Standards Review

The challenge of reforming standards 

On publishing its English Devolution White Paper in December 2024, the government announced it was consulting on changing the standards regime for councillors.  

Camilla de Bernhardt Lane, our Director of Practice, has been part of conversations with the government to help its work improving the regime. She explains how important getting standards right is, and the trade-off that makes this such a difficult challenge.  

Two weeks ago, I attended a roundtable discussion on the future of local government standards, hosted by Jim McMahon, Minister of State (Minister for Local Government and English Devolution). In the two-hour session, policymakers, practitioners, and experts from across the sector explored potential reforms aimed at strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. This week we’ve submitted CfGS’s views as part of the government’s consultation, as well. 

It’s proved the perfect opportunity to do a deep dive on the background to this change – and to explain why it’s such a tricky nut to crack. 

 

The background 

In 2011 the Localism Act abolished the standards board and its powers. Instead, councils were expected to manage the affairs and conduct of their own members. To meet this need, councils had to appoint an “independent person” to take an active part in the investigation of complaints. However, the power to sanction poor behaviour and other breaches in conduct is limited. No matter how egregious the behaviour, councils rely on political parties to discipline members, or must find legal redress 

Earlier this month, a district councillor was jailed because of his poor behaviour directed to council officers over many months: Councillor jailed after sustained campaign against head of legal and chief executive. It is worth considering the response from the council, because it directly references the lack of power in the current standards regime. 

‘…The council’s only remedy for dealing with such poor behaviour is through the standards system… the limited sanctions available through this legislation did nothing to stop or modify Councillor Ford’s behaviour and the intervention through the court system was the only avenue available.” 

That lack of power would appear to point to a serious failing in the current regime 

A difficult balance 

But when the previous sanctions regime was rolled back in 2011, there were compelling reasons for that choice. Too-heavy sanctions can be misused as a political tool where spurious claims are made along political lines.  And, in institutions where transparent challenge is not welcomed, an overly robust standards regime might even help to close down robust public scrutiny. Therefore, any changes to the current situation must be balanced between the ability to take action on poor behaviour with the need for robust safeguards to make sure new powers are not abused.  

 That is part of how we’ve shaped our response to the government’s consultation. Here are the key points we’ve made in our submission, and some explanation as to why… 

Mandatory Minimum Code of Conduct 

A mandatory minimum code of conduct is essential for maintaining public trust. The local government and health ombudsman has put the case well for a standard set of expectations citizens should be able to have of their local councillors. However, this is not the whole picture.  

 At CfGS, we work with a range of councils, some of which have had difficulty with the current standards regime. At the roundtable we stressed the need for local authorities to have the flexibility to tailor additional provisions that address their unique local challenges. Members’ ownership of the code of conduct is a vitally important part of ensuring buy-in and adoption..  

Supporting this, a key requirement for a code of conduct is that it can compel councillors to cooperate with investigations. Transparency and accountability are paramount, and ensuring full cooperation can only strengthen the overall framework. 

Establishing and Empowering Standards Committees

The proposal to require a standards committee in every principal authority makes sense. It would help to remove councillors from party political pressures, and the committees can include independent lay members. 

Granting voting rights to both the Independent Person and co-opted members are key measures to safeguard objectivity. But it isn’t clear that the Independent Person should chair these committees, because theymay be familiar to council members and that could affect the committee’s independence. 

Public Transparency and Ongoing Investigations

The annual publication of allegations and investigation outcomes will provide much needed transparency. But this process must be handled sensitively to avoid misinterpretation of unsubstantiated claims. The court of public opinion is powerful for elected members. Vexatious allegations must not be allowed to mar the reputation of innocent councillors. 

It is important for investigations for members who stand down to continue, with findings made public to uphold accountability.  

Suspension Powers and Safeguards

A significant part of our feedback focused on the introduction of suspension powers for serious code of conduct breaches: 

• Suspension Decisions: While local authorities should have the power to suspend councillors, such decisions should ultimately rest with an independent body to prevent potential political misuse. 

• Alternative Contact: During a suspension, councils must provide an alternative point of contact for constituents. 

• Duration and Safeguards: We recommended a maximum suspension period of six months, with interim suspensions initially capped at three months and subject to review with proper safeguards to avoid unchecked extensions. 

• Additional Sanctions: Beyond suspension, we supported measures such as withholding allowances and imposing premises bans to address misconduct effectively. But only with appropriate safeguards.  

Appeals and Disqualification Measures

It is essential that suspended members have the right to appeal decisions within a defined timeframe (we suggested the more generous 30 days over the five suggested in the constitution). Moreover, we believe that repeated suspensions –twice within a five-year period – should lead to disqualification. But that this should only be reserved for the gravest offences, such as theft or physical violence. 

The Role of an External Appeals Body

An external national appeals body would provide an independent review mechanism, alleviating concerns about internal biases and reinforcing public confidence in the process. 

Final thoughts 

My final reflection is that a refreshed standards regime will not lead to ‘good behaviour’ on its own. Fear of sanctions never inspires the behaviour it wishes to. If poor behaviour is a symptom, we must focus on the root cause to adequately address it. As ever, the culture of the organisation, the expectations of members and the working relationship between elected members and officers is key.   

Enhanced powers for standards may enable public sector leaders to more effectively deal with behaviours that threaten to derail the smooth running of public services. But these must be implemented with caution – neither challenging the democratic mandate, nor running roughshod over transparency and critical-friend challenge. The safeguards should be there to prevent the misuse of powers. 

The roundtable was inspiring and insightful. The robust discussion with fellow local government experts confirmed there is a strong commitment to enhancing standards. And it reflects the government’s commitment to supporting the sector.