The Standards Committee of Cornwall Council met on Thursday 5 February 2026 to discuss organisational and ethical complaints, and to approve an updated Whistleblowing Policy. The committee noted the Organisational Complaints Report and the Ethical Standards Complaints Report, and approved the revised Whistleblowing Policy.

Organisational Complaints Report

The committee received an update on organisational complaints, including those handled by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Members discussed the impact of potential government changes to case review processes, noting that these would not be retrospective. A glossary of acronyms was requested for future reports to improve clarity. The mechanisms for capturing and ensuring compliance with lessons learned from complaints were discussed, with it being explained that for LGSCO complaints, required remedies such as training, payments, and apologies must be evidenced as completed. For non-statutory complaints, lessons learned are shared with relevant services, with agreed timescales for implementation and review. The national challenge of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) complaints was acknowledged. The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services agreed to contact Adult Social Care and Together for Families to request they report back to the next meeting. The management of Step 1 and Step 2 complaints during any transition period was discussed, with advice that available data would allow for trend monitoring, and the committee could intervene if a significant rise was observed. It was suggested that complaints regarding car parking and Penalty Charge Notices should not be included in future reports as they fall outside the LGSCO's jurisdiction. Regarding a specific Together for Families complaint that had gone directly to the LGSCO, it was reported that the service had missed the final deadline, leading the Ombudsman to find fault. This issue will be raised at the next Together for Families Working Group meeting, with the Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services to inform relevant officers that further detail will be required. The committee resolved to note the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Complaints report.

Ethical Standards Complaints

The committee received the Ethical Standards Complaints Report for Quarter 3 of 2025-2026. Councillor Dulcie Tudor attended and sought the committee's views on whether a Governance Officer should have considered the lawful expression of a gender-critical belief to be a potential breach of the Cornwall Council Code of Conduct, warranting the progression of a complaint. The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services advised Councillor Tudor that she could not address the committee on this matter as it related to complaints concerning her. He explained that the committee's adopted procedures required any complaint presenting a potential case to proceed to assessment, and that no decisions had yet been made regarding the complaints involving Councillor Tudor. The process was outlined: a complaint is received, an initial assessment is undertaken, and if appropriate, the matter is referred for investigation. It was noted that Cornwall Council operates with openness and transparency, and that procedures are reviewed periodically. The committee was informed that complaints could arise from how comments were perceived, not solely from their content, and that all complaints were assessed in the same manner. The complaints under discussion were mid-process and therefore could not be discussed in public. The assessment procedures are scheduled for review at a future meeting in July 2026. The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services outlined the assessment criteria, noting that the key consideration was whether the allegations indicated a potential breach of the Code of Conduct. If the criteria were met, the matter would proceed to initial assessment, during which the subject Member could respond before a decision was reached. The assessment procedures are reviewed every 12–18 months and are available on the Council's website. It was considered important to remember that this was an issue of the Code of Conduct versus the law, and that complaints should be processed promptly. The view was expressed that there was a need to understand issues more clearly at an earlier stage in the process, and it was observed that there appeared to be an interpretation that the Code of Conduct set a higher threshold regarding freedom of speech than the law. Members were reminded that the Standards Committee is a non-political committee. Councillor Tudor asked if the Code of Conduct process had been brought in line with the Supreme Court ruling and requested further detail going forward. The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services clarified that he had not compared Councillor Tudor's complaint with one concerning another Councillor, but had noted that Cornwall Councillors have additional rights compared with Parish and Town Councillors, including the ability to attend the meeting and put a question to the committee. The report highlighted that several Councillors were in breach of the Code of Conduct for failing to complete mandatory training. The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services advised that he had contacted the Members concerned and their Group Leaders in January to remind them of outstanding training requirements, and a positive response had been received, with some technical issues resolved. It was noted that a new cycle of annual e-learning requirements would begin in May, and it was suggested that the Chairman of the Standards Committee could write to Group Leaders, although the committee's powers beyond this were limited. The training was discussed in two categories: essential for mitigating risk (e.g., cyber security, safeguarding) and recommended for wider outcomes. It was suggested these should be treated separately. Many Councillors may have already completed mandatory training topics elsewhere, leading to support for reviewing terminology, including removing the word mandatory, and reconsidering what training should be classed as critical. A report on the matter is scheduled for the Constitution and Governance Committee in March 2026. The Standards Committee will consider at its meeting on 30 April 2026 whether any Councillors should be sanctioned for ongoing non-compliance. It was noted that complaints about Cornwall Councillors had increased, while complaints relating to town and parish Councillors had decreased. In response, it was advised that there was no specific reason for this shift, and that Quarter 1 had been disproportionately weighted towards town and parish councils. Annual figures were expected to show approximately 30% relating to Cornwall Councillors and 70% to Town and Parish Councils. The committee resolved to note the Ethical Standards Complaints report.

Approval of Whistleblowing Policy

The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services presented the report on the review of the Whistleblowing Policy. He advised that only minor changes had been made to the policy and that, as it had not been reviewed by the committee for some time, it was appropriate to bring it to this meeting before it proceeded to the Audit Committee for final sign-off. Several points were raised during the discussion. It was noted that while the policy implicitly covered non-elected members of the Standards Committee, the wording did not explicitly include non-elected or independent members of other committees. The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services agreed to amend the policy accordingly. In response to a query about changes, it was confirmed that updates had been made to templates, some wording had been clarified, the complaints procedure had been revised, and contact details in paragraph 11.1 had been updated. It was noted that future reports would highlight any changes for ease of reference. A member observed that paragraph 3.2, regarding the requirement to raise issues internally, did not mention liaison with the prescribed person. It was agreed that this would be included. Several typographical errors were identified and noted for correction. A query was raised about the use of the wording good faith, as it was considered subjective. The Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services agreed to review the language. Following a query about item 8.9, it was agreed that the section concerning how the Council protects whistleblowers from victimisation should be made more explicit, and the Head of Governance, Elections and Democratic Services undertook to review this wording. The committee resolved to approve the Whistleblowing Policy.