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
68
Ev 5, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back
69
Q 175 Back
70
Committee on Standards in Public Life, Tenth Report, Standards
of Conduct in Local Government, 1997, Cm 3702, p. 56. Back
71
Ev 10, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back
72
See, for example, Ev 19, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back
73
Ev 10, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back
74
Ev 28, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back
75
Ev 28, HC 1118-II, Session 2003-04 Back