Committee for Standards in Public Life backs stricter standards regime, including disqualification

The Committee for Standards in Public Life has backed proposals to bolster the standards regime in England, including provisions that would see a mandatory minimum prescribed code of conduct as well as new powers to suspend and even disqualify councillors in extreme cases.

In its response to the Government's consultation on changes to the standards regime, the committee said the implementation and enforcement of robust local government standards is "crucial for fostering a culture of integrity, accountability, and transparency".

The consultation asked for views on proposals that could see powers of suspension reintroduced and a broadening of the circumstances in which members can be disqualified.

It 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 CSPL said it welcomed the Government's consultation, which it said was "based largely on the recommendations contained within CSPL's 2019 report" on standards in England.

To inform its consultation response, the committee held a seminar with a range of local government experts and practitioners.

The committee said it was "pleased" to see some of the recommendations it made for changes to standards in its 2019 report appear in the recent consultation, including appropriate mechanisms for local authorities to deal with problems when they arise, greater transparency in decision-making processes, and clearer rules on conflicts of interest.

The committee's 2019 report also called for a non-mandatory code of conduct, which has since been provided by the Local Government Association.

Responding to the consultation's suggestions to expand this by creating a mandatory minimum code of conduct, the committee said it does now believe there should be one.

The standards watchdog also called for any accompanying guidance published alongside the code of conduct to provide "greater clarity" on the issues or behaviour expected, including describing what type of behaviours constitute bullying under the code.

The code should also include a requirement for members to cooperate with investigations into code breaches, it said.

Elsewhere, the response supported proposals for all principal authorities to be required to form a standards committee, which needs to be properly constituted.

It also said there "could be merit" in the Independent Person chairing the standards committee, and that consideration might also be given to lay members chairing standards committees.

Both the Independent Person and lay members should have voting rights, the committee said.

The CSPL said it continues to recommend suspension for egregious breaches of behaviour and during the period of an investigation, as it recommended in 2019.

It noted that it supported a "laddered scale" of sanctions, starting with mere censure and leading up to suspension and disqualification.

The document added: "The question of who had the power to suspend was considered by participants at the seminar; should this be the standards committee or others? It was felt that there was not currently sufficient enough legal coverage for Monitoring Officers to undertake this aspect of the role."

Turning to disqualification, the response said that while disqualification should not be taken lightly, the committee is "of the view that disqualification may now be necessary in extreme cases, and criminal cases, where there was a clear question mark as to whether the member remained a fit and proper person to hold public office".

On the potential for appeals and the provision of a national body, the committee said that its 2019 report backed provisions to allow councillors the right to appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman if their local authority imposes a period of suspension for breaching the code, and that the Ombudsman should be given the power to investigate and decide upon allegations and sanctions.

"The committee continues to believe that councillors should be given the right of appeal," its consultation response said.

It added: "A means of appeal is an important aspect of natural justice.

"Our recent evidence suggests that any appeal needed to be 'timely, sharp and focussed', 'light touch and proportionate', and 'bring closure' to the complaint, in effect 'be the end of the line'".

However, the committee said the Government must consider, where a judicial body does not impose the sanction, whether suspension or disqualification might require an unfettered right of appeal to an independent judicial body under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The committee meanwhile said it would "not be averse" to a national body, but also highlighted the possibility of a regional approach which mirrors magistrates complaints arrangements, with an independent chair.

The response said: "It was felt appropriate for councillors to hear cases concerning other councillors, and the arrangement could act as a tribunal in terms of powers. The committee is of the view, however, that any appeals process, as a safeguard for councillors and complainants, needed to operate fairly and impartially."

The committee also said arrangements for legal representation needed to be considered, "as an accused may not have resources and may need legal support".

"Equally, indemnification for officials was required," the committee added, noting that it was "felt likely" that costs would fall to a council.

The committee's response partly aligns with the position of Lawyers in Local Government, which also supported a mandatory minimum code and said suspensions were an "essential tool" for holding members to account.

It also echoed the Local Government Association's response, which backed proposals to suspend councillors for a period of up to six months "where this is appropriate" and the implementation of a mandatory code of conduct.

Adam Carey