Peers press changes to "seriously deficient" standards regime in Localism Bill

Peers will vote in the next few days on proposed amendments aimed at addressing the “serious deficiencies” in the new standards system set out in the Localism Bill.

The amendments have been put forward by four members of the House of Lords: Lord Bichard (cross-bench), Lord Newton (Conservative), Lord Filkin (Labour), and Lord Tope (Liberal Democrat). The Bill is currently at the report stage.

The group has accepted that the Standards Board of England will be abolished. However, their amendments would:

• Make it obligatory for all local authorities to adopt a code of conduct for members
• Include the requirement to register and declare interests, as now
• Have a code as proposed by the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils (NALC)
• Remove the Bill’s new criminal offence in relation to failure to declare an interest
• Restore the power for local authorities themselves to suspend members found guilty of serious misconduct
• Require, as now, councils to have a standards committee with independent members, with an appeals mechanism drawn from local government.

The amendments have been backed by the Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors, the Law Society, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants and NALC.

Peers are expected to debate and vote on the amendments in the next few days, most likely on Monday (12 September).

In a briefing paper to fellow members of the House of Lords, the peers proposing the amendments argued that their changes would see “an effective, clear and common set of standards” and provide public certainty as to what rules apply.

They also said the changes would ensure public confidence that councillors who step out of line are dealt with “locally and effectively”. Their proposals would also mean that local government was self-regulating, but to high standards.

The Bill does impose a duty on councils to promote and maintain high standards of conduct. However, the peers warned that – if the government’s regime went ahead – there would be “a weak system, a free for all, implying standards matter less”.

The four peers also suggested that those councils with poor standards were less likely to adopt a code, and that this would damage the reputation of all authorities. The public would also be confused by the inconsistency in standards across the country.

They described the Bill’s new criminal offence as “draconian” for minor failures, “yet [there are] no effective sanctions for serious misconduct except for non-registration of interest”.

The briefing suggested that the importance of high standards was increasing with more powers being devolved over planning and with the Bill’s introduction of elected mayors. The public would be “alarmed at this neutered framework”, it said.

“There will always be matters which need dealing with, such as councillors using their position behind the scenes to influence things to their own advantage; repeated bullying and intimidation of fellow councillors, officers and members of the public; using council resources for inappropriate and sometimes illegal purposes; or disclosing confidential information and damaging sensitive negotiations or personal reputations,” the group said. “Without national standards these things may not be dealt with."

Speaking to Local Government Lawyer, Lord Filkin said: "It is incomprehensible what the government is doing. We understand the decision to abolish Standards for England but to demolish the rest of local government standards system seems irresponsible and risky for public confidence and local standards.”

Philip Hoult