Time to rethink statutory roles: the key to better performance in Local Government

Pam Parkes, President of the PPMA, calls for a review of the statutory roles in local government to assess whether they remain fit for purpose.

It’s more than 36 years since the statutory roles that sit at the heart of local authority governance were reviewed. That bears repeating: the current framework underpinning the roles of Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance Officer was introduced through the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, at a time when the world, and local government’s place in it, was fundamentally different.

Since then, the operating context has shifted dramatically. The world of work has evolved beyond recognition. Public expectations of local services have increased in complexity and immediacy. Political expectations, the digital revolution, funding constraints and multi-agency delivery models have all reshaped the landscape. Theory and practice of management and leadership are richer and nuanced.

Despite this, the legal definitions which shape how our senior statutory roles are dispatched have remained largely static.

If we are serious about building stronger, more resilient councils - and learning from those that have struggled - then we must urgently re-examine whether our statutory roles are fit for purpose for today.

A changed world, an unchanged legal framework

The 1989 Act was a product of its time, designed to address concerns around political overreach and poor decision-making in a limited number of authorities. It sought to enshrine good governance by delineating the responsibilities of key officers, especially in relation to financial probity, legal compliance, and staffing arrangements.

Yet the context within which these roles operate has changed beyond recognition. Today, councils work in a far more complex ecosystem. Decision-making is more diffuse. Risk is more reputationally charged. The lines between local and central government, while still politically distinct, are increasingly blurred in practice. Despite these shifts, our statutory role definitions continue to reflect a narrow and largely transactional view of leadership.

This is particularly problematic when you consider what we now know about the causes of council failure.

In the twenty years since the abolition of Comprehensive Performance Assessment and the move to sector-led improvement, a consistent evidence base has emerged. Councils that struggle rarely do so because of technical issues alone. The root causes are almost always cultural, managerial, or relational in nature: a failure of leadership, governance and the corporate core.

If we accept that leadership and culture are the foundations of successful local government, then we must also accept that a statutory framework which fails to reflect this is no longer sufficient. More than that, it represents a structural weakness at the heart of local government.

The case for a wider view of the Head of Paid Service

The statutory responsibilities of the Head of Paid Service are, by any measure, limited in scope. The role is focused primarily on organisational structures and ensuring the proper discharge of functions.

Yet in reality, Heads of Paid Service are expected to do far more. They are the standard-bearers of organisational culture, the anchors of corporate leadership, and the bridge between political ambition and operational delivery.

This wider, unspoken responsibility is not currently reflected in legislation or statutory guidance. That omission creates a significant governance blind spot. It also suggests implicitly that the people and cultural aspects of local government leadership are somehow less important than formal processes or financial oversight.

This is not simply an academic point. When things go wrong in councils, it is often because cultural issues - unhealthy behaviours, weak internal challenge, or disengaged staff - go unrecognised or unaddressed. A statutory framework that does not expect or empower senior officers to take responsibility for organisational culture makes it harder to prevent such issues from developing in the first place.

HR and OD: Still peripheral to governance?

Nowhere is this blind spot more evident than in the absence of any meaningful reference to human resources or organisational development in the statutory framework. This is despite growing evidence that leadership capability, workforce resilience and organisational culture are key predictors of council performance.

In many of the strongest councils today, HR and OD are integral to the corporate centre. They have a voice in strategic planning and are central to shaping organisational design, leadership development and change management. These functions help to build the environment in which good governance can flourish. In struggling authorities, by contrast, HR is often marginalised: seen as a transactional function brought in late to implement structural decisions rather than to help shape them.

This is not about creating a fourth statutory officer. It is about recognising that the strength of the statutory roles depends, in part, on the corporate conditions that surround them. Those conditions are shaped by HR and OD in partnership with legal, finance, and political leadership. Ignoring this reality in our formal frameworks makes it harder to hold organisations together during periods of change or crisis.

Rethinking accountability and the role of the centre

There is also a wider question about the accountability relationship between local and central government. Interventions in recent years in authorities where failure has become acute have reignited discussions about how we monitor risk, support improvement, and ensure that the right safeguards are in place. The balance between local autonomy and central oversight is always delicate, but there is an increasing need for clarity about who is responsible for what, and when.

Within this, statutory officers sit in a uniquely exposed position. They are individually accountable for specific areas of governance, but their effectiveness is often contingent on the strength of the wider leadership team, the political environment, and the organisational culture. It is no longer enough to rely on a ‘star player’ or assume that statutory roles will compensate for systemic weakness.

This brings us to the idea of the “golden square” of corporate leadership: a model where legal, financial, managerial and people expertise work together at the heart of the organisation, with a shared responsibility for resilience, integrity and performance. It is an idea already present in some of the most successful councils, but it remains absent from our statutory frameworks and national expectations.

So, what does this all mean and why does it matter to local government lawyers?

As things stand there is a de facto governance and risk gap baked into the way our organisations are monitored and managed. The statutory minimum does not reflect the reality of the world around us and our failure to address the drivers of risk which we know are there, represents a blind spot which remains there creating vulnerability and cost. We may be able to follow the rules of the game, but the nature of game has changed and so the rules are longer fit for purpose.

The time for review is now

This takes us back to the change required. Three decades on from when they were created, there is an undeniably strong case for reviewing the statutory role definitions. That review should ask not just whether the current duties remain legally sound, but whether they reflect the practical, political, and cultural challenges that local government faces today.

It should explore whether the Head of Paid Service role needs to encompass cultural leadership. It should examine how HR and OD can be more explicitly linked to governance. And it should challenge whether current definitions allow councils to spot and respond to systemic risks early enough.

For local government lawyers, these questions are not theoretical. You are central to interpreting, applying, and upholding these statutory frameworks. But you are also key partners in helping local government evolve, to anticipate risks, strengthen governance, and build organisational cultures that are sustainable under pressure.

The moment for change is now. Not just because the legislation is outdated, but because failing to act means continuing to tolerate a gap between what we say governance is for, and what it actually takes to deliver it.

Local government cannot afford that gap any longer.

Pam Parkes is President of the Public Services People Managers Association (PPMA).