Standards of conduct of local government in England, Scotland and Wales

Local authorities should re-examine their working methods to identify disincentives which bar particular groups from serving as councillors and, where possible, remove them. They should seek the co-operation of local employers to overcome the obstacles faced by their employees who wish to serve.

The present National Code of Local Government Conduct should be replaced by a statement of the 'General Principles of Conduct for Local Councillors'. This should be a Great Britain document, issued by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland, and for Wales, and approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The Secretaries of State should take powers to approve 'Model Codes of Conduct for Local Councillors' prepared by the local government associations and ombudsmen, provided that any Model Code which is approved incorporates and reflects the 'General Principles'.

Each local authority should be required to adopt a local code of conduct which incorporates and reflects the 'General Principles' and achieves at least the same effect as the approved model code.

Every new councillor, and every councillor on re-election, should be required to state that they had read, understood and would observe their local code.

The appropriate Secretary of State should be able to make a formal request to a local authority that it should make changes in its local code or standing orders if he or she considers that it does not achieve at least the same effect as the model code. If the local authority does not comply, the Secretary of State should be able to refer the code to the relevant Local Government Tribunal (see R24), which would have the power to order changes.

The Commissioner for Local Administration (the local ombudsman) should be able to recommend changes to a local authority's code, and if necessary refer the matter to the relevant Local Government Tribunal for a final decision.

Every council should have to maintain a public register of councillors' interests, listing their pecuniary interests; those non-pecuniary interests which relate closely to the activities of the council and associated bodies, or which members of the public might reasonably think could influence a councillor's judgement; and pecuniary interests of close family members and people living in the same household as the councillor.

It should no longer be a criminal offence to fail to register a pecuniary interest.

Unless they have a dispensation, councillors who have a direct pecuniary interest in a matter under consideration should have to declare that interest, withdraw from the meeting or discussion, and take no further part in the business in question.

Councillors should have to declare any interest which is not of a pecuniary kind, and which members of the public could reasonably think could influence their actions, speeches or votes.

Unless they have a dispensation, councillors should withdraw from consideration of matters where they have an interest whose existence creates a real danger of bias, that is where they or their close family are likely to be affected more than the generality of those affected by the decision in question.

All the existing primary legislation on conflicts of interest in local government should be repealed and be replaced by a provision giving effect to the common law principles set out above.

Regulations under the statute should be confined to requiring councils to have public registers of interests, to setting out the framework of interests which must be included in those registers, and to requiring councils to have rules covering declaration, withdrawal, and disciplinary procedures.

Councils should set up a Standards Committee, composed of senior councillors, which should have the power to examine allegations of misconduct by councillors and to recommend disciplinary action to the full council, including the punishment of an individual councillor.

A meeting of the full council (open to the public and press) to consider a report of the Standards Committee should be held as soon as possible after the Standards Committee has reported.

The Standards Committee should have powers to propose the withdrawal from decisions of a member whose interests it considers are such as to create a real danger of bias, and to recommend disciplinary action against members who breach the council's code.

The Commissioner for Local Administration in England should cease to issue general guidance about conflicts of interest.

Every local authority should be required to draw up a code of conduct for officers (based either on the LGMB model or locally-drafted) incorporating rules for the registration and declaration of interests by officers similar to those we recommend for councillors.

Every local authority should have its own written statement or protocol, governing relations between members and officers.

The statutory powers of the head of paid service, monitoring officer, and chief financial officer should be reviewed by the Department of the Environment (and the Scottish and Welsh Offices) to determine whether they are workable and effective.

The protection already available to chief executives who are threatened with disciplinary action should be extended to the council's monitoring and chief financial officers, subject to the findings of the review proposed in R21.

The Standards Committee should be able to recommend the suspension of councillors for up to three months, as well as the imposition of lesser penalties.

There should be Local Government Tribunals in England, Scotland, and Wales with the power to hear appeals from councillors who have been subject to a penalty imposed by a council; and to require an authority to alter its Code of Conduct, standing orders, and other procedures when necessary.

The Local Government Tribunals should hear appeals from councillors against disciplinary action by their councils following a recommendation of the Standards Committee; and should have the power to disqualify councillors from office.

Every local authority should institute a procedure for whistleblowing, which would enable concerns to be raised confidentially inside and, if necessary, outside the organisation. The Standards Committee might well provide an internal destination for such complaints.

Surcharge should be abolished and, pending the introduction of a new statutory offence of misuse of public office (R28), replaced with a procedure in which the auditor applies to the courts for a ruling, and the court has the power to order compensation and/or impose disqualification from office.

Subject to further consultation, there should be a new statutory offence of misuse of public office, which would apply to all holders of public office.

The District Auditor's 'stop' power in England and Wales should be discontinued and replaced with a system of formal warning notices.

The right of a local elector to challenge an authority's accounts should be recast to avoid abuse of the process.

Local authorities should ensure that people who receive services through a contractor to the local authority have access to a properly publicised complaints system.

Staff of contracting organisations should have access to the local authority's whistleblowing procedures.

Local authorities, which are concerned about conflicts of interest when staff move to the private sector, should consider the introduction of restrictive covenants, or stipulations in the contracting process, to avoid conflicts of interest.

All members of an authority's planning committee (or equivalent) should receive training in the planning system, either before serving on the committee, or as soon as possible after appointment to the committee.

Planning committees should consider whether their procedures are in accordance with best practice, and adapt their procedures if necessary, setting them out in a code accessible to councillors, staff, and members of the public.

The Department of the Environment (and the Scottish and Welsh Offices) should consider whether present legislation on planning obligations is sufficiently tightly worded to prevent planning permissions from being bought and sold. The Departments should continue to reduce the time taken for planning appeals to be arranged and should set demanding targets to that end.

Local authorities should adopt rules on openness that allow planning agreements to be subject to discussion by members of the authority and the public. They should not restrict access to supporting documents except where justified by the requirements of commercial confidentiality, which should be interpreted narrowly.

The Government should require authorities to notify the appropriate Secretary of State of all planning applications in which they have an interest, either in the development or in the land, either where the proposed development is contrary to the local plan, or has given rise to a level of objections regarded by the appropriate Secretary of State as substantial.

The Government should be more ready to use its powers to call in all major planning applications handled by an authority where, over a period of time, there is substantial public concern about that authority's decision-making procedures.