Third of complaints at Lancashire County Council representatives made by other elected members

A third of the complaints made about Lancashire county councillors last year were from fellow elected members.

A total of 18 allegations were lodged against the authority’s representatives – with six of them coming from other county councillors and a seventh from a member of a district council.

The list of councillor-on-councillor complaints was dominated by what were regarded as offensive comments made in meetings or on social media.  Residents raised similar issues, along with claims of “unhelpful and dismissive” responses to enquiries and the suggestion that some members were “ignoring local issues”.

Read more: South Ribble residents asked for budget ideas as maximum council tax rise planned

All of the complaints were resolved informally.  Four of the seven from county and district councillors were not found to be a breach of County Hall’s code of conduct, while the three others saw apologies issued or other corrective action taken.

Of the overall complaint tally across the 12 months between December 2023 and December 2024, the vast majority – 14 – were not considered to have broken the authority’s standards rules.   The remaining four – including the three made by other members – were resolved without the matter having to be referred to the county council’s conduct committee for a formal hearing.

The number of complaints last year was double the nine lodged in 2023 and more than four times higher than the total in 2022.

Josh Mynott, head of democratic services at the county council, said the spike was likely related to 2024 having been – and long widely expected to be – a general election year.

“That just generally heightens people’s sensitivities,” he told a meeting of the authority’s audit, risk and governance committee.

“Councillors become higher profile, people are looking out for what you say, what you write [and] what you put on your social media accounts – there is much more attention on councillors.”

Mr. Mynott also said changes to the nature of what the authority considered a complaint meant some issues that would not have been recorded in previous years were listed for the first time in 2024.

He told the committee that in spite of the increased volume of complaints, there had not been any change in “the general standards of behaviour amongst our councillors…[which] remain high”.

The authority attempts to resolve informally – wherever possible – any matters that do arise.

“Just being able to…say, ‘Look, you might not have meant it, but it caused offence, say sorry,’ [is helpful],” Mr. Mynott explained.

“Especially where there are disputes or debates between county councillors, if we can just get them in a room to speak to each other, we can often resolve lots of things.”

However, committee member Julia Berry warned while that approach might be “a success story”, it would still be worthwhile to get ”feedback” from complainants to determine whether they were happy with the ultimate resolution.

Committee member Matthew Maxwell-Scott added it was important to draw a distinction between the number of complaints and the proportion upheld.

“If people [want to] make a load of complaints for vexatious reasons that have no merit, they can – but it doesn’t actually mean anything,” he said.

The names of those complained about are not published in the annual County Hall complaints summary – nor any detail about whether any of the 84 members have attracted more than one complaint or whether the same incident has resulted in multiple complaints.

Complaints countdown

This is a breakdown of all 18 complaints made against Lancashire county councillors between December 2023 and December 2024 – and their outcomes, including whether a breach of the authority’s code of conduct was found to have occurred:

From county and district councillors:

***offensive post on social media – councillor recommended to remove the post;

***disrespectful comments during a council meeting – councillor asked to apologise and did so;

***offensive comments during a council meeting – councillor asked to apologise and did so;

***taking and sharing a photograph without consent – no breach;

***using role as a county councillor for personal financial benefit – no breach;

***discriminatory comments – no breach, but the councillor was asked to apologise for the misunderstanding and the political groups were asked to remind their members of the code’s requirements. The member apologised;

***offensive post on social media – no breach, but the councillor was asked to apologise and the political groups were asked to remind their members of the code’s requirements. The member apologised;

From members of the public:

***offensive comments by several councillors during a council meeting – the councillors were asked to apologise and all did so;

***poor conduct and lack of respect on social media – no breach;

***inappropriate email correspondence – no breach;

***not replying to correspondence – no breach;

***unhelpful and dismissive response to local concerns – no breach;

***not upholding the Nolan Principles (on standards in public life) – no breach;

 ***not disclosing a pecuniary interest – no breach;

***offensive comments on social media – no breach;

***offensive comments on social media – no breach;

***ignoring local issues – no breach;

***misleading comments on social media – no breach.

Source:  Lancashire County Council

Getting tough

The government recently revealed it was considering strengthening the powers available to sanction councillors whose behaviour is found to have fallen below expected standards.

Currently, conduct committees like the one in place at Lancashire County Council can order members who have breached the locally-set rules to send a written apology to one or more people, issue a verbal apology at a council or committee meeting or undertake training in relation to their breach.

In the devolution white paper, published last month, the government said the electorate “has the right to expect that it can trust its locally elected members to act in the best interests of their communities – and that those who do not meet the high standards expected of them are held to account”.

To that end, ministers are consulting on proposals to institute:

• a mandatory code of conduct – to establish a higher minimum standard of expected behaviours and ensure consistency and]… to cover discrimination, bullying, use of social media and other issues not featuring in the current minimum requirements;
• a requirement for principal local authorities to convene formal standards committees – to ensure all councils have formal, transparent processes to uphold and promote standards;
• a role for a national body to deal with the most serious cases and appeals, as was the case under the former system with the Standards Board for England;
• powers to suspend, including imposing premises and facilities bans – to allow local authorities to enforce their own standards. The government believes councils need the ability to address serious misconduct with powers to suspend councillors for a maximum of six months, with the option to withhold allowances;
• disqualification if a councillor is subject to suspension more than once – to curb the risk of ‘repeat offending’;
• immediate disqualification in certain instances of serious misconduct, subject to discussions with the local government sector;
• interim suspension whilst under investigation – to reassure the public that action is being taken. This could be used in serious cases that may involve protracted investigations or the involvement of police;
• publication of all code breach investigation outcomes – to enhance transparency, giving the public the opportunity to check their council’s record on maintaining good conduct.

Subscribe: Keep in touch directly with the latest headlines from Blog Preston, join our WhatsApp channel and subscribe for our twice-a-week email newsletter. Both free and direct to your phone and inbox.

Read more: See the latest Preston news and headlines