What does the government's response to the committee on standards in public life's review of Local Government Ethical Standards actually say?

Whilst the sector broadly reacted with disappointment to the governments long awaited response, there are some hints to retain one’s optimism. Of significant impact of course is the pledge toward full statutory protection for Monitoring Officers which LLG is particularly delighted about having campaigned on the matter for some time; but the issue of sanctions has not been cut dead either. Here too we see small shoots of hope wrapped up in a response to five recommendations taken together. If you were reading at speed, you may have missed the crucial last paragraph, but the government has committed to engage with the sector to seek views on options to strengthen sanctions involving serious incidents of bullying, harassment or disruptive behaviour. All, therefore, is not lost; but it’s already been over three years since the report was first published and an important element to consider is that the CSPL based its recommendations on evidence before it in 2019. The situation around ethics and standards within the public sector more broadly looks very different now, and we cannot afford to wait another three years.

To read the Presidents blog on the response see https://llg.org.uk/news/blog-21-03-22-quentin-baker-llg-president/

The government’s response is short and to the point. In summary it states: -

(Numbering refers to the CSPL’s recommendation numbers)

1. The recommendation for a model code has been actioned and published by the LGA.
2. The government agrees with the principal not to require public disclosure of home addresses for candidates and councillors and will engage with interested parties to ensure such disclosure is not required (whilst noting that it is important to register internally with MO’s). See Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012
3. Creating a presumption that a councillor is acting in an official capacity including on publicly accessible social media should be dealt with by use of the code of conduct recognising the boundary between public and private life. No amendment to s27(2) Localism Act 2011
4. Whilst keeping under review, the government has no immediate plans to legislate for the code of conduct to apply when a councillor claims to act or gives the impression as acting in their capacity (note this is in the LGA’s model code).
5. Whilst keeping under review, the government has no immediate plans to amend the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012 to include other interests not currently specified.
6. It is for local authorities to set gits and hospitality registration requirements. The government sees merit in best practice guidance and agrees that the register should be publicly available.
7. Whilst keeping under review, the government has no immediate plans to repeal s31 Localism Act in respect of participating in discussion or voting at a meeting where an interest, whether registered or not, exists and the interest is reasonably regarded as significant.
8. The government does not accept that Independent Persons should be appointed for a fixed term of two years, renewable once, on the basis it would be unworkable.
9. The government does not agree that the Local Government Transparency Code should include decisions of the Independent Person. It does accept there is merit to the substantive policy suggestion but cautions it depends on the circumstances.

10. 13.  14.  16.  These recommendations were taken all together and covered sanctions, power to establish decision making standards committees, right of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman and its power to investigate, together with 6-month suspension powers.

The government affirmed that the lack of suspension sanction  was a deliberate policy decision by the coalition government at the time of the Localism Act, stating that the Standards Board had a ‘chilling effect on free speech’ and that it would be ‘undesirable to have a government quango to police the free speech of councillors’.

The governments position is that councillors are ‘ultimately held to account via the ballot box’ and that the government has already recommended that every political party ‘establish their own code of conduct for party members including elected representatives’.

However, the government will engage with sector representatives to ‘seek views on options to strengthen sanctions to address breaches of the code which fall below the bar of criminal activity and related sanctions but involve serious incidents of bullying and harassment or disruptive behaviour’.

11. The government agrees in principle to the provision of legal indemnity to an Independent Person if their views or advice are disclosed but does not see the need to legislate for this, rather endorsing local authorities who already provide it.
12. The government does not believe that there is a requirement to prescribe to local authorities the form and content of Standard Committee annual reports which are better addressed through the sector adopting as best practice a regular patten of annual reporting by Standards Committees.
13. The government will consider further, barring councillors from council premises but notes these are thought to be extremely rare occasions.
14. The government does not agree that criminal offences in the Localism Act 2011 relating to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests should be abolished.
15. The government does not agree it is necessary to amend s27(3) of the Localism Act 2011 to state that parish councils must adopt the code of conduct of their principle authority, but acknowledges there is merit in achieving consistency whilst noting instances to reflect local circumstances might be different.
16. The government has no plans to repeal s28(11) of the Localism Act 2011 to enable sanctions of parish councillors to be determined by their relevant principal authority but will give it further consideration.
17. The government agrees in principle to amend The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 to extend disciplinary protections for statutory officers to all disciplinary actions (not just dismissal) and will engage sector representatives of all tiers to seek views on the amendments.
18. The government recommends that local authorities publish their whistleblowing policies and named contact as best practice and the DLUHC will work with local government to advance transparency in the sector and support local government to solidify transparent policies whilst encourage proactive publication of open data.
19. The government is open to further representations on how local accountability can be strengthened and recognises that councillors being listed as prescribed persons for the purposes of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides a further check and balance against corruption.

Recommendation 19, “Parish council clerks should hold an appropriate qualification, such as those provided by the Society of Local Council Clerks” was not responded to.

Helen McGrath

Head of Public Affairs