Suspension an “essential tool” for holding members to account: LLG
Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) has called for the introduction of a mandatory Code of Conduct for councils and voiced support for powers to suspend members in its response to the Government's consultation on standards reforms.
The membership body said that without sanctions, "the code of conduct is meaningless". However, LLG stopped short of supporting the 'two strikes and out' proposal regarding disqualification.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched its consultation in December last year, asking for views on proposals that could see powers of suspension reintroduced and a broadening of the circumstances in which members can be disqualified.
The consultation also touched on implementing sanctions such as premises bans for councillors, setting up a national body for handling appeals, and requiring councils to have standards committees. It closed on 26 February.
LLG said there was a "strong consensus" among its members for a mandatory code, rather than the current option to adopt a model code.
It said: "A mandatory code holds all councillors to a minimum threshold of behaviour regardless of the authority to which they belong.
"Variance in codes presently can be problematic especially where monitoring officers span authorities or councillors are twin hatted."
LLG added that the Secretary of State would be the "most appropriate" authority to mandate a code, but noted that it would "be important to ensure that authorities' buy-in' to ownership at local level rather than view the code as an imposition by central government".
It also urged the Government to re-examine parts of the Local Government Association's (LGA) model code regarding disclosable pecuniary interests and the distinction between public and private life.
On interests, LLG said: "Our members report that the current provision is difficult to understand and has not kept up with the modern world.
"Definitions are complex and wide in scope, which has resulted in interpretational variability across authorities."
Regarding the distinction between a councillor’s public and private life, the response added: "LLG consider that the focus should be on behaviour, and how a councillor conducts themselves in the world."
It continued: "LLG acknowledges that Article 8 provides the right to respect a private life and that this area is extremely complicated, however citizens know who councillors are and many professions are currently the subject of scrutiny in the way in which they conduct themselves including solicitors, doctors, teachers and accountants."
It also supported the ability for councils to add to, but not amend, a mandatory code.
On sanctions, LLG said it believed councils should be given the power to suspend members for a maximum of six months for serious code of conduct breaches, describing suspensions as an "essential tool" in holding councillors to account.
"Without sanctions, the Code of Conduct is meaningless", it said.
However, it noted that sanctions involving suspension should be "used sparingly" and only for "the most egregious" breaches.
Allowances should be withheld in cases where members are suspended, and premises bans should be possible in serious cases, LLG added.
LLG meanwhile opposed the introduction of disqualification for members who have been suspended more than once, noting that the 'two strikes and out' rule "restricts the power of the committee when considering a second breach as they have to apply a sanction short of suspension or disqualification is the only option".
However, LLG did note that many of its members expressed a preference for disqualification in relation to criminal conduct.
On this point, it said: "An alternative suggestion could be to review the disqualification criteria in various pieces of legislation to encompass a wider range of offences precluding standing for election to include council tax fraud or anti-social behaviour rather than just relying on sentences passed.
"This would at least go some way to ensure the suitability of potential councillors to hold public office."
In cases where suspended members seek an appeal, LLG said appeals should be considered by an external body, adding that it is "arguable that appeals should be held before the First Tier Tribunal, certainly for cases involving suspensions and disqualification".
Elsewhere, the response voiced strong opposition to the possibility of a complainant having the right of appeal when a decision is taken not to investigate their complaint, as it would create "a significant escalation of workload" for monitoring officers.
LLG also took the chance to recommend that monitoring officers hold legal qualifications "in the same way section 151 officers must be a member of a professional accountancy body".
In addition, it urged the Government to strengthen the monitoring officer's position by providing enhanced statutory protections for that role, as previously recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
LLG members were meanwhile split on proposals for the Independent Person (IP) and co-opted members to be given voting rights on standards committees.
Its response did, however, note that standards committees should be chaired by an independent person as it "removes the risk of politics playing a part" in a committee's activities.
LLG's position on IPs voting contrasted with the response from the National Association of Local Councils (NALC), which supported handing IP voting rights.
NALC also reported that it "firmly pushed" for more training of councillors and council staff on the standards regime in its response and called for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to cover the parish and town council sector.
It also called for an amendment to the Localism Act 2011 to grant a local standards committee the increased power to sanction a member whose behaviour falls short of criminal misconduct.
Adam Carey
