| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'a member of the executive'
'any member or officer of that or any other relevant authority'.
Amendment No. 40, in page 38, line 24, leave out from "three" and insert "five".
Amendment No. 41, in page 38, line 25, at end insert--
'(2A) The Standards Board for England must be comprised of persons possessing such qualifications as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(2B) Qualifications under subsection (2A) shall include not less than four years' continuous service as either a member or officer of a relevant authority.'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 40, line 17, leave out--
', within the period of five years ending with that time,'.
Amendment No. 43, in page 40, line 18, leave out "five" and insert "ten".
Amendment No. 44, in page 44, line 5, after "investigation", insert--
'of the outcome of the investigation, and provide any such member with a copy of any report under this section before it is made available to any other person'.
Government amendments Nos. 153, 154 and 155.
No. 45, in page 57, line 30, and insert--
'( ) Pending the verdict of the High Court on any appeal under subsection (15), the appellant shall not be disqualified, other than in exceptional circumstances set out in writing by the Standards Board.'.
Government amendment Nos. 209, 203 and 204.
Amendment No. 4, in page 91, leave out lines 20 and 21.
Mr. Loughton: Having sat here for the past four and a half hours and seen trashed by the guillotine great lines of amendments for which I was responsible, it is a relief to be able to move and speak to new clause 3 and to some of the amendments in this group.
New clause 3, which deals with standards of conduct, was discussed briefly in those halcyon days when the Bill was considered in Committee. I think that the new clause's purpose is quite clear: to give protection to local taxpayers if the criminal actions of one or more councillors or officers results in costs to the authority as a whole. The effect of the new clause would be that, when a miscreant was found guilty of a criminal offence, it would be at the judge's discretion to impose a restitution order on the guilty party, to order him to pay a sum to a council to cover some or all of the costs resulting from his actions.
As we also discussed in Committee, there is a broad consensus that surcharging has passed its sell-by date. However, there is a sound principle behind surcharging--that local taxpayers should not have to foot the bill when a few rotten apples abuse the position of trust in which they have been placed.
As the new clause would apply only in cases in which there had been a successful criminal prosecution, a high standard of proof would be required before the axe could fall on individuals. The risk of unjust or unduly severe penalties would be minimised both by that fact and by the fact that the penalty would be at the discretion of the judge in the individual case, who, having heard all the evidence, beyond the straight guilty verdict, would be able to make an informed judgment on intent and degree of responsibility.
During the debate in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that she was sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause, but believed that the courts already had powers in that regard. However, an authority would have to pursue a separate action to recover its costs. The new clause would ensure that the same court considering the criminality of a person's actions would also be able to determine the penalty. That would mean that the courts would not become clogged, and that authorities would not have to gamble potentially large sums in lawyers' fees for further court action to recover relatively small amounts.
It is slightly disappointing that the Government have not chosen to follow up the idea, given the sympathy for the idea expressed in Committee. We feel that the proposal would reassure local council tax payers that councillors and officers who abused their positions would be sufficiently punished.
Amendment No. 34 deals with the duty to comply with the code of conduct. In Committee, I raised the potential problem of whether councillors should be covered by the model code of conduct for activities outside those involved in being council members. I gave the example of councillors who are appointed as school governors, as members of community health councils or of economic partnerships, and so on.
The Minister assured the Committee that councillors nominated by their respective councils to outside bodies should be covered by the model code of conduct. However, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) raised the subject of indemnification. He asked whether such councillors would be covered by their councils for any indemnities that they might have.
The question of indemnification has not been addressed by the Government, which is why we are relaunching the amendment today. I should be grateful for a response on that matter from the Under-Secretary of State.
Amendments No. 35 to 39 deal with standards committees. In Committee, we discussed this matter at some length, although the role of standards committees remained unclear. We appreciated some of the intentions behind the committees, but it was not clear how they would carry out the functions that had been described. The amendments would bolster the integrity of the members of the standards committee in the eyes of council tax payers and the electorate at large. They would therefore strengthen the Bill, rather than weaken it.
Councillors themselves have raised the points contained in the amendments. At present, the Bill requires that only one independent member must be appointed to a standards committee. We propose that standards committees should contain more than three people. In addition, we propose that, to be truly independent and to carry out properly their role of overseeing the conduct of councillors and the training and conduct of councillors referred to them, they should have a majority of independent members.
We also propose that standards committees should not be chaired by members of the executive, and that they should not even contain such members. We believe that a standards committee investigating questions of potential misconduct, or queries from the public involving members of the council executive, would be in an anomalous position under the Bill as it stands. The amendments would prevent possible conflicts of interest if standards committees have to deal with breaches of the code that involve members of the executive.
Some people have suggested that all the members of standards committees should be independent, others that they should consist of members of neighbouring authorities. That would allow them to play the sort of twinning, overseeing role that takes place at the moment, for example, when audits are conducted. Still others have suggested that several authorities should pool together for a single standards committee, as I gather already happens in west London. In that way, they could not only share best practice, but cut down on costs. That would seem a good, practical suggestion, but as the Bill stands, such a sensible procedure would not be permissible.
10 pm
The Minister was also vague about what powers will be available to members of the standards committee, in particular their role in those cases referred back to them by the national Standards Board for England. It was a feature of the report by the Joint Committee, which asked whether it was appropriate for members of the executive to be members of the standards committee as well.
In Committee, the hon. Lady accused me of being inconsistent and, now, prescriptive in making these suggestions. However, we are merely trying to maintain the integrity of the new committees that the measures are establishing. The hon. Lady also said that local authorities and their members should have ownership of the standards committees and their own code of conduct, although I cannot think of other areas, such as politics or financial services, in which the Government have been so keen on self-regulation. Does the Minister not think that our amendments would actually strengthen the role of the standards committees, and what is the point of them otherwise?
Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 deal with the standards boards. As presently constituted, they would have a minimum of three people. We propose that their membership should consist of at least five people and that those people should have appropriate qualifications. The new standards board is potentially immensely powerful; it will have the power to make or break the careers of councillors whose misdemeanours come before it. To have just three members of the national standards board also seems rather unfair; one has been designated as chairman, one as deputy chairman and the poor third one will be left out as an ordinary member.
There are other examples of committees fulfilling and overseeing scrutiny and disciplinary roles which have far more members. The Neill committee, for example, consists of 11 members. What was most bizarre when we discussed these measures in Committee was that, rather late in the day, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions suddenly said that it was not the Government's intention that those committees should consist of three people, but that the quorum was made up of three people.
Nowhere in the Bill is that mentioned. It says quite clearly that the Standards Board for England is to consist of not less than three members.We invited the Minister to make it clear in the Bill that the membership of the Standards Board for England would be rather greater than three, such as five or more. Alas, the Government have again failed to address this anomaly. It was absurd; we asked the Minister when was a quorum not a quorum--apparently when it is called a standards board. I genuinely think that this had not been thought through when the Bill was drafted. That is why our amendment is a sensible and strengthening measure.
As part of this group of amendments, we suggest that members of the standards board should have at least four years' experience as councillors or officers of local authorities. That, surely, is not demanding--four years is a normal term of office for a councillor. Because this is a new committee, with immense powers over many thousands of councillors up and down the country, it seems only appropriate that its members should have had some experience in the bodies that they are overseeing.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 deal with the conduct of investigation. This is where we discussed ethical standards officers who are potentially very powerful individuals. They have the power to instigate investigations of councillors, to suspend councillors and to recommend penalties against councillors.
Given the immense powers that ethical standards officers will have--powers of investigation and to summon various documents--there should be better safeguards against such officers not having connections with the councils that they are investigating. In the amendment, we suggest that ethical standards officers should have had no link with councils that they are investigating, either as a councillor or an officer, for at least 10 years, rather than five. That seems a sensible period of time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |