England's local authority standards reforms: What councils need to know

The UK Government has confirmed a suite of reforms to strengthen the local authority member code of conduct and standards regime in England.

These changes, announced following a 2024 consultation on local government ethical standards, aim to address long-standing criticisms that the current system lacks “teeth” and effective enforcement powers. We analyse what these changes mean for councils and monitoring officers.

The current situation and case for reform

Under the existing framework (established by the Localism Act 2011), councils have only limited sanctions for misconduct (such as public censure or removal from committee roles), with no ability to suspend misbehaving councillors or withhold their allowances. This has led to concerns that serious breaches, such as bullying, harassment, or other unethical behaviour, are not adequately punished.

Such shortcomings can undermine public trust, and these concerns have crystallised in numerous instances that we have been consulted on and have discussed with monitoring officers and deputy monitoring officers. This leaves statutory officers in very challenging situations where their ability to protect employees, officers, other elected officials, or members of the public is severely limited.

In our view, subject to reviewing the new legislation that will be required to implement these changes, the Government’s proposed reforms promise a more robust and consistent standards system. However, they also raise an intriguing question: Are these changes essentially a return to the pre-2011 standards regime that was previously dismantled?

Key changes confirmed by the Government

In a ministerial statement responding to the consultation outcome, the Government outlined plans to legislate for a comprehensive overhaul of the local government standards framework.

These changes are designed to amount to a substantial strengthening of the standards framework, addressing many of the deficiencies identified in recent years. Collectively, they aim to create a system where misconduct is met with credible sanctions, and both councillors and the public can have greater confidence that ethical breaches will be dealt with fairly but firmly.

The proposed measures include:

1. Mandatory national code of conduct 

Every council in England will be required to adopt a new mandatory code of conduct for elected members. This national code will set out minimum standards of behaviour (grounded in the Nolan Principles of Public Life) and provide detailed expectations for councillor conduct. A single mandatory code aims to ensure all members are held to the same standards, bringing clarity and consistency across all types and tiers of local government, and more closely mirroring the approach seen in the devolved nations.

2. Formal standards committees in every authority

All principal councils (district, county, unitary, etc.) will be required to establish a standards committee to oversee member conduct issues. Many councils already have a standards committee or sub-committee, but it has not been a statutory requirement under the current regime. The reforms will formalise this. A consistent committee structure and procedure, guided by national rules, should help address the current variability in how councils handle misconduct allegations.

3. Support for complainants and respondents

Councils will be required to offer dedicated support to both the person raising a misconduct complaint and the councillor accused, during any code of conduct investigation. By providing such support, the process should become more navigable and less intimidating for all involved. In turn, this may improve the quality of evidence, engagement by parties and the outcomes in standards cases.

4. Right to request a local review 

Both the complainant and the subject member will have a statutory right to request a local review of a council's initial decision on a conduct complaint. The grounds and process are intended to be defined in legislation to seek to prevent frivolous appeals. This review mechanism adds local accountability and quality control, mirroring the old standards board system whilst ensuring mistakes can be corrected without immediately escalating beyond the council.

5. Power to suspend councillors

Perhaps most significant is the plan to give local authorities the power to suspend elected members for serious breaches of the code of conduct. Under the proposal, a council’s standards committee could suspend a councillor for up to six months as a sanction for substantial misconduct. Importantly, councils would also be allowed to withhold the member’s official allowances during the suspension period for the most serious cases. Councils may even impose conditions on the individual’s access to council premises or resources during the suspension. These powers do not exist under the current framework.

6. Interim suspensions for serious allegations

In cases where a councillor is facing the most serious allegations - for example, where a criminal investigation or charge is pending in relation to their conduct, councils will have powers to impose an interim suspension. This interim measure could last for an initial period (e.g. up to three months, subject to regular review) and is designed to protect the public interest while due process is ongoing. The threshold for interim suspension will need to be high.

7. 'Two strikes' disqualification rule

The reforms introduce a new disqualification trigger for repeat offenders. Any councillor suspended for the maximum period (six months) twice within five years would be automatically disqualified from office. This strike rule is intended to remove those showing a pattern of egregious misconduct. It deliberately stops short of allowing a single instance to result in disqualification thus balancing firmness with fairness. Disqualification otherwise remains a matter for voters or existing legal provisions (such as laws disqualifying councillors upon certain criminal convictions). A councillor with one suspension on record will know that a future lapse could end their local government career.

8. National appeals body

A new national appeals mechanism will be established to ensure consistency and impartiality. After the local process (including the right of review) is exhausted, either party can appeal to an independent body at national level. The Government has yet to confirm the exact form of this body - it could be a dedicated tribunal or an adaptation of an existing structure (e.g. the Local Government Ombudsman). This resembles the Adjudication Panel for England under the pre-2012 regime with an important distinction - rather than investigating cases from scratch, it will review local decisions to ensure uniform standards of justice.

Will these reforms give the regime more “teeth”?

In our view, yes, provided the legislation delivers on the Government's proposals as described. 

The new enforcement powers should bolster the regime's effectiveness considerably. By empowering councils to suspend members and impose tangible penalties, the regime will have real bite for the first time in over a decade.

Behaviour that currently might result only in a mild reproach could, under the new system, lead to a councillor being removed from their duties for up to six months and potentially losing their allowance. Such consequences represent a dramatic shift in incentives, providing a far stronger deterrent against serious ethical lapses, particularly bullying or harassment that previously might have gone effectively unpunished. The possibility of eventual disqualification for repeat offenders adds a long-term incentive for good behaviour, since a second major lapse could end one's role in public office altogether.

Thus, the introduction of a mandatory national code of conduct and stronger oversight mechanisms should also contribute to a tougher, more credible regime. A single, enforceable code means no council can adopt a minimalist standard; instead, all authorities will be held to a rigorous common baseline. Additionally, creating a national appeals body provides important checks and balances, ensuring that if a council is too lenient (or too harsh) in dealing with a breach, there is an independent review mechanism. This encourages consistency and fairness across the country and may give local standards committees more confidence to impose strong (but justified) sanctions.

Beyond just creating tougher sanctions, the reforms aim to improve the process and culture around enforcing standards. The requirement for formal standards committees and structured review/appeal routes mean complaints should be handled more consistently and openly. When councillors and the public see that misconduct allegations lead to an impartial process and, where proven, to serious consequences, confidence in the standards regime will grow. This may embolden those in authority to actually use the system, rather than shrugging and essentially saying that bad behaviour is something they 'can't really do anything about'.

Of course, whether these positive outcomes are realised in practice will depend on how the legislative changes are drafted and implemented.

Back to the future: Reverting to the pre-2011 model?

Observers of local government may note that these reforms bear a striking resemblance to the standards regime that existed in England prior to 2011, the very system dismantled by the Localism Act. Between 2001 and 2011, councils operated under a national model code of conduct, with local standards committees (including independent members) and oversight by a national body (the Standards Board for England) which had powers to suspend or disqualify councillors for breaches.

In 2012, the Standards Board was abolished, mandatory codes and independent local committees were eliminated, and councils were left to oversee councillor conduct themselves with only minimal sanctions. This was a deliberate policy decision by the then Coalition Government, which argued that the old regime was overly bureaucratic and that councillors should ultimately be held to account via the ballot box.

Now, however, we appear to have come (almost) full circle. The new reforms, as described by the Government before Christmas, appear to reintroduce many key features of the pre-2011 system: a national code of conduct, mandatory standards committees, the ability to suspend councillors, and an independent national oversight mechanism. 

In many respects, this is a return to the earlier model, an implicit acknowledgement that the pendulum swung too far in removing those "teeth" over a decade ago.

That said, the new regime is not a carbon copy of the old Standards Board system. Some key differences include:

1. No standalone "Standards Board" quango

The new proposals appear to introduce a national appeals function to review cases after local consideration, rather than recreating a full standalone agency. Local authorities will retain primary responsibility for investigating and deciding on conduct complaints, preserving the principle of local ownership, but now with a 'safety valve' if things go awry. We are still awaiting more details, however, to fully understand how the national appeals function will operate.

2. Proportional Sanctions and Safeguards

The new system's maximum suspension is six months (albeit with potential disqualification on a second offence), more modest than the penalties from the pre-2011 era. The introduction of clear rights of review and appeal, along with requirements to support both complainants and those accused, are measures intended to prevent the procedural unfairness or perceived political vendettas that some critics associated with the old regime.

3. Focus on culture and prevention

The Government's rhetoric emphasises culture change as much as punishment. The reintroduction of a national code and enhanced training are seen as ways to set expectations clearly and reinforce positive behaviour from the outset.

Nonetheless, there is clear recognition that the lighter-touch, localist approach of the past decade has not delivered the accountability and high standards hoped for. England is essentially re-aligning itself with practices still in place in Wales and the rest of the UK. We advise on code of conduct matters in Wales, and with the proposed changes announced by the Government in England, it appears that England is re-aligning itself with processes still seen in Wales and the rest of the UK. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all retained their standards mechanisms (standards commissions or ombudsmen with sanctioning powers) in 2012, and whilst these systems are not without their critics, they have continued to function, largely without the high profile criticisms seen in England.

Reintroducing elements of the old system is not without risks. There is the possibility of a resurgence in politically motivated or petty complaints now that real penalties are at stake. The Government will need to ensure the new framework has provisions to swiftly filter out vexatious complaints. The continued role of the independent person and the presence of independent co-opted members on standards committees will be crucial in this regard.

Looking ahead: Implementation

With the consultation complete and ministers committed to reform, the focus now shifts to implementation. Legislation will be needed to enact these changes. 

The timeline for that has not yet been published. However, we understand that stakeholders across local government, including councils, the Local Government Association (LGA), and monitoring officers - will likely contribute to the detailed design of the new regime as it moves forward.

Some practical considerations include:

1. Defining the mandatory code

Who will write the new model code of conduct, and what exactly will it contain? The LGA's 2020 model code could serve as a starting point, with tweaks to reflect the new sanctions and modern issues like social media conduct.

2. Standards committee composition

Regulations will likely prescribe aspects of standards committees, for instance, requiring a certain number of independent members, or even an independent chair. Training for committee members will be necessary to ensure they can handle investigations and hearings properly and fairly.

3. Resourcing investigations

More robust enforcement may lead to more complex or frequent investigations and hearings. Councils will need to consider how to resource this - whether through dedicated officers, shared arrangements between authorities, or external investigators for sensitive cases.

4. Role of the national appeals body

Clarity is needed on what entity will handle appeals and how its decisions will be enforced. Establishing a credible and accessible appeals process will be key to the overall integrity of the system.

Looking ahead: Impact

In terms of impact, if these reforms are successfully implemented, we should expect a period of adjustment. Initially, there may even be a spike in complaints as people test the new system. High-profile cases of suspension could make headlines, placing greater pressure on standards committees and monitoring officers to handle matters in a fair and proper manner.

Over time, however, the hope is that behaviour will improve and that the worst misconduct will be deterred or swiftly and, or at least, proportionately dealt with. A stronger enforcement regime not only punishes bad behaviour, it also incentivises good behaviour.

The reforms also constitute a political statement about accountability, signalling that the Government takes the Nolan Principles and ethical governance seriously. This is especially pertinent as England pursues further devolution and localism, ensuring that greater local autonomy goes hand-in-hand with strong ethical oversight.

The coming years will reveal whether this enhanced standards regime truly leads to better behaviour and higher public trust. Success will depend on consistent, effective execution. 

As the system gains "teeth", it must bite fairly. We will be watching these developments closely.

We regularly advise on standards and conduct matters, supporting monitoring officers or deputy monitoring officers and acting as an independent investigator where matters have been referred for external investigation. If you have any questions or require any support, please contact us.