As this week's LGA conference kicks off, Kath O'Dwyer, chair of the Solace Commission on Professional Standards and Ethics, sets out why the current standards regime is failing and what a fit-for-purpose standards system should look like.

Poor behaviour in local government is too often dismissed as part of the job. It should not be.

The findings from Solace’s latest survey of chief executives and senior officers are stark and should give anyone operating in public life serious pause for thought. An astonishing 92% of our members have experienced issues of poor standards or inappropriate behaviour in the last three years. More than half (52%) believe standards among councillors are getting worse. Nearly half (45%) have considered leaving a role or organisation because of these issues.

These are not simply statistics. They tell us that the current standards regime is failing to deter poor behaviour, failing to protect those who work in the sector and, ultimately, failing residents who deserve well-functioning local democratic institutions.

Local government is operating in an exceptionally demanding environment: financial pressures remain acute, public expectations are high, political debate is becoming more polarised, while social media has amplified both scrutiny and abuse. Against that backdrop, maintaining strong standards and creating open organisational cultures has never been more important.

This is a topic that Solace has been campaigning on for many years, so we were delighted when this Government signalled its intention to strengthen the standards framework. However, we were very disappointed when no relevant legislation was included in the latest King’s Speech.

The status quo is no longer acceptable; change is a must.

So, what might that that change look like? Solace’s view is that the core principles underpinning a reformed standards system are that it is swift, impartial, and promotes accountability. It must also be balanced; allowing for appeals, whilst also preventing vexatious complaints. Let me explain in a bit more detail.

First, we think there should be a nationally prescribed, but co-produced (by the sector and national Government), code of conduct that applies consistently across all councils. Local democracy thrives on diversity of opinion, but there should be no ambiguity about the standards of behaviour expected from those in public office.

In addition, all principal authorities should be required to form standards committees to ensure that the mandatory minimum code of conduct is applied consistently and robustly across the country. Too often complaints processes are perceived as political, inconsistent or ineffective so standards committees must have the authority and independence required to do their job properly and build confidence that complaints are assessed fairly and impartially.

Thirdly, there must be meaningful sanctions available when serious breaches occur. At present, many councils can investigate complaints and uphold findings; as yet, the system is utterly lacking any ‘teeth’.

A reformed regime should allow for the suspension of councillors who commit serious or repeated breaches of the code of conduct and, if necessary, withhold allowances and restrict access to council facilities. In cases of gross misconduct, immediate disqualification should be considered. Clearly suspension and disqualification should not be the first response to every complaint. But where behaviour crosses a clear line, there must be consequences that are proportionate, credible and capable of changing behaviour.

There should also, of course, be robust safeguards. People should have the right to appeal decisions, and those appeals should be heard independently. That is why Solace argues for the creation of a National Appeals Panel to provide a transparent and impartial mechanism for reviewing the most serious cases. Such a body would help address concerns about conflicts of interest at a local level, while ensuring consistency in how standards are applied across the country.

Equally, reforms must protect against vexatious complaints. The process of triaging by the monitoring officer should be used as the primary tool to weed out such cases. But we argue that new legal powers for monitoring officers and/or local authority chief executives to deal with vexatious complaints swiftly should also be considered, including stopping repeat complainers from accessing the system.

However, we all must recognise that legislation alone will not solve this challenge.

Culture matters just as much as compliance. Strong organisations are built on respect, trust and accountability. They are environments where people feel safe to raise concerns and confident that those concerns will be taken seriously.

That is why the work of Solace’s Commission on Professional Standards and Ethics – which I am proud to chair – extends beyond reform to the standards system. Over the last nine months we have also been busy developing practical tools and guidance to help local government leaders navigate increasingly challenging environments. This includes support for councils managing political transition, and practical guidance to help leaders identify early warning signs of deteriorating organisational culture before they become more serious problems. We are also exploring how leaders can create healthier organisational environments.

These resources are important because standards are not just about what happens when things go wrong; they are about creating the conditions in which good leadership, good governance, good behaviour and good decision-making can flourish.

But ultimately without a robust standards regime the sector will remain hamstrung in its efforts. We have an opportunity to build a system that is fair, independent and effective; one that encourages respectful democratic debate while ensuring serious misconduct has real consequences. The Government should seize that opportunity – and soon. Councils, their workforces and the communities they serve deserve nothing less.