Removing the Lid

 

 

A long overdue inquiry has been made recently into the workings of local councils and their low standards.  Urgent reform has been urged in order to make the standards framework fairer, stronger and more consistent across all tiers of local government.

It has recently been reported by NALC that ‘the Smaller Authorities Proper Practices Panel (SAPPP) has replaced the AGAR form (the Annual Governance and Accountability Return) which local councils have to  complete annually and submit to a reputable auditor.  This stands at the heart of good governance and sound financial management across England's smaller authorities. This is the body that defines what best practice really means, setting the standards that guide thousands of parish and town councils in ensuring transparency, accountability, and integrity in the use of public funds.  Unfortunately, when questioned, the Betley Parish Clerk stated that she had never heard of it.  And do our residents know who the internal auditor is?

Proper practices, which apply to all smaller authorities with an annual income or expenditure of up to £6.5 million for three consecutive years (rising to £15 million from 1 April 2025), are enshrined in the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015. Compliance isn't optional, it's a legal requirement. These practices shape how parish and town councils manage their finances, maintain internal controls, and uphold the highest standards of governance.

Evidence given at this Inquiry indicated that as the first tier of local democracy it was important that a a mandatory national code of conduct should be applied consistently across all levels of local government. It was also revealed that the current system lacks clarity, consistency and meaningful sanctions, making it challenging to address persistent misconduct and eroding trust between councillors, officers and the public.  Some of the rules are so ambiguous it also means that the rules which apply can be manipulated by unscrupulous councillors and Officers and  wrongfully applied.  Standard committee Hearings (so called), in the wrong hands, are nothing short of kangaroo courts – easily manipulated (often politically) in order to slander and libel those who question, in good faith, any questionable operations of their council. 

It was noted however, that sanctions and training must operate together as part of a coherent national framework. Proportionate and enforceable sanctions, including suspension and disqualification, alongside centrally accessible and funded training, particularly for parish and town councillors, would help improve behaviour, reduce complaints and ease pressure on monitoring officers, some of whom are far from neutral in their deliberations.  Although it was hoped that any new sector-led framework would provide a sustainable foundation for raising standards over time across the board, in some councils, however, poor practice is so entrenched and resistance to training so strong that misogyny, sexism, harassment, and bad manners are seen as de rigueur in some local councils.  It would perhaps be advisable to close these and begin again.      

A key moment of the Inquiry came when the discussion of Amendment 191, was tabled by Lord Bichard. The amendment proposed the creation of local public accounts committees in every area to scrutinise public service spending and activity at a local level.  This would also be welcomed especially in councils who are less than transparent and open about their financial affairs.

Given the way in which local politics is played out in north Staffordshire, such panels would have to be independent in every respect in order to avoid cronyism, petty politics as practiced at the local levels in order to ensure openness, transparency and high ethical and moral standards and integrity.  Currently in UK suitable candidates might be hard to find.