LGA vision for councillor standards

Background

Nine focus groups were held across the month of November, consulting local government officers, local councillors, and expert stakeholders. Each group were asked the same framework of questions, aiming to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current system, the barriers to high standards of behaviour, the impact of the standards regime, and where improvements could be made. 

Key findings

• Whilst participants identified some key strengths within the current regime, all groups were overwhelmingly negative about the current system for its lack of sanctions and limited power of enforcement. Introducing stronger sanctions was a unanimous suggestion for improvement, although participants did not agree on what these sanctions should be.
• Parish and Town councils were revealed to present a significant burden for their principal council due to the high volume of complaints. Officers and members alike support either a mechanism to charge back the costs, or the transfer of responsibility for standards to the Parish and Town councils.
• Participants identified many factors which impact standards of behaviour, many of which were a result of the current standards regime, including the lack of deterrent, and the grey areas around freedom of expression and acting in a personal capacity.
• The current standards regime has a largely negative impact on all groups concerned – councillors, officers, the council, and communities. 

The LGA’s Research and Information team ran a series of focus groups to gauge the position of the sector on the topic of councillor standards. This was in response to the announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister at the end of October 2024 that the government would launch a consultation on the standards regime. These sector engagement focus groups form phase one – issues identification – of the LGA’s strategic response to the consultation.

Nine virtual focus groups were held across the month of November, each including between three and six participants. Four sessions comprised local government officers (primarily Monitoring Officers), four comprised local councillors (separated by political grouping), and one comprised expert stakeholders from organisations that represent the sector. The sessions lasted between 60 and 75 minutes and were held under Chatham House rules to allow respondents to speak as candidly as possible. The topic guide followed can be found in Annex A of this document. 

This section contains a summary of the discussion across the nine focus groups.

Strengths of the current standards regime

Simply having a standards regime in place was seen as a strength of the current system by one group of officers. It provides an overarching structure that can moderate behaviour, and sets out the processes used for decision making, and sets an expectation of personal responsibility.

More specifically, both officers and members praised the Model Code of Conduct devised by the LGA for providing a basis for local regimes, and in particular, officers praised the guidance that accompanies the Model Code.

In addition, officers praised the scope within the Model Code for the Monitoring Officer (MO) to complete an initial sift of the complaints. This gives them the discretion not to proceed with a complaint if, for example, they believe it is politically motivated or a ‘tit for tat’ accusation. It also allows for the MO to make local judgements on complaints based on their specific local context.

Examples were given of positive local applications of the current standards regime. One officer highlighted that their council’s recent best value report complemented their standards committee and the openness and transparency it fosters. Another officer explained how they had incorporated (non-voting) parish councillors on their standards committee, to provide representation for parish councils, for whom the principal council has responsibility on the topic of standards.

Both officer and member groups praised the role of the Independent Person within the current standards system as it helps to distance the process from political point scoring. Respondents agreed that strengthening the independent presence (for example, bringing in an independent adjudicator) in the process would be beneficial.

Weaknesses of the current standards regime

Across the officers, members, and expert stakeholders, all participants agreed unanimously that the current standards regime is toothless, with no real sanctions in place or power to enforce them. This can be frustrating for officers who dedicate time and resource to investigations for little or no result. Furthermore, this can deter individuals from making complaints as there will be no meaningful outcome.

The responsibility at principal council level for standards within Parish and Town councils was another clear point of weakness raised by officers, members, and expert stakeholders. Officers highlighted the volume of standards complaints that relate to Parish and Town councils, suggesting that these make up around two-thirds to three-quarters of complaints they receive. Furthermore, these are often of a lower severity than complaints relating to principal councillors, seen as ‘tit for tat’ complaints, yet still often require an investigation, but as above, have no real impact. Participants discussed the potential for charging back the cost of these investigations to the Parish or Town councils, which anecdotally, some Monitoring Officers are already attempting to do.

