Local authorities could still be obliged to have code of conduct as minister signals Localism Bill concession

Local authorities could still be obliged to have a code of conduct – containing certain core mandatory elements – after ministers signalled they would make concessions on the proposed local government standards regime in the Localism Bill.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach yesterday offered to set up a meeting between himself, fellow government minister Baroness Hanham and peers unhappy with this part of the draft legislation.

The minister told the House of Lords he did not want to pre-empt what would be said at the meeting. However, he did give “a steer”, saying he was “sympathetic to the proposal that there should be an obligation on local authorities to have a code of conduct, and that any such code should have some core mandatory elements to it”. The Bill currently only has a duty on councils to promote and maintain high standards of conduct.

The minister also acknowledged concerns about the criminal sanctions in the draft legislation. “While we have some amendments to include the Bill, which I will be moving, we accept that this can also be a matter for discussion and clarification,” he said.

A cross-party group of peers – comprising Lord Bichard (cross-bench), Lord Filkin (Labour), Lord Newton (Conservative) and Lord Tope (Liberal Democrat) – had put forward a series of amendments to the standards provisions in the Bill, which is currently at the report stage in the House of Lords.

In a briefing issued to peers beforehand, they had warned that there were “serious deficiencies” in the Bill and that there would be a “free-for-all” if it were implement as drafted.

Lord Bichard, who took up the minister’s offer of a meeting to discuss changes to the Bill, accepted that there would be neither a national standards regime nor a centrally prescribed national code of conduct. But he warned peers during the debate that the government’s proposed regime would have been extremely damaging.

“At a time when the public's trust in politicians is at a low ebb, it is important that all public bodies have explicit standards of conduct, which make transparent how they will carry out their business and provide benchmarks against which they can be held to account,” he said, adding that this was “all the more important” as local councils are given more powers through elected mayors and changes in the planning regime.

Lord Taylor acknowledged the strength of feeling among peers on the issue of local government governance. He insisted that there was “considerable common ground” in that “we all want a vibrant and the strongest possible local democracy and we all want the highest standards of conduct in local government”.

The issue – “and this is what we are trying to grapple with” – is how this could be achieved. But the minister emphasised that abolition of the Standards Board was a coalition agreement commitment.

“Whatever the original intentions behind the establishment of the regime, it has become a heavy-handed and costly vehicle for dealing with complaints, which can, in some cases, be petty, malicious, vexatious or politically motivated,” the minister said.

But Lord Taylor added: “At the same time, it is evident that many noble Lords have significant concerns that what the measures in the Bill put in its place are too localist and do not deliver the outcome we all want. It is apparent that consideration of these issues will repay any time that we give between us to get it right.”

Lord Taylor suggested that there were some difficult issues to be addressed. “There is clearly a discussion to be had on where to strike the balance between the local framework we have proposed and the framework proposed in [the peers’] amendments,” he said. “I am not going to claim that I have all the answers at this stage.”

The minister said he would not comment on the detailed points raised during the debate, as these would be better dealt with at the meeting. He added that he expected to come up “with something suitable” on the code of conduct issue ahead of the Third Reading of the Bill.

But Lord Taylor warned that he was more sceptical about some of the other amendments put forward. “For instance, I would have concerns that, in making provision about an enforcement or appeals mechanism, we might in effect recreate much of the architecture of the standards regime,” he said. “We could end up inadvertently modifying rather than abolishing the Standards Board regime.”

The minister acknowledged concerns expressed by peers about how the standards regime would apply to parish councils. “It is vital we get a system that works not only for principal authorities but also for parish councils,” he said. “My sense is that we need to discuss the shape of the regime first, then work through how we apply that to parishes.”

Philip Hoult