Title

Will the CLG's consultation on codes of conduct for local authority members and employees live up to expectations? asks David Prince. Leaders and chief executives, reeling from financial misfortunes not predicted even by the Audit Commission, won't have paid much attention to CLG's latest consultation on Codes of conduct for local authority members and employees. While much of the document is housekeeping, in it lurk two explosive issues on what standards actually mean in a modern local governance setting. First is the definition of when members' conduct in an unofficial capacity brings their office or authority into disrepute and diminishes public trust. Disrepute will arise from conviction for a criminal offence by a court without the opportunity of a fixed penalty. Conviction is the evidence of disrepute. Foreign convictions count, provided the conduct is an offence here. I'm sure the CLG has done its best with Parliament's opaque decision only to regulate private conduct within narrow, unspecified limits. But, instead of clear principles, it has proposed artificial distinctions. Serious offences, such as assault, that result in imprisonment become disrepute. But public outrage also arises from private misconduct not resulting in imprisonment, such as benefit fraud. The resulting anomalies will delight headline writers. Research shows public support for greater privacy for public figures, and resentment of media intrusiveness. This minefield was avoidable simply by lowering, from three months, the period of imprisonment which automatically triggers disqualification, making imprisonment, not conviction, the basis of disrepute. Principle and practice also clash in the proposed code for officers. I've always sympathised with members' long-standing and deeply felt grievance that they are much more tightly regulated than senior officers or others around the partnership table. A member accepting hospitality worth only £25 must publicly register and declare it for three years, whereas an accompanying director, generally, privately registers it, with less onerous disclosure. I support the first stage proposal that, as in Wales, staff terms and conditions should contain the core principles of public life. These enshrine the reasons why most people join the public sector. The second stage proposal requires senior staff to accept some – but not all – of the members' code relating to interests. This could be on the basis of the politically restricted categories as going with the turf, which I favour. The alternative applies to those officers discharging executive, regulatory and other powers under local delegation schemes. Ostensibly, this ensures that whoever performs the functions abides by the same conduct. Except it doesn't. For example, for proper transparency, members who belong to lobbying organisations or charitable bodies must declare membership, whereas officers wouldn't need to. It is transparency of decision taking and public perception about decision takers that matter most in this debate. There is a public interest case for a consistent and proportionate code that applies to those members and senior officers who steer and manage public bodies. Their decisions impact on life quality, while their salaries exceed what average people earn. Disappointingly, though, the consultation leaves too much to chance in enforcing the officer code and safeguarding those officers subject to it. The risks are real. Ideally, standards committees should oversee an effective local framework, and ensure guidance and training. But, to gain the trust needed to discharge this wider remit, many standards committees need greater skills, more robustness, higher calibre of members and, in some cases, genuine independence. Where such limitations already exist, leaders and chief executives should be tackling them now as deficiencies in corporate governance. Let's hope the consultation responses lift the practicalities from the ‘too difficult' box and ensure fundamental principles aren't quietly consigned to the long grass. David Prince is former chief executive of the Standards Board for England

Title

WHITEHALL

Conduct unbecoming

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING