Local Government Association backs power to suspend councillors but warns it must not be default punishment

The Local Government Association has backed proposals to provide for a wider range of meaningful sanctions to deal with extreme or persistent breaches of a council's code of conduct, including the ability to suspend councillors for a period of up to six months "where this is appropriate".

In its response to the Government’s consultation on strengthening the local government standards regime, the LGA said, however, that suspension "would be a very substantial sanction and a six month suspension – or indeed a suspension of any length - must not be allowed to become a default punishment for breaching the code.

"Suspension itself should be sparingly used, and this must be on a sliding scale, with administrative sanctions and shorter periods of suspension being the norm in all but the most extreme cases."

The LGA's response meanwhile warned that plans to replace two-tier councils with new unitary authorities risk overwhelming monitoring officers with standards complaints.

It argued that combining multiple parish and town councils under one larger unitary could put monitoring officers in an “untenable” position, particularly given the high volume of complaints produced by parish councils.

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, which closed on 26 February, 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.

The LGA broadly supported a mandatory minimum code of conduct for all principal authorities, and favoured a stronger standardised approach to complaints handling, including compulsory standards. It also supported the creation of a national appeals body.

The LGA's response made specific mention of the budgetary impacts and resource implications on monitoring officers of parish and town council complaints on principal authorities.

According to the Association, some monitoring officers reported that two thirds to three quarters of complaints they handle relate to local councils in their area, rather than complaints against their own councillors.

This can result in a large amount of monitoring officer and deputy monitoring officer time being spent assessing whether investigations are required and in additional costs associated with buying in additional capacity to complete investigations, the LGA noted.

On this point, the LGA added: "Monitoring officers confirmed that additional pressures, such as high volume of complex complaints, can act as a deterrent to good officers remaining in roles with high levels of parish and town councils.”

In light of this, the Association suggested reviewing whether it is still appropriate for principal councils to be financially and administratively responsible for parish and town complaints processes and what other approaches may be more appropriate.

On complaints handling, the LGA supported proposals to require all councils to have a standards committee, adding that the composition of such committees should include independent lay members with voting rights.

The response also supported the possibility of allowing independent persons to chair standards committees and hearings "to avoid accusations of political bias".

In addition, the LGA called for greater legal protections for the monitoring officer when handling complaints.

It said this should involve extending employment protections afforded to statutory officers to include all disciplinary action, such as suspension and formal warnings, not just dismissal, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Elsewhere, the LGA supported keeping the initial triaging of complaints by monitoring officers, but added that a decision to dismiss a complaint or refer it for informal resolution should be supported by the council's Independent Person.

If the decision is not unanimous between them, the complaint should be referred to the standards committee and reports of numbers of complaints resolved in this way should form part of regular reports to the committee, the Association said.

Turning to sanctions, the LGA said the proposed suite should only be applied in "particularly extreme cases", and where other routes to address poor behaviour, including early intervention and mediation, have either been exhausted or are inappropriate.

Stopping allowances as part of a suspensions should also be handled with caution, the LGA said.

It warned that the proposal to disqualify councillors who are suspended more than once in a five-year period risks councillors being disqualified "for fairly minor infractions”.

The LGA also noted that the second layer sanction could lead to members of standards committees being inclined not to find a breach or apply an appropriate suspension to a councillor, if doing so might result in disqualification.

Meanwhile on the appeals process, the LGA said a national body "must be established to handle appeals processes" if stronger sanctions are introduced.

It continued: "This, as well as ensuring councillors have access to appropriate support, is vital to fulfil the requirements of natural justice, fairness and impartiality that are essential in creating a trusted and fair councillor standards framework."

However, it said that it should not be possible to appeal a decision to dismiss or refer a complaint for informal resolution, to protect the system from being overburdened.

The LGA supported an England-wide, minimum prescribed code of conduct co-produced with the sector.

The Association noted that a mandatory code must take into account the aspect of political life that takes place online and that a mandatory code should be reviewed regularly and be capable of being easily amended.

However, it said that individual councils should not be able to amend the code or make additions to it, contrasting with Lawyers in Local Government’s position, which called for a mandatory code that could be subject to local amendments.

On differentiating between a member’s public and private life, the LGA said "the border between acting in a capacity as a councillor and private life is a difficult one to definitively draw".

It added: "We have heard from both councillors and monitoring officers that the growth of the use of social media and other digital communication has increased the number of grey areas around when a councillor’s actions are in their public capacity.

"The definition used in the minimum code of conduct needs to reflect this.”

Adam Carey