Localism Act code of conduct provisions "create as many difficulties as they resolve"

A leading local government lawyer has criticised ministers for introducing the new standards regime for councils "on the hoof", at the very last minute during the passage of the Localism Bill, and without proper consideration.

Peter Keith-Lucas, Commercial Partner at Bevan Brittan, argued that the government had committed itself to the "big idea" of abolishing the Standards Board and the Code of Conduct, but had then not considered the practicalities before introducing the Localism Bill.

He said: “This was bull-dozed through the House of Commons without amendment, and it was only at Report and 3rd Reading stages in the House of Lords that reality began to dawn.”

The result was hurried and poorly drafted amendments which create as many difficulties as they resolve, Keith-Lucas claimed.

The Bevan Brittan partner said the provisions introduced to the Bill – requiring councils and relevant authorities to adopt a code based on the Nolan Principles – meant local authorities could adopt widely different codes.

He added: “The government, having abolished the ten General Principles which had stood for ten years, suddenly introduced seven principles to be the basis of all codes. But it dropped principles such as ‘respect for others’, ‘stewardship’ or ‘upholding the law’. Does this mean that codes can no longer contain provisions to deal with rudeness and bullying, misuse of public money or unlawful discrimination?”

Keith-Lucas also criticised the provisions introducing the independent element of the standards process, notably the new concept of an "Independent Person".

“Independence is defined in such a manner that anyone who had been an independent co-opted member of a standards committee in the past five years could not be an Independent Person – so losing the experience and respect which such independent members have built up,” he said.

The Bevan Brittan lawyer also accused the government of “a spectacular volte-face” in relation to standards at parish councils.

“Having declared that parish councils should be spared the bureaucracy of standards and be left to resolve their own misconduct complaints, the government realised how difficult this would be for many parish councils and made district and unitary councils responsible for dealing with parish misconduct,” he said.

“But it gave district and unitary councils no ability to impose sanctions on errant parish councillors, or indeed their own errant councillors, and put parish councils under no obligation to pay any attention to the district or unitary council's findings.”

Keith-Lucas added: “This is important, and the government has let local authorities down, leaving them with botched legislation, and no effective means of dealing with the occasional errant councillor who can bring the best of authorities to a standstill."