The Standards Committee of Wiltshire Council scheduled a meeting to discuss code of conduct complaints, motions referred from Full Council, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for elected members. The agenda included a review of the current position on code of conduct complaints, consideration of two motions regarding council procedure, and an update on the council’s DBS policy for elected members.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Checks

The committee was scheduled to discuss the council’s operational policy regarding Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for elected members. The report pack included a proposal to recommend basic DBS checks for all elected members and enhanced checks for those in specific positions.

According to the report pack, the council cannot legally compel any member to undergo a DBS check. However, the government is considering recommendations from an independent review that suggested enhanced checks become mandatory for councillors involved in decisions regarding children's services or vulnerable adults.

Currently, Wiltshire Council requests enhanced DBS checks for members in the following roles:

• All members of the Cabinet
• Relevant Portfolio Holders
• All members and substitutes of the Corporate Parenting Panel and Safeguarding Children & Young People Panel
• Any member that carries out Regulation 44 inspection visits to any Wiltshire Council residential settings.
• All members and substitutes of the Children’s Select Committee and Health Select Committee
• Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee
• Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Health and Wellbeing Board
• Any member appointed to a Task Group or Working Group reviewing the provision of children’s services or services for vulnerable adults.

The report pack noted that a basic DBS check for all elected members would provide a reasonable level of assurance from a safeguarding perspective. Enhanced DBS checks for those holding particular roles would align with ministerial best practice and reflect the potential access to information regarding children’s services or vulnerable adults. It was proposed that checks would be reviewed every four years, aligning with the electoral cycle.

Motions Referred from Full Council

The committee was scheduled to consider two motions referred from Full Council on 25 February 2025.

• Motion 2025-02 - proposed by Councillor Jon Hubbard and Councillor Ian Thorn - concerned question procedures at Cabinet meetings. The motion sought to restore the right of elected members to ask questions at the beginning of cabinet meetings without prior notice, limiting the number of questions to three per member, and implementing a review mechanism after 12 months.
• Motion 2025-03 - proposed by Councillor Edward Kirk and Councillor Mike Sankey - sought a specific wording change to Part 3C of the Constitution (Scheme of Delegation – Executive Arrangements) regarding the appointment of Portfolio Holders. The proposed amendment would make the appointment of Portfolio Holders subject to approval by Full Council.

The report pack noted that the Standards Committee should consider whether it supports the principle of the changes proposed by each motion and, if so, what constitutional wording would give effect to that principle.

Code of Conduct Complaints

The committee was scheduled to receive a status report on code of conduct complaints received since the last meeting on 3 October 2024. The report provided an update on the number and outcome of complaints received, as well as a summary of complaints considered by the Assessment Sub-Committee (ASC).

Between 24 September 2024 and 31 March 2025, the Monitoring Officer received 44 complaints under codes of conduct. The report listed the various reasons for dismissal, including complaints being vexatious, malicious, politically motivated, or retaliatory.

The report also included a breakdown of the types of complaints received, including those against parish, town, city, and unitary councillors. These complaints ranged from meeting behaviour and offensive gestures to misuse of position and failure to register/disclose interests.

The report noted that no breaches of the Code of Conduct had been determined by the Monitoring Officer or Hearing Sub-Committee during the period reported.