| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Mar 2003 : Column 842—continued
Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing an amendment to an Act that was passed in 2000, long after the events that the hon. Gentleman describes. Are they relevant to the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that we are considering changing structures, and not individual cases. I believe that he has made the point that he wanted to make and gone far enough down that road.
David Winnick: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall give way shortly to the
hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who wanted to intervene earlier, but I want to make the point that if the structures had been in place at the time, the scandal that I mentioned would probably not have occurred. I therefore do not understand why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is so upset. I should like him to condemn from the Dispatch Box Lady Porter's refusal to pay the money involved.
Mr. Andrew Turner: My comments may be superfluous in view of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely wanted to say that if the structures had been in place in the 1940s, Herbert Morrison might not have vowed to build the Tories out of London.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are straying further and further from the new clause. We should revert to it.
David Winnick: I simply ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to condemn what occurred and say whether he is reasonably satisfied that the new arrangements would prevent the sort of scandal that happened in Westminster. Preventing such scandals is essential for maintaining standards in public life. I also hope that the Conservative spokesman will condemn Lady Porter's refusal to pay the money involved. It is a simple request and I hope that it will be fulfilled.
Mr. Edward Davey: The Local Government Association has considered the new clause and given it cross-party support. That is relevant to our debate and decision on it.
I was disappointed by the Under-Secretary's reply to my intervention. He said that the provisions will not tackle the problem of vexatious complaints and that he is not minded to deal with that. He should reconsider.
There is no problem with the specific proposals and I add my support to the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Proposed new section 82A(4) refers to staff being sufficient "in the officer's opinion". I, too, believe that that should be subject to a reasonableness test. Officers might decide that they wanted a suite of accommodation and a range of support staff. Although an officer's decision could probably be reviewed, the process would be costly and time-consuming. It would be much simpler if we added the word "reasonable" in the appropriate place to ensure a balance and that taxpayers' money is not wasted.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, in Committee, the Under-Secretary implied that reasonableness was built into almost any provision in any legislation? I am not sure whether he is currently operating on that basis. If so, it prompts the question of why "reasonable" appears in some places but not in others.
Mr. Davey: Indeed. That is why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I made that point. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) will have noted that the phrase "reasonably necessary" appears in proposed new section 82A(5)(c). There appears to be some confusion among those who drafted the Bill and in the Minister's thinking. That is a small point and we do
not want to press the new clause to a Division because of it, but I hope that the Minister will accept it and ensure that the measure is corrected before it appears on the statute book.
Mr. Robert Syms (Poole): I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Sub-committees are sensible because they can deal fairly speedily with any allegations against someone. People are busy, and convening a full committee can prove difficult. I therefore believe that the new clause may speed up justice in the case of a complaint. That is sensible.
The point about vexatious and frivolous complaints is significant. There are approximately 20,000 councillors in Britain but, given that number, scandals are rare. All parties have occasionally been touched by scandal, but few councillors are locked up in jail. Some are, but most are honest and diligent.
Under the current structure, party political groups tend to level complaints on a tit-for-tat basis. For example, a row happens in the council chamber and a complaint is made to the monitoring officer or the standards committee. I had experience of local government a few years ago and I have contacts today. I am always surprised by the frivolity of the complaints. One party starts, the other responds and the complaint keeps going. Guidance should include a reporting system to enable us to identify frivolous or vexatious complaints. They waste much time and effort in local government, which has many better things to do.
I am sure that monitoring officers will be pleased that they can delegate their functions. Some find themselves in the political position of being bombarded by complaints from various groups. They will be pleased to pass on their responsibilities when they can do that.
Matthew Green (Ludlow): The hon. Gentleman mentioned spurious complaints by councillors from both sides. I know of at least a couple of councils where senior officers used the threat of reports to the monitoring officer to try to keep their councillors going down the route that they would like. I am afraid that we see far too much of that officer-led situation in councils. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any similar circumstances?
2 pm
Mr. Syms: I was not aware of that, although the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
This sours relationships in local government and takes up an awful lot of time. The Minister said that the national committee has many frivolous matters referred to it. That should be made clear. Even if there were not to be a system of fines, there should at least be some system of monitoring and naming people who level frivolous or vexatious complaints, especially if they have a track record of levelling complaints that are not upheld.
Mr. Leslie: We have covered a large number of issues in a short time, which I welcome. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), I agree that there were several serious cases historically that led to the Government taking a strong
decision to make structural changes in relation to improving standards and ethics in all levels of public life, not least in local government. Several cases gave grounds for laying the foundations for some of those changes. In the case of Lady Porter, it was the auditor who concluded that there had been scandalous misconduct in that authority. That is well known and on the record. My hon. Friend made the point extremely forcefully.
David Winnick: The Minister will know that that decision has been upheld by the House of Lords, the highest court in the land. As I said, Lady Porter owes £26.5 million plus interest, and she is obviously finding outlets in various parts of the world so as not to have to pay the money owing to the London borough of Westminster.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I repeat to the Minister what I said to the hon. Gentleman when he addressed the House—that I would rather he did not pursue that matter any further?
Mr. Leslie: The matter stands on the record, then, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised a number of issues. First, he asked why these changes were not anticipated at an earlier stage, perhaps in Committee. We have here a completely new regime for identifying misconduct, carrying out investigations, conducting hearings, imposing sanctions and so forth. The regulations governing the regime need to provide for fairness and efficiency across the wide variety of circumstances that might arise in each different local authority. That makes the regulation process somewhat complex. The need for the changes that we propose was identified following extensive consultation that we undertook, particularly last summer. We tabled the amendments in response to issues that were identified by the Standards Board for England and by monitoring officers and standards committees around the country.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to clarify whether 12 people were too many for a tribunal or, indeed, a jury. It was certainly not my intention to suggest that that number was excessive. I was trying to explain in a more sophisticated manner that it is important locally that standards committees have the opportunity to set up sub-committees so that the nature of the tribunal can most appropriately reflect the nature of the allegation in question.
The hon. Gentleman made a well-spotted point in noting that the new clause contains differing descriptions of the resources that can be allocated to monitoring officers who are undertaking an investigation and those that can be allocated to people who are delegated the function as a third person and who will have the resources that are "reasonably necessary" rather than simply sufficient to perform the function. That provision is there because it would not be right to give someone who is not an employee of an authority the automatic right to specify what resources the authority should provide. A situation involving a council employee, with the normal constraints in respect
of ensuring that they have the necessary resources, differs from that involving somebody, say, from a neighbouring authority having a blanket right. That was the rationale behind the different phrases in the new clause, but I shall certainly look at that issue again to check that it does not give rise to any problems.I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for helpfully pointing out that, in general, the reasonableness test under the Wednesbury principle should also apply to any activities and judgments of public officials. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some important points about spurious or frivolous cases. It is important in any political situation that we allow complaints to go forward and that we do not put hurdles in their way. Although he may feel that too many cases concern allegations that are not well founded, some are genuinely and earnestly made, and we should not inhibit them. However, we also have to strike the right balance in ensuring that spurious complaints that are proved to be such can be dismissed quickly. In terms of inter-party banter, the public are pretty sophisticated and well able to make their own judgments about such allegations.
These are important provisions for raising standards in the ethical structures in local government and I hope that they can stand part of the Bill.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |