Insight Local Government Lawyer Insight July 2017 21 It was the Localism Act 2011 that introduced the current regime which regulates the conduct of councillors in England (including pecuniary interests). It has been in place now for more than five years. Whilst there were many who had concerns at the outset into the changes, there is much that we would all now accept was correct. However, I believe that valid concerns remain and need addressing. This article therefore argues not for wholescale reform, but that it is timely to start a debate asking whether there are, in the light of experience, aspects of the regime that warrant fine tuning. The article suggests that there are aspects that would benefit from such consideration and seeks the views of practitioners. Background The Coalition Government announced in its Programme for Government in May 2010 that the “Standards Board regime”, regulating the treatment of councillors’ conduct and pecuniary interests, was to be abolished. This was done via the Localism Act 2011. Standards for England (formerly the Standards Board) was abolished on 1 April 2012. The new standards arrangements replaced the regime introduced by the Local Government Act 2000 and amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Local government standards are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The policy Ministers believed the previous approach had become a vehicle for petty, partisan and sometimes malicious, allegations of councillor misconduct that sapped public confidence in local democracy. A DCLG press release at the time stated: "These new measures, outlined in the Localism Act, will replace the bureaucratic and controversial Standards Board regime, which ministers believe had become a system of nuisance complaints and petty, sometimes malicious, allegations of councillor misconduct that sapped public confidence in local democracy. " During the Bill's debate in Parliament, two quotes stand out: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles) "The Bill is based on a simple premise: we must trust people who elect us and we must ensure that we trust them to make the right decision for their area. To misquote Clint Eastwood: A Government needs to know its limitations." George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) “…Getting rid of the Standards Board for England has to be the right thing to do. It was a cipher for partisan activity in local politics and its passing will not be mourned by anybody. On predetermination, the most ludicrous situation existed, whereby people could be elected to champion a local cause yet not be able to take part in the decision. What an unbelievably crazy situation that was! I greatly welcome the board's passing.” Further, Local Government Minister Bob Neill said in a letter to Leaders: "The Standards Board regime led to an explosion in petty, partisan and malicious complaints that dragged down the reputation of local government, as well as suppressing freedom of speech. We have published a practical guide that shows how the new local standards strike a common sense balance between electoral accountability and personal privacy. “As a former councillor myself, I know councillors are motivated about doing a good job for the local residents they serve. Instead of having hundreds of expensive and frivolous investigations hanging over their heads, local councillors should now be free to get on with their jobs." The regime (England) The Localism Act 2011 included the following measures: Mark Heath argues that the standards regime introduced by the Localism Act 2011 is not working as intended and needs a rethink. Standards in England – time for a review?