 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill |
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 1 March 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]Local Government and Public Involvement in Health BillClause 131Conduct
that may be covered by
code
2
pm
Amendments
made: No. 186, in clause 131, page 91, line 13, leave out from
‘conduct’ to end of line 15 and insert
‘include provisions which are to
apply at all times to a person who is a member or co-opted
member.”’.
No.
187, in
clause 131, page 91, line 18, leave
out from ‘(4)(c)’ to end of line 20 and insert
‘include provisions which are to
apply at all times to a person who is a member or co-opted
member.”’.
No.
188, in
clause 131, page 92, line 1, after
second ‘in’, insert ‘Part 3
of’.—[Mr.
Woolas.]
The
Minister for Local Government (Mr. Phil
Woolas):
I beg to move amendment No. 189, in
clause 131, page 92, line 6, at
end insert—
‘(9A) References
in subsections (6) to (8) to the code of conduct of a relevant
authority include, in relation to a relevant authority whose members
and co-opted members are subject to mandatory provisions by virtue of
section