred Option)

·        Option C - total population (1,823,600).  This option gives an accurate representation of the total population, as it includes groups such as children and those not registered to vote.  However, this could be interpreted as the more urban areas subsidising the more rural areas irrespective of the number of councillors in that cluster.

·        Option D - gross penny rate product (22,459,998).  This method represents the biggest disparity between the four apportionment methods.  This method assumes that the only method of paying for reform is through the rates, and this is not the case.  It also bears no relationship to the work and associated costs of the Commissioner.

            The Finance Working Group, which consisted of senior Local Government officials, had assessed the options and considered that Option B was the preferred option to be consulted upon with councils and bodies representative of councils.  The consultation had also recommended that the method of apportionment should be reviewed in 2017/18 when the actual costs and the impact of casework on the Commission had become available.

            The proposed Council response is set out below for the Members’ consideration:

      “The Council has reviewed the various options outlined in the consultation paper and would concur with the findings of the Finance Working Group and the Financial Matters Sub Group which concluded that Option B (allocating costs based upon the number of elected members in each council) would be the preferred option for apportioning costs between the councils. 

      The Council would also be supportive of the proposal that a review of the allocation methodology be undertaken in 2017/18 when the actual costs and the impact of the casework upon the Commissioners’ office can be analysed in detail”.

            The respective options would have the following resource implications for Belfast:

            The Committee approved the Council response to the consultation.