Government launches consultation on stricter standards regime

The Government has launched a consultation on wide-ranging reforms to the local government standards system, including reintroducing powers of suspension and widening circumstances in which members can be disqualified.

The consultation, 'Strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England', also asks for views on implementing sanctions such as premises bans for councillors, setting up a national body for handling appeals, and requiring councils to have standards committees.

In a foreword to the document, Jim McMahon, Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, said the reforms aim to help councils run smoothly and hand them the "appropriate and proportionate means to deal with misconduct effectively and decisively when it does occur".

The document detailed proposals for members to be disqualified for five years if they have been suspended more than once within a five-year period. This could "curb the risk of repeat offending and continued misconduct once councillors return from a suspension", it said.

In the event of a suspension, the consultation proposed introducing a right of appeal for any member subject to a decision to suspend them.

It added that members should only be able to appeal any given decision to suspend them once; an appeal should be invoked within five working days of the notification of suspension, and that – following receipt of a request for appeal – arrangements should be made to conduct the appeal hearing within 28 working days.

It said: "A right of appeal would allow members to challenge decisions that they believe are unjust or disproportionate and provides a safeguard to ensure that the sanction of suspension is applied fairly and consistently.  

"We consider that it would be appropriate to either create a national body, or to vest the appeals function in an existing appropriate national body."

The Government is also "keen to explore" if a right of appeal should be provided, either in relation to whether a complaint proceeds to full investigation and consideration by the standards committee, or where a claimant is dissatisfied with the determination of the standards committee.

The document also called for views on whether appeals panels should be in-house within local authorities or whether it is right that this responsibility sits with an independent national body.

It said: "Whereas an in-house appeals process would potentially enable quicker resolutions by virtue of a smaller caseload, empowering a national body to oversee appeals from suspended members and complainants could reinforce transparency and impartiality and help to ensure consistency of decision-making throughout England, setting precedents for the types of cases that are heard."

On powers of suspension, the document suggested that local authorities should have the power to suspend councillors for serious code of conduct breaches for a maximum of 6 months, "with the option to withhold allowances and institute premises and facilities bans where deemed appropriate".

On this point, it said: "Feedback from the local government sector in the years since the removal of the power to suspend councillors has indicated that the current lack of meaningful sanctions means local authorities have no effective way of dealing with more serious examples of member misconduct."

It added: "The government recognises that it is only a small minority of members who behave badly, but the misconduct of this small minority can have a disproportionately negative impact on the smooth running of councils."

Regarding suspensions, the consultation called for views on whether respondents believe local authorities should be given the power to suspend elected members for serious code of conduct breaches.

It also asked if respondents think that it is appropriate for a standards committee to have the power to suspend members, or whether this should be the role of an independent body.

Additionally it asked for views on whether there should be a maximum length of suspension.

Sanctions could also include withholding allowances and introducing premises and facilities bans for members.

Withholding allowances for members who have been suspended for serious code of conduct breaches "could act as a further deterrent against unethical behaviour", according to the document.

Holding councillors financially accountable during suspensions "also reflects a commitment to ethical governance, the highest standards of public service, and value for money for local residents", it added.

Granting local authorities power in legislation to ban suspended councillors from local authority premises and from using council equipment and facilities "could be beneficial in cases of behavioural or financial misconduct, ensuring that suspended councillors do not misuse resources or continue egregious behaviour", the document noted.

It continued: "These measures may not always be appropriate and should not be tied to the sanction of suspension by default. The Government also recognises that there may be instances in which one or both of these sanctions is appropriate but suspension is not. It is therefore proposed that both the power to withhold allowances and premises and facilities bans represent standalone sanctions in their own right."

On the possibility of introducing interim suspensions, the consultation said: "Some investigations into serious code of conduct breaches may be complex and take time to conclude, and there may be circumstances when the misconduct that has led to the allegation is subsequently referred to the police to investigate."

In such cases, the Government proposed that there should be an additional power to impose interim suspensions until a serious or complex case under investigation is resolved.

A member subject to an interim suspension would not be permitted to participate in any council business or meetings, with an option to include a premises and facilities ban, under the proposal.

However, the Government said that members should continue to receive allowances whilst on interim suspension and until an investigation proves beyond doubt that a serious code of conduct breach has occurred or a criminal investigation concludes.

"The decision to impose an interim suspension would not represent a pre-judgement of the validity of an allegation", it noted.

Elsewhere in the document, the Government said it wants to introduce a requirement for all principal authorities to convene a standards committee.

Formal standards committees would "support consistency" in the handling of misconduct allegations, applying the same standards and procedures to all cases and providing a formal route to swiftly identify and address vexatious complainants, according to the Government.

"Furthermore, having a formal standards committee in place could support the development of expertise in handling allegations of misconduct, leading to more informed decision-making," it added.

The consultation also seeks views on whether standards committee membership would be required to include at least one Independent Person - as well as at least one co-opted member from a parish or town council - and, secondly, whether standards committees should be chaired by the Independent Person.

In addition, the consultation asked whether councils should be required to publish annually a list of allegations of code of conduct breaches and any investigation outcomes.

"There may be a range of views on this, as publishing the outcome of an investigation that proves there is no case to answer could still be considered damaging to the reputation of the individuals concerned, or it could be considered as helpful in exposing instances of petty and vexatious complaints", the document said.

Additionally, the consultation asked whether investigations into the conduct of members who stand down before a decision should continue until their conclusion and the findings be published.

It also detailed Government proposals to legislate for the introduction of a mandatory minimum code of conduct "which would seek to ensure a higher minimum standard of consistency in setting out the behaviours expected of elected members".

It said: "A prescribed model code which covers important issues such as discrimination, bullying, and harassment, social media use, public conduct when claiming to represent the council, and use of authority resources could help to uphold consistently high standards of public service in councils across the country and convey the privileged position of public office."

The Government will likely set out such a mandatory code in regulations to allow flexibility to review and amend in future, according to the document.

Adam Carey