Participants agreed that investigations are lengthy and resource intensive. For members who have been accused of a breach, this can be stressful as the investigation hangs over their head for a long time. For officers, given the lack of outcome and power of the regime, this is a poor use of their time, resource and budget; one participant cited costs of more than £20,000 for a single investigation. Both officer and members raised the composition of the standards committee as a weakness, describing how it follows the authority’s political balance. This can mean that members vote along party lines rather than strictly about the standards issue at hand.

Both officers and members discussed the councillor training available. While some officers and members praised the training, others criticised the quality, or argued that there was too much training and training of the wrong sort. This suggests that training quality varies from authority to authority, in addition to the fact that some individuals will always be less receptive to training than others. Participants however agreed that instilling good behaviour from the start was imperative, therefore the inconsistency of the training offering, with some claims of poor-quality training, is a weakness of the current system.

Some members explained that there is little support or protection from the council offered to accused members. There may be low-level or voluntary support from the council or from their political group, but formal legal advice or support.

Challenges to high standards of behaviour

Both officers and members agreed that social media poses a significant challenge to maintaining high standards of behaviour. Officers reported that many complaints relate to conduct on social media, whilst members described the toxicity of debate online.

Leading on from conduct on social media, officers discussed how there is a grey area around members acting in a personal capacity, or in their capacity as a councillor. They explained that some members defend their behaviour, particularly on social media, by explaining that they were acting in a personal capacity. Officers explained that some members use this justification to circumvent responsibility and rebut complaints of poor behavior.

Furthermore, both officers and members described how some members wear their standards breaches as a ‘badge of honour’. In this way, the regime does not act as a deterrent as some members are proud to position themselves as a truth-teller and standing up to the establishment for their community.

Quite simply, participants agreed that the lack of sanctions within the regime presents a challenge to maintaining high standards as there are no real consequences for poor behaviour. At present, the main sanctions used are a ‘telling off’ by the Monitoring Officer, being asked to issue an apology, or having to complete training. Respondents agreed that these often do not act as a deterrent.

The inefficacy of political group leaders and/or the Whip was also identified by both officers and members are a challenge to maintaining high standards of behaviour. The political group has historically taken a level of responsibility for maintaining discipline among their members, however if the group leaders or Whips are ineffective, this can impact on the maintenance of standards. The expert stakeholder group suggested that ties between political parties have weakened over recent years, meaning that group discipline is harder to enforce. Yet, both officers and members gave examples of how having strong group discipline has had a positive impact on standards of behaviour. In addition to poor group discipline, participants raised that it is not possible to rely on group or party structures with independent and ungrouped members and this can make tackling poor conduct more challenging.

Members also highlighted that there is inconsistency around the understanding of what constitutes acceptable behaviour. They explained that this may be due to different political interpretations of the standards regime, or due to a lack of training.

Officers and expert stakeholders suggested that the poor standard of behaviour displayed by national politicians has contributed to a general erosion of political standards. This was seen to encourage and almost condone poor behaviour at the local level, as local politicians seek to emulate, for example, the toxicity of Prime Ministers Questions. In addition, officers reported that poor behaviour within parliament can also encourage poor behaviour from members of the public towards local government officers and members, adding to the toxicity of the environment.

In addition, officers and expert stakeholders also raised how freedom of expression (under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights) has been used as a justification for poor behaviour, therefore presenting a challenge to maintaining high standards. The expert stakeholder group cited the case of Robinson vs Buckinghamshire, in which Article 10 was used to justify freedom of expression in relation to political opinions on matters of public interest.

Impact of having a local standards regime on…

Improvements to the current system

Members, officers, and expert stakeholders unanimously agreed that stronger sanctions are needed, but no group could reach consensus on what these sanctions should be.

