Bryan Haines, of Callow End, Worcester, writes:

Your article Enjoy your ­freedom of speech, but not if you are a councillor – News of the Weird, June 10 – regarding ­councillors’ openness and ­transparency, although partly tongue in cheek, has very ­serious implications.

The ­councillors’ code of ­conduct requires that they ­comply with the seven principles of public life – the Nolan Principles.

The seven principles are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, ­honesty and leadership. This accountability requires that any councillors, as ‘holders of ­public office, are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to that office’.

Openness requires that any councillors, as ‘holders of public office, should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest demands it.’

Unfortunately, the current Government chose to abolish the external scrutiny and ­monitoring provided by the Standards Board for England, which has left councillors, as volunteers, vulnerable to influence from their own employees.

In April 2015, central Govern­ment introduced new Standing Order Regulations. These were introduced to abolish also the disciplinary requirements for senior council employees, which also included external scrutiny.

It was suggested formally that these new regulations ‘will streamline as well as simplify the disciplinary process for these most senior staff’.

But there is no evidence of this and central Government’s approach appears to be to ­distance itself from any responsibility, leaving local councillors isolated and vulnerable to their own employees.

It is interesting to note that Transparency International gave warnings in October 2013 of the unintended but ill- thought-through consequences of the central Government changes.

From this article, it would appear the Trans­parency International warnings are proving to be correct.

It seems to me that if central Government wants to introduce significant changes to local government, then it is responsible for the outcome.