Chaucer’s Parson in The Canterbury Tales made sure his life was an example to his flock. For, he declared: ‘If gold ruste, what shal iren doo?’ And while pure gold is tarnish-free, gold alloy is not. So, in the local government context, if senior officers responsible for sound corporate governance deliver an alloyed or sub-standard service, this is unlikely to promote robust corporate health.
The officers in question (collectively known as the ‘Golden Triangle’ or the statutory officers) are the head of paid service (chief executive), the chief finance officer and the monitoring officer. As the government’s previous Constitutions Guidance indicated, the head of paid service is ‘responsible for securing and managing the professional body of staff needed to deliver modern, effective, well focused services’. The chief finance officer is accountable for the proper administration of the authority’s financial affairs, and the monitoring officer for corporate legal propriety.
As the Local Government Association (LGA) indicates, these roles ‘together maintain the organisation’s corporate health and effectiveness’. According to the LGA: ‘The Golden Triangle should provide mutual trusted support but also recognise the separation of powers and duties between the three roles, so that each is able to demonstrate independence, challenge and balance to deliver better governance outcomes across the authority.’ And by section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999, relevant authorities are required to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. This is regulated by (among other provisions) section 15(5) of that act, which empowers the secretary of state to direct the authority to take any action which he or she considers necessary or expedient to secure its compliance with the requirements of the best value duty.
A 1666 proverb tells us that ‘one learns as long as one lives’. And by a subsequent adage: ‘If you don’t make mistakes, you don’t make anything.’ We must all recognise the truth of those. Mistakes are an essential part of the learning process.
That will no doubt be borne in mind by all local authorities when another council falls publicly short. As was the case when, on 22 January 2025, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government issued a section 15(5) direction (the direction) under the 1999 act, since he was satisfied that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the authority) was failing to comply with its best value duty.
The direction required that the authority work with envoys (the envoys) appointed by the secretary of state towards achieving requisite corporate improvements as detailed in the direction. On 17 March 2026, the secretary of state revised directions requiring the authority (among other things) to take appropriate action to ensure compliance with its best value duty in relation to leadership, governance, culture, partnerships and community engagement, continuous improvement and use of resources.
On 30 January 2026, the envoys had written to the secretary of state and minister of state with their view of the progress made by the council following the intervention. The envoys noted (among other things) that: ‘Overall, the pace of change and impact have been too slow and after one year in intervention the council has had a few false starts which are costing them time, energy and resource.’ Of the statutory officers constituting the Golden Triangle, the envoys reported that: ‘Statutory officers collectively have a duty to challenge unacceptable behaviour and set the culture for the organisation and should take a robust advisory and expectation setting role.’ And a ‘members will be members’ approach is inadequate, for: ‘It is too simplistic for senior officers to view any opposition member’s challenging behaviour as just an inevitable potential political barrier to progress.’ The envoys, therefore, were ‘not currently confident that the council’s officers are managing the political environment effectively to minimise these challenging behaviours’.
The envoys were particularly trenchant on the Golden Triangle, commenting that they have ‘not yet seen sufficient evidence that the Golden Triangle is functioning [to provide visibly robust challenge] and our view is that it remains fragile. The monitoring officer will need to robustly challenge the senior officers and elected members of the council as the local election draws closer, and this will need to continue after the election.’ As to the other statutory officers, they ‘will need to support the monitoring officer in delivering and reinforcing appropriate challenge. They must work together to create greater organisational trust alongside improving the levels of openness and transparency’.
The monitoring officer is generally a difficult role. And while most authorities try hard to provide best-value services within a sound corporate governance framework, it is always wise to remain vigilant and encourage a culture of self-examination and challenge. However, the dial can sometimes slip quietly to red in the best of authorities. If that happens, the support of the other statutory officers will be crucial. But if, on rare occasions, this is not forthcoming, the monitoring officer must summon the strength, determination and resilience to hold the lawful governance line alone, as necessary, with support from the external auditor and leading counsel. For should a statutory report under section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 be necessary, this is no fast route to popularity.
In such circumstances, senior colleagues from Lawyers in Local Government can provide an invaluable reservoir of support and experience. And as Joe Kennedy (father of former president John) once remarked: ‘When the going gets tough, the tough get going.’
Nicholas Dobson writes on local government, public law and governance
No comments yet