Local Government: Nolan Principles

Debate between Steve Barclay and Jim McMahon

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to attend this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing it.

A key commitment of this Government was to strengthen the standards regime and integrity in public life. Specifically, that means a very active commitment to working together to create a fit, legal and decent local government sector that is equipped to rise to the challenge and opportunity of increased devolution of power and resources from Whitehall. Our proposals to achieve that were set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper, published in December last year, which included measures to fix our broken audit system; improve oversight and accountability; give councils genuine freedoms to work for and deliver in the best interests of their communities; and, with particular reference to the theme of this debate, improve the standards and conduct regime.

We are wasting no time in getting on with the task. The day after the “English Devolution” White Paper was published, we launched a 10-week consultation on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. The consultation, which closed on 26 February, sought views on reforms to the standards and conduct regime so that the public can have trust and confidence that all councils in England can be effective and well governed.

Although he did not go as far as I might, I think the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was hinting that the previous Government, in the early part of that Government—with the removal of the standards regime and the audit regime, and measures such as the removal of councillors’ pensions in England—engaged in what many of us now reflect were, in large part, acts of municipal vandalism. They took away the architecture that allowed local government to thrive. The challenge is big, but we understand that we need to take significant steps to improve the situation.

All of us here today know the seven principles of public life—honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership—which have underpinned the ethical standards of all public office holders for the last 30 years. They are, and have been, the foundation of the code of conduct for Members of the House, the ministerial code and all who serve in local government and the wider public sector.

Doug Chalmers, the current chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, gave a speech at the Institute for Government in November last year on the 30th anniversary of the establishment of that committee. In that speech, he reflected on the three golden threads that Lord Nolan had set out that need to be delivered alongside the Nolan principles—first, the code of conduct; secondly, independent scrutiny; and thirdly, education.

As Lord Nolan acknowledged, the Nolan principles were not a code of conduct, but the values that would underpin a code. An effective code needs to clearly detail the behaviours that those in public office must observe to repay the public’s trust and confidence, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred to. The principles are a foundation, but the behavioural code is not quite there. There are examples in the councils that the hon. Member mentioned, and actually in some councils right across the country, of bad behaviour being far too common. That cannot stand.

While the standards proposals that the Government have been consulting on are for whole system reform, at their foundation is the proposal for a mandatory code of conduct. We believe that a mandatory code is vital to achieving consistency across all the various types and tiers of local government. The current regime simply requires all local authorities to adopt a code that is consistent with the Nolan principles. Some take the de minimis approach of simply listing the seven principles. Others have very detailed local codes. That lack of consistency is not helpful to the system overall. It is confusing and means that we cannot have confidence that all are judged to the same standard equally across the system.

That does not happen in the devolved nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have mandatory codes of conduct in place, based on the Nolan principles but setting out detailed interpretation of the expected behaviours.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Where there are bad behaviours, that often results in significant legal costs to the local authority and settlement payments. The Government are giving more powers to combined authorities. Does the Minister agree that where a combined authority incurs significant legal costs and settlement payments relating to staff who have left, whether employed or interim, that information should be shared in a timely fashion with board members? If so, will he write to me to confirm that that is the Government’s position?

[Jim McMahon]

We have set out a very clear expectation about transparency and all authorities, whether they are local authorities or combined authorities, always acting in the public interest and being up front about information that they hold. That expectation is clear. I can respond in writing in more detail.

[Steve Barclay]

Can I press the Minister on that point? Does that transparency include sharing those settlement payments and legal costs with the authority’s board members? It strikes me as remarkable if those costs are not even shared with board members. He has very helpfully clarified that he expects transparency. I would like that transparency to be with the public—perhaps he can say something on public disclosure—but can he at least confirm that the information should be shared with board members?

[Jim McMahon]

I will follow up after the debate on the example that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I commit to finding out a bit more information through the Department and will respond in writing. As a matter of principle, it is not unreasonable to expect that board members, as opposed to the wider public, are informed about matters of financial relevance to the operation of the board. That seems fairly self-evident to me. If he provides more information on the particular case, which I am not familiar with, I will certainly come back to him on that.

I am enormously grateful for the more than 2,000 responses that we received to the Government’s standards consultation. We are working at pace to analyse the results. We will think carefully about how to take into account the views that were expressed for each of the proposals that we have set out. The Government response will be issued in due course, and after its release, we will continue to work actively with local government on developing detailed implementation.

The hon. Member for South Leicestershire mentioned reorganisation, and although I completely acknowledge the examples of poor behaviour that he identifies—I have witnessed such things in some authorities, too—I would be careful not to attach local government reorganisation as an inherent risk to the standards and behaviours of councillors. I think this is cultural, and it is about a lack of framework and, honestly, slightly a result of a standards regime that has not got teeth.

There are some members who know that what they are doing is not right, and that that is not just about free speech, but about abusing the position they hold and the freedoms. We often see that relationship, where elected members who are holding court in the council chamber attack officials on the top table who have no power to respond themselves. We see that power imbalance taking place. I suspect that most elected members who are behaving in that way know exactly that their behaviour is not okay, but they also know that the standards regime has no teeth to deal with that, so what are the consequences? I would be careful not to attach that behaviour to the reorganisation point, because we want to rebuild the system from the ground up, so that every council in England—whether they are part of the 21 counties going through reorganisation or are among the rest—is subject to the same robust standards regime that does have teeth.

Let me return to the subject under debate by dealing with some of the points about not allowing the system to be used for political ends and how it has to be held up to all scrutiny at all levels. This is about having a proportionate system that can hold up to scrutiny and be tested, but it has to be mandatory. It must have sanctions that matter, including the power of suspension, the power to withhold allowances, if that is correct, and the power for premises bans, if there is a safeguarding risk at play. We have examples where councillors can be on police bail for sexual assaults, and during police bail, they can attend council meetings and attend the premises. That clearly would not be acceptable to most members of the public, but the current regime allows that, and that cannot be allowed to stand. Perhaps more controversially, the system should include disqualification in some cases for more serious breaches.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Steve Barclay and Jim McMahon

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I cannot commit to that today. What I can do is to commit, from a political point of view, that the Government are willing to work cross-party and through APPGs to understand the weight of the issue and the potential solutions. I will be honest, though: we need to manage expectations on whether we can get consensus in this place on a new form of council tax or local property tax, but that does not mean we are not willing to listen to arguments.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

We saw one area of consensus when the Minister responded to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) about internal drainage boards, and I welcome his recognition of the problem in areas such as Fenland in the Cambridgeshire fens. That was a pertinent point, and I thank him for his comments.

Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us whether any council will be worse off when this settlement is netted against the additional costs of employer national insurance contributions and those of their suppliers? According to reports that we have been given, a number of councils will be worse off. Can he rule that out?

[Jim McMahon]

The £515 million of investment from the Treasury to help councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions has been distributed on the basis of their net service expenditure costs. We thought that that was the fairest way of establishing an evidence base that could be scrutinised. There have been legitimate representations about third-party provider costs in some critical areas, such as social care. We accept the figures from the Local Government Association because we have no reason to dispute them, but our difficulty is that that in itself does not mean that the cost will be passed on directly to the local authority in question. Some parties are bound by contracts that mean that they cannot pass it on even if they wanted to. There will be negotiations about the ability of a provider to absorb that cost, but we do not underestimate the problem. No one is going to pretend that this settlement fixes the system. What we want to try to do is stabilise the system through a multi-year settlement with bigger reforms.

[Steve Barclay]

I commend the Minister for the constructive way in which he addressed my question, but I think it important to be clear. He seems to be saying that as a result of this settlement, a number of councils will be worse off. We understand the context, but I think he has just confirmed expressly that councils will be worse off as a result of the tax rises that the Chancellor has imposed and which this settlement does not fully meet.

[Jim McMahon]

I think that that is true up to a point, but we need to take a couple of factors into account. First, the payment relating to employer national insurance contributions goes straight to the council. Secondly, this needs to be taken in the round. For the right hon. Gentleman’s own council, the social care grant is £48 million, the social care change grant is £6.7 million, and when it comes to third-party providers, the market sustainability and improvement fund is £10 million. We are trying to meet the demand in a very complex environment, but, as I have said, there is no pretending that this will fix a broken system in one fell swoop. The reform will take time.