Monitoring Officer Report April 2018 LocalGovernmentLawyer As part of Local Government Lawyer’s survey, monitoring officers were asked for their views on how the standards regime is functioning. With the Committee on Standards in Public Life shortly after launching its review of ethical standards in local government, the timing was ideal. The bad news is that fewer than one in ten respondents (8%) felt able to agree with the statement that the regime was “working very well”, while almost half (48%) felt that it was “generally working well, albeit with a few problems”. One monitoring officer suggested that there were now very few complaints being received and the system was “generally more proportionate to the conduct issues raised”. Another said that those complaints that were received were generally managed at the assessment stage, although they added that petty complaints were still an issue. But this still leaves a significant level of discontent among many monitoring officers – a third (32%) suggested it was “not generally working very well, with multiple problems”, and 12% considered the regime to be “practically dysfunctional”. “It is toothless, it infantilises and demeans councillors, it is inappropriate for dealing with people who, primarily, are volunteering their time for the public good,” wrote one respondent. “[Having] high standards in public office is incredibly important but I do not believe that the standards regime does much towards this and it can be damaging.” One respondent suggested that there was more than meets the eye when it comes to the fact that there have been fewer complaints under the current regime. This was not because there had been fewer breaches, they said, but rather because members realised the limits in terms of outcomes “and decide not to waste their time”. The lack of sanctions for breaches of codes of conduct is “continually problematic”, explained one monitoring officer, a view echoed by many respondents. This is “a frustration – and an astonishment – to complainants,” said another, adding that “councillors worry that colleagues who bring the reputation of all elected officials into disrepute remain unpunished”. The problems are seen as particularly acute for principal councils with responsibilities for parish and town councils. The experience in Wales, which kept its own framework, is markedly different. “It is working well in Wales, where the regime has teeth, all investigations for serious breaches are carried out by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales and can be referred to an independent tribunal rather than the standards committee, and possible suspension or disqualification is still an option,” reported one respondent. Another Wales-based monitoring officer said they were working with “a different, and better, regime to that in England in my view”, while a third said the Welsh regime worked well via the Ombudsman, adding that “having no overall consistent enforcement in England must be an issue”. It is not all sweetness and light though – a fourth monitoring officer warned that there were some problems with the Ombudsman not 12 The Committee on Standards in Public Life has launched a review of the Standards Regime instituted by the Localism Act. Philip Hoult finds that they will have much to consider. Once more unto the breach The lack of sanctions for breaches of codes of conduct is “continually problematic”, explained one monitoring officer, a view echoed by many respondents. This is “a frustration – and an astonishment – to complainants,” said another.