“the lack of sanctions meant that success of the standards regime is entirely dependent on robust local leadership and ethical championing. This is a fragile balance and we fear those local authorities who are “good at this stuff” will continue to be while others resort to monolithic culture which have in the past had the most difficulty in dealing with issues internally.” (Bew 2013, p.4)

Bew’s view was that it was necessary to establish an open culture in which challenge of poor behaviour is encouraged. He made a further observation at the OEDC Policy Forum that leadership behaviours were established on either:

1. Compliance based systems – that is a well designed and systematically enforced external system of rules; or
2. Integrity based – that is internally driven.

But by dismantling the national body of Standards for England and the Audit Commission, the Government has removed much of the compliance means of control of behaviour. This leaves the integrity based formula. The question is can an integrity based system suffice, if the next election is years away?

Recent research (Feild 2015) confirms that there is widespread concern held regarding misconduct of council leaders and lack of sanctions. The evidence from this research supports an argument that there needs to be a statutory ability of the Secretary of State to intervene where there is failing leadership on standards. As Lord Hanningfield’s credit card expenses case shows and re-inforced by the Tower Hamlets (PwC 2014) and Rotherham Borough Council (Casey 2015) interventions, the authorities concerned were not capable on their own of remedying their failure of leadership.

This sustained a local culture of poor standards. Indeed the research supports the thesis that the Localism Act standards duty in its current form cannot displace a poor local culture. In a nutshell, those organisations were no longer capable of healing themselves and needed external intervention. While there was intervention, it was taken under the Local Government Act 1999 because of a failure to deliver ‘best value’. Yet the failure to deliver was arguably at least equally due to lack of adherence to the Nolan principles rather than just organisational inefficiencies.

In addition, the Local Government Act 1999 intervention arrangements to date are heavily dependent on the use of expensive external expertise. It is unfair that the council tax payers of a failing standards council have to suffer bad governance and then have to pay the cost of the external consultants to tell them of it!

Worse still, adding insult to injury, if there is a finding of poor value or poor administration, there is no power to remove the member(s) from their elected positions or their members’ allowances. So there needs to be a process for dealing with errant members and particularly leaders which includes the power of suspension including allowances and if need be disqualification. This must be located with the Secretary of State via an amended 1999 Act because the Localism Act seems incapable of changing a culture that has set in of poor leadership on standards at the local level.
Time for a change

So what can be done now? There is a consultation being led by the anti-corruption Tsar Sir Eric Pickles to look particularly at the implications of electoral fraud (contact here by 13 October 2015).

The key issue that has prompted this review has much about the consequences of unethical leadership with the reins of power of elected mayors. I suggest we all get involved and tell Sir Eric Pickles your experiences and views for change. In my view the power to intervene needs to be increased before we allow any further power to be transferred from the centre to local leaders, be they powerhouse mayors or Sheriffs. It is not good enough that the intervention is based on “best value”; there needs to be a power to remove errant leaders and their appointees if there is a failure in standards.

Furthermore this responsibility for standards needs to be set out in a functions and responsibilities regulation made under the Local Government Act 2000. It appears that many authorities have simply placed the S.27 (1) 2011 Act promotion of standards responsibility with their now non-statutory standards committee or its successor. Not good enough.

For it to be effective there has to be leadership from the council leader and the chief officers together with full council. Apart from the strong leader measures there is very little legislation directly affecting the council leader, but it is not unknown to place special responsibility on an elected Member, indeed the Children Act 2004 section 19 establishes a ‘lead member for children’s services’. It would seem right to place a similar responsibility on the council leader to be lead member for the promotion and maintenance of high standards of conduct.

Dr Paul Field has just completed his doctorial thesis – How does localism for standards work in practice? The practitioner’s view of local standards post Localism Act 2011. Paul is a local government lawyer.