Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
17 JANUARY 2005
RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP AND MR
PAUL ROWSELL
Q240 Mr Betts: And how do you see the
local standards committees operating in the longer term? What
is their central role? Do you think they can be seen to be demonstrably
free from bias, which I think is one of the tests about how people
perceive the process?
Mr Raynsford: I have given quite
a lot of thought to this and I have spoken to both the Standards
Board annual conference on the subject and also to a very interesting
meeting I had with the independent members of standards committees
in the Greater Manchester area, where I was invited to talk a
month or two ago. My view overall is that they are working generally
well but they have a balance to achieve. On the one side they
have to convince the public that they are independent, and the
presence of independent members is crucial to that. On the other
hand, they are not to be so independent that the local authority
does not itself take ownership for the whole issue of standards
and encouragement of good practice in the authority, so you need
to have not just independent members but councillors who are thoroughly
committed and involved. Now, inevitably there are some people
in the public who regard the presence of councillors on a local
standards committee as prejudicing the outcome, because they will
have a vested interest. I do not think that is the case but I
do think it is a delicate issue and standards committees do have
to do these two separate things. In general I think they are doing
well; I am keen to see the role of independent members developed—I
myself have expressed sympathy for the view that in general standards
committees should be chaired by independent members, I think that
is a way of giving a very strong message of reassurance to the
public that committees are not likely to be swayed by the interests
of the council. But again I do not wish to be unduly prescriptive
in this area. It is a matter for local government and what we
are trying to do is help, with the Standards Board itself, raise
the confidence of individual standards committees and let them
share good practice. One of the reasons I was particularly keen
to go to that gathering in the Greater Manchester area was that
it brought different independent members from different standards
committees together, and that sharing of good practice is I am
sure very constructive.
Q241 Christine Russell: You said in an
earlier answer that you welcomed the review of the code of conduct.
Why do you welcome it? What concerns do you have with the existing
code? Do you consider it ambiguous or confusing? What is the concern?
Mr Raynsford: I think my response
is implicit in an earlier answer I have given—that we are
in an area which is rapidly developing; this is a new institution;
it has already a lot of experience, and inevitably some of the
assumptions we have made at the outset have not proved to be sustainable.
I have talked about the need to change legislation relating to
the role of the monitoring officer because of potential conflicts
of interest, so things like this emerge from the experience of
the work of the Board and of standards committees, and therefore
it seemed to me this it is timely, now that we have had two and
a half years of practical experience, to begin to look at the
ways in which the code might be changed. I do not think it is
going to require fundamental changes but I do think it is an appropriate
moment to take stock to see where in some cases modest adjustments
might help to improve things and other areas where there may be
a case for looking a bit more radically. I know the issue of whistle-blowing
has been a matter of real concern and I am sure it is sensible
to look again at that because there are conflicting interests
there. On the one side you have the need to discourage a culture
of collusion that might prevent exposure of malpractice; on the
other side you have to avoid a framework that creates undue pressures
on councillors and which might be seen to be unduly prescriptive.
Q242 Christine Russell: Do you have another
concern which is the fact that it appears to be that the code
of conduct has actually deterred a number of people from putting
themselves forward as candidates, particularly for the smaller
authorities like parish councils?
Mr Raynsford: I do not accept
that. I think we heard a lot of hype in the early days that this
was going to lead to a mass exodus from parish councils; in my
experience it was greatly exaggerated. The fact of the matter
is that parish councillors were subject to standards before. It
was not a case of new imposition. What the code did was to codify
expectations for the first time, which I think was frankly helpful,
and it did quite rightly fire a warning shot across the bows of
those who believed that, because they were part of a relatively
small body, they had no need to worry about the standards and
practice of public life that everyone knows are appropriate. I
have to say I do not accept that presumption at all. Whatever
level of public life you are engaged in, whether parish council
or in government, I think maintenance of the highest standards
is absolutely fundamental to public confidence, and I think it
was absolutely right to apply the code to parish councils and
I do not think there has been across the country as a whole any
serious loss of talent from parish councils. There has been, I
am certain, greater sensitivity to standards of openness and declaration
about prejudicial interests and, judging by the volume of complaints
that the Standards Board has received, that is a matter of real
concern to many people in many areas who felt previously that
some parish councils did not always uphold the standards one would
want to see in public life.
Q243 Christine Russell: But without wishing
to condone any prejudicial behaviour, can you not accept that
sometimes there are individuals who have real, serious conflicts
of interest because they live in a small community and perhaps
wear an awful lot of different hats in that community? They could
be a school governor, a church warden, could run a number of voluntary
activities. Is it not more challenging perhaps to be a parish
councillor and comply with the code of conduct than perhaps if
you were a councillor in a big metropolitan area?
Mr Raynsford: I genuinely do not
think so. You, like me, live in your constituency and will know
that a public representative living in their community is going
to be subject to quite a lot of scrutiny, and the principles of
openness and declaration of matters that might be prejudicial
to their public performance—this is not a question implied
about people having to reveal their private circumstances, that
is not the case, but on matters that might affect their performance
of public duties—I think disclosure is proper and appropriate.
Q244 Mr O'Brien: The evidence that has
been presented to the Committee and comment that has been made
by members and organisations is that the code of conduct has given
opportunity for troublemakers to make capital out of what is happening
in their own area for political gain. Do you think the Standards
Board have been effective in preventing this kind of activity?
Mr Raynsford: This is always going
to be an issue which does raise concern as to whether the existence
of a mechanism for complaint encourages the vexatious or the unjustified
complainant. I think the only way this can be resolved is by a
speedy process of filtering cases which the Standards Board now
has in place. Initial screening is handled I think within 11 days
with the objective of achieving it in ten, and those cases where
there is no merit in the complaint should be immediately filtered
out at that point, and that is the safeguard against the possibility
of unjustified and vexatious complainants making excessive use
of a system. But there is always going to be a risk with any system
that allows complaint that there will be some people who try and
abuse it for other purposes. That happens in the courts and in
tribunals and is something that we have to guard against, and
we have robust systems in place to provide safeguards but we can
never wholly prevent such cases.
Q245 Sir Paul Beresford: Do you think
the Stasi clause or the whistleblower clause inspires people to
make the excuse for those sorts of complaints?
Mr Raynsford: No. I think the
people who want to make vexatious or malicious complaints will
do so, and do so in any context. It could be in the case of a
dispute over a garden hedge with a neighbour.
Q246 Sir Paul Beresford: Some of the
evidence given to us has indicated that people on local authorities
in particular thought that this in fact did stimulate complaints.
Mr Raynsford: There is very little
evidence. We have seen a more or less constant level of cases
coming to the Standards Board over the two and a half years that
they have been fully operational. I do not see any significant
evidence there has been a huge increase or after the initial surge
a dramatic reduction, which might be expected if this was thought
to be in the short term a process of stimulating artificial complaints.
Q247 Mr O'Brien: Earlier in a question
I put to you about resources there was this issue of officers
being appointed and the fact that there was a shortage of officers
in the first instance. Do you think there should be penalties
against people where it is proved that they have been raising
frivolous or vexatious questions? It is wasting officers' time
and resources. Should it be highlighted that this is a situation
that will face penalty?
Mr Raynsford: I can understand
the thinking behind the question and I have a certain amount of
sympathy with it. The difficulty is that the process of then investigating
the vexatious complaint to establish beyond all reasonable doubt
that the person should be subject to a penalty is likely to be
disproportionate. I think the right response is to have the filter
which has the result of a quick but nevertheless serious look
at the evidence, decides that the case is non meritorious, and
the complainant is immediately notified that that is it, the case
will not be taken any further. That sends a pretty powerful message
that the system will not provide an easy route for people who
simply want to use the Standards Board for unjustified purposes.
Of course, people who repeat vexatious or unmeritorious complaints
do put themselves in a position where it would be possible for
their political opponents to expose that in the local press, so
I think there are certain safeguards. But it would be very difficult
to have to go through a process of checking in detail the basis
of that complaint, as to whether it was simply a genuine mistake,
someone thinking there might be grounds for complaint, against
someone acting irresponsibly and for malicious purposes.
Q248 Mr O'Brien: But the whole purpose
of the code of conduct is to build and extend the confidence of
the electorate, and if you are parties on a local authority who
want to score points off each other with frivolous complaints,
surely this is not the best way to encourage the electorate to
give support? As the minister responsible, and obviously you do
have concerns over some of the issues, are you intending to pursue
this matter with the chairmen of the standards boards to keep
abreast of the situation so we do not fall into that trap of a
situation where the electorate become disillusioned?
Mr Raynsford: Yes, very much so.
I will continue to keep a fairly close watch on this. I am reassured
by the fact that the trend in casework going to the Standards
Board does not show a surge and the majority of cases come from
members of public or from council officers rather than from other
councillors, but if there were to be a trend showing significant
growth in malicious an unjustified complaints then I would want
to see further consideration to be given to what might be done
to discourage this. At the moment I do not think that is the case
but I can give you the assurance that I will continue to keep
a watch on this.
Q249 Chairman: Do you not think there
should be some local filtering? You probably know who some of
the vexatious complainants in your constituency might be, and
I suspect some of the local authority members might know who in
the bodies beneath them might be. Would it not save some of the
strain on the Standards Board if there was some pre filtering?
Mr Raynsford: Undoubtedly it could
but there is a downside, which is twofold. One is that if the
filtering was to be done locally there is a risk that the public
would lose confidence in the independence of the process. In particular
the vexatious people you have described, some of whom I am well
familiar with, would never believe that the case had been rejected,
if it was rejected, fairly if it was done locally.
Q250 Andrew Bennett: They never believe
that anyway!
Mr Raynsford: I agree, but it
is much easier to demonstrate that they are wrong when an independent
body, the Standards Board, has investigated the case. Secondly,
equally importantly, there is a need for consistency between areas
and I cannot see how, if you did depend simply on local filtering,
you would not get quite significant variations in the levels of
proof, the standards of investigation, applied between areas.
So both on the question of public confidence and on consistency
I believe it is essential that there is national filtering but
it has to be done quickly and I am delighted that the Standards
Board has been very successful in speeding up that process.
Q251 Andrew Bennett: What about a moratorium
on complaints in the month before local elections?
Mr Raynsford: It is an interesting
issue because there is a genuine concern that a complainant can
get a complaint in quickly, then publicise it and can use that
for electoral purposes—
Q252 Andrew Bennett: That is why I have
asked you the question—
Mr Raynsford: I understand exactly
the anxiety.
Q253 Andrew Bennett: —so what about
answering it?
Mr Raynsford: My view about this
is that the safeguard against that—and I am not not answering,
I was only setting out the logic—against that is to have
speedy filtering of the complaints and a speedy rejection of those
that are unjustified so that the person against whom a malicious
complaint has been made for electoral purposes is able to use
that rejection by the Standards Board of the complaint to get
their own back in the course of that election. That seems to me
the best safeguard. The risk of having a moratorium is that a
genuine and serious case could not be investigated and that might
undermine public confidence if they were told there was nothing
they could do for a period of time.
Andrew Bennett: The logic of your proposal
that they get an answer quickly is people leave it closer and
closer to election date to make the complaint?
Q254 Sir Paul Beresford: And make the
complaint more complicated so that it takes time to investigate.
Mr Raynsford: All I would say
is that because I am a London member my local newspaper only appears
weekly so there is very little benefit in making the complaint
less than a week before the election because it will not get any
publicity in the local organ, so I am not sure that that does
apply.
Q255 Andrew Bennett: Sixty per cent of
the complaints in 2003-04 required no investigation. Have you
any idea whether the people who made the complaints were satisfied
with the answer that they got from the Standards Board?
Mr Raynsford: I do not have objective
evidence on that. I suspect, and you will have your own views
on this too, that some will remain dissatisfied; some will accept
the outcome. I am pretty confident that if that initial screening
had been by the local authority, a larger proportion would have
been likely to be dissatisfied because they would not have had
the confidence of knowing that it was an independent body.
Q256 Andrew Bennett: As the Standards
Board is better understood, would you hope that the number of
those sorts of complaints steadily goes down?
Mr Raynsford: Yes, because I would
hope that the very presence of the Standards Board would ensure
that vexatious and non meritorious cases would not be brought
and that the public would understand the remit of the Board and
the fact that a vexatious complaint was unlikely to be considered
so I would, but I think these things always take quite a long
period of time and I would not like to give a forecast as to when
one might expect to see that process developing across the country
as a whole.
Q257 Mr Sanders: At what point after
a complaint has been made should the person who is the subject
of the complaint be made aware of it?
Mr Raynsford: Again, a very good
question, and I know there have been anxieties on the part of
people who have been the subject of a complaint that they are
not informed during the initial screening period. I think that
is acceptable, providing two conditions are met. Firstly, that
the initial screening is very quick and, secondly, that there
is a clear statement by the Standards Board at the end of that
screening which is available to the person against whom the complaint
has been made that the complaint has been rejected.
Q258 Mr Sanders: Should the monitoring
officer of the council be informed depending on the nature of
the complaint, or is that pre judging it?
Mr Raynsford: This is an interesting
issue but there is a risk of pre judging the outcome and, while
I can see some possible merit in the argument, I would personally
want to see rather more evidence of the implications both ways
before expressing a view. This is precisely the kind of issue
that I would hope would be discussed in the course of the review
of the current code.
Q259 Christine Russell: Finally, looking
to the future, do you have any plans to change the role or the
responsibilities of the Standards Board, and when will the review
be carried out?
Mr Raynsford: We have no plans
for fundamental changes. We believe that the Board is an essential
and very necessary part of the overall architecture of the framework
for local government in this country. We do believe there is scope
for fine-tuning and improving some of the procedures and some
of the details of the code, hence the review of it. I am sure
that will be an on-going process. I would not expect to see tablets
of stone established for a few years yet and, indeed, in any good
system for dealing with complaints from the public there is probably
a constant need to be thinking about whether all the procedures
will be as good and efficient as they ought to be, so I would
not want to fix a finite time and say that by such-and-such a
year we will have got everything absolutely right. But I do repeat
what I have said, that I think the Board has made very real progress
since it came into existence; I am pleased with the direction
of travel and the speed of travel, the speed of improvement in
case-handling, particularly recently, and I am confident that
it will make a significant impact in building public confidence
in the integrity and the decency of local government.
| 