• Suspension: all groups discussed the issue of suspensions. Officers were more in favour, though not unanimously, of introducing powers of suspension for a fixed period of time. Members were less in favour of this power, as their ultimate accountability sits with the electorate, not unelected officers. Expert stakeholders were cautious. The main issues with suspension powers are the potential for it to be used for political gain (e.g., to impact the balance of power in an authority), and the suggestion that it punishes the wrong people – i.e., the electorate, and member colleagues who must pick up the casework. Expert stakeholders also raised that a sanction of this strength would require a robust external appeals process.
• Financial sanctions: temporary removal of councillor remuneration was discussed; however, this would not impact all Parish and Town councils (who generate a large volume of issues) as not all are remunerated. Furthermore, this would not be a deterrent to those members that do not depend on this income and would not be bothered by its removal.
• Removal from committees: currently, it is the decision of the political group leader to retain or remove a member from a committee, however officers suggested that this could become an enforceable sanction of the standards regime.
• Publicisation: officers and expert stakeholders discussed the options for clearer protocol for publicisation of standards breaches to better inform the electorate. Some participants feared that this may not have much impact due to the perceived lack of interest in standards from the general public.

After stronger sanctions, the most frequent improvement raised by members, officers, and expert stakeholders was to improve the way in which Parish and Town councils are dealt with. Suggestions were either to remove the responsibility for Parish and Town councils from the principal council or to introduce a mechanism for the principal council to charge back the costs of investigation to the Parish or Town council.

Other improvements suggested included:

• Statutory timeline for investigations: deadlines for investigation milestones and response requirements could be introduced to reduce the length of investigations, thus reducing stress for both officers and members.
• Informal investigations: members and expert stakeholder suggested that informal investigations could be used more routinely to triage complaints or offer a local resolution before engaging a lengthy investigation process that will likely have no real tangible outcome.
• More independence: both officers and members agreed that more independence could be injected into the process, to remove the potential for political opportunism. This could be increasing the power of the independent person, or including independent people on the standards committee. One member reported that there is currently a small pool of independent people in their area, shared by neighbouring authorities, which can be a barrier to rigorous investigation if the same investigator is dealing with repeat issues or repeat offenders, as their judgement may be influenced by previous dealings with this person or around this issue.
• Mandatory training: some officers and members agreed that making councillor training mandatory would be beneficial. This could also extend to Parish and Town councils. Some members did not agree with the idea of mandatory training, as it may be repetitive or useless for long-standing councillors. In any case, they agreed that training should be accessible for all councillors and mindful of other commitments (e.g., work and family).
• Transparency: some members discussed the need for transparency in the reporting, agreeing that the investigation report should be published in its entirety (with necessary redactions for GDPR reasons) and made publicly available, as these are public investigations using public funds.
• Political group responsibility: the expert stakeholder group agreed that political groups should take more responsibility in upholding the standards of their members.
• Appeals process: officers suggested that an external appeals process could be introduced, especially if sanctions are strengthened.
• Role of the Monitoring Officer: the expert stakeholder group suggested a review to the role description and the title of the Monitoring Officer, which they saw as outdated. They also suggested that better statutory protection should be introduced for the Monitoring Officer.
• Scottish approach to personal vs councillor capacity: one officer suggested adopting the Scottish approach to the ‘grey area’ of whether or not someone is acting in the capacity of councillor or individual.

Compatibility of stronger sanctions with a local system

Respondents were asked to consider whether or on stronger sanctions are compatible with a local system. Member, officer, and expert stakeholder groups all generally agreed that stronger sanctions are compatible with a local system.

Members thought that the system should remain locally determined but guided by a stronger national framework. Officers suggested that some members may disagree that stronger sanctions are compatible with the local system, adding that a system with stronger sanctions would require a formal appeals process. The current system, with its lack of real sanctions, does not currently operate an appeals process.

Expert stakeholders added that standards regime expectations should be seen as the minimum, rather than the aim.

Further comments

At the end of the session, participants had the opportunity to raise any points that had not yet been discussed. Points raised included: 

• One participant reported that they were glad that the system was being reviewed and given national prominence.
• One participant emphasised that that should not be considered in silo but rather in a wider discussion about political culture and behaviour generally.

Download the report (pdf)