House of Commons - Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions

Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Seventh Report

5 Promotion, Guidance and Training

The Code of Conduct and promotion of the Ethical Framework

54. The Standards Board for England has a statutory duty, under Part III of the Local Government Act 2000, to issue guidance relating to the Code of Conduct and to promote high ethical standards throughout local government. The Minister told us that "disseminating good practice…encouraging training, helping local authorities themselves develop appropriate training and development programmes" were considered crucial aspects of the Board's work.[56]

55. Since its establishment the Board has undertaken a number of activities designed to promote awareness of and compliance with the Code of Conduct and to reinforce ethical governance within local authorities. These activities have included a country-wide programme of presentations, issuing documents and guidance relating to the Code, contributing to training and development events, development of electronic resources through its website and organising annual assemblies for members of local standards committees.[57] The Standards Board told us that it was "committed to providing consistent, relevant and timely advice on the Code ".[58]

56. Most of our witnesses agreed that the Board had performed well in this regard since its inception. Gordon Musset, Haverill Town Clerk, told us that the Board had been "very effective in its promotion of the Code of Conduct, with ample supplies of videos, brochures and leaflets".[59] Many other local authorities agreed.[60] The ODPM said that "the Board's work, including the guidance it issues to local authorities, is helping to ensure that ethical issues are seen to be taken seriously" and that "we believe that through this work the Standards Board has succeeded in establishing itself as a strong force for promoting greater confidence in local democracy".[61] The Standards Board itself stated that it had "used the Code as a regulatory tool that can be administered in a flexible and pragmatic way to promote member adherence to high standards of conduct".[62] Such anecdotal evidence is supported by research undertaken by MORI in 2003, commissioned by the Standards Board, which found that the Board's guidance was often cited as one of the positive aspects of its work. Some 69 per cent of respondents felt that the Board had been successful in keeping them informed and that it had defined the standards expected of members well.[63]

57. It is worth noting, however, that a significant minority of our witnesses disagreed, citing particular concerns over the timeliness of advice and guidance provided by the Standards Board. The London Borough of Hackney told us that "the Standards Board's capacity to provide timely and guidance has been a matter of concern from the outset", that the Standards Board's ability to lead in promoting the Code had been undermined by the burden of work resulting from a reluctance on the part of parish councillors in particular to accept the Code of Conduct and that "this pattern of delay in the production of advice and guidance has been repeated thereafter".[64] There were also concerns that guidance was not always disseminated as widely as required.[65] The Standards Board acknowledged a growing demand for its training and guidance materials. We welcome the Standards Board's assurances that further resources would be deployed to respond to this demand and recommend that in doing so that it pay particular attention to producing advice and guidance in a timely and accessible fashion.

Training and attendance

58. The Standards Board has facilitated training events on the model Code for members of local government however, as Mr Musset pointed out, many councillors "are unwilling to attend training (on any subject)". We appreciate the sensitivities which this particular issue raised. While we are keen to encourage members of local government to exploit the opportunities that such events offer to assist them in their role as leaders of local democracy, to recommend a move to mandatory training seems to us a disproportionate response. Elected politicians are ultimately accountable to the electorate through the ballot box, not to bureaucrats or a set of rules devised by central Government. We agree with the Minister's view that it is "difficult to see how you can put in place very prescriptive obligations without creating a potential risk that someone is called to account other than by the electorate".[66] We advocate an approach whereby training on the Code of Conduct and ethical governance for newly elected members becomes embedded within the culture of local government organisations.

59. We recommend that the Standards Board include monitoring levels of attendance for training as part of its annual programme of research and the Audit Commission take account of attendance levels as part of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment.

Town and parish councils

60. Communicating with smaller local government bodies, typically town and parish councils, presents particular challenges for the Standards Board. Town and parish councils are the least well-equipped to absorb the information and communications put out by the Board and at times dissemination of information across a particular council can take weeks.

61. The Standards Board has recognised the particular challenges of working with parish councils. Sir Anthony Holland told us that he thought this was one of the Board's greatest challenges.[67] Additional measures have been taken to try to reach this audience, including the production of a quarterly parish newsletter to assist parish councillors to comply with the Code of Conduct. The Board told us that it was "working with these authorities to identify ways of ensuring quicker and easier access to relevant information" and that it was also "examining with local government representative bodies and the ODPM ways to build capacity to promote ethical standards in dysfunctional parish councils".[68] Sir Anthony Holland added that the Board puts "an awful lot of effort into the Parish Council problem…every publication we produce is sent to every parish council in the country, all 8,900".[69] The Board has also worked closely with the National Association and County Associations of parish councils, but these organisations do not cover every parish council.

62. Town and parish councils were brought within the ambit of the ethical framework for local government as the Local Government Bill made its way though Parliament. At that time, there was considerable opposition to this extension, and particularly to the provisions of the model Code of Conduct on declaration of interests being applied to parish councillors. The Committee on Standards in Public Life noted that:

there is undoubtedly some evidence of individual parish councillors either stepping down or not seeking re-election in protest at the requirement to register interests.[70]

63. A survey conducted by CIPFA commissioned for the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggests that opposition to the requirement to declare interests had far less impact on willingness to serve on parish councils than had been predicted. Even so, the high volume of allegations of breaches of the Code on the part of parish councillors and the high proportion of those which appear to be vexatious or trivial, suggest that the Board needs to be more effective in promoting compliance with the Code and understanding of the ethical framework within parish councils. We recommend that the Board concentrate further resources on communications with and promotion of compliance with the Code of Conduct to parish councils. In this regard we welcome that Board's undertaking to consider delivering training directly at a local level and would urge it to do so quickly.

Support for Local Standards Committees

64. The Standards Board told us that it had:

actively supported the development of standards committees through the sharing of best practice and provision of guidance, encouraging standards committees to take a more pro-active role to augment their statutory functions.[71]

65. Local authorities have welcomed in particular the Annual Conference for standards committees members organised by the Standards Board.[72] Feedback from the 2004 Annual Conference revealed that 98 per cent of attendees were satisfied with the event overall.[73] (We note that several of our witnesses had been deterred from attending on the grounds of cost.) Nevertheless, some witnesses were critical of the Standards Board performance in this area. Tewkesbury Borough Council, for instance, told us that:

a major weakness of the Standards Board's performance is the quality of its support for Standards Committees, particularly the lack of firm and coherent guidance about the activities in which these committees should or should not be engaged.[74]

It was argued that this had led to the emergence of diverse practices across the country and that it had led to "confusion and uncertainty resulting in an incoherent approach to the whole concept".[75]

66. Given the absence of involvement of local standards committees in the processes of complaint, investigation and determination, as a result the Government's failure to bring forward the appropriate regulations in a timely manner, and the large number of cases which the Standards Board had to manage as a result in its early days, it is understandable that the provision of support for local standards committees has not been a high priority. Now that local standards committees have been empowered to make determinations, the Standards Board will wish to step up its activities in this area.

56 Q 222 Back

57 Ev 5, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

58 Ev 5, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

59 Ev 16, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

60 Ev 13, 18, 27, 28; HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

61 Ev 2, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

62 Ev 5, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

63 Ev 6, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

64 Ev 22, 31; HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

65 Ev 17, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back

66 Q. 223 Back

67 Q 176 Back