COMPLAINTS against councillors which are deemed to be malicious, politically-motivated or 'tit for tat' can be thrown out more easily, after a change in Bradford Council's policies.

And investigations into complaints will not usually be started during an election period, in a bid to stop people trying to smear their opponents, the authority's standards committee has decided.

Usually, if an official complaint against a councillor cannot be settled informally - by way of an apology, for example - a standards committee hearing must be held.

But from now on, the chairman of the standards committee together with the City Solicitor can decide to take no further action about complaints against councillors deemed to be "malicious/vexatious, politically motivated, tit for tat or not sufficiently serious to warrant further action".

The meeting heard that something similar had existed in the past, but that it was not a part of the Council's current complaints procedure, introduced in 2012.

Committee member Councillor John Ruding (Lab, Tong) also suggested setting out in writing that investigations would not normally begin during the statutory elections period, except for any complaints which should be referred to the police.

He said: "Even the fact you are under investigation is enough to cast a shadow on an individual."

But councillors on the committee decided against introducing a requirement which would compel councillors to participate in any investigation into their actions.

The Council's legal team had suggested the move.

Assistant city solicitor Dermot Pearson said: "There have been situations where it has been difficult to get members to engage with the process, to be fair, often because they regard the complaint as malicious."

The idea had won the backing of Councillor Sarah Ferriby (Lab, Wyke), who said: "I think it is an important inclusion because at the end of the day as an elected member, you expect people to co-operate fully."

But Cllr Ruding asked what the scale of the problem was, as it was not one he recognised.

He said: "In my experience, members did co-operate."

And he said he thought this obligation was already included elsewhere in the Members' Code of Conduct. The suggestion did not get the panel's backing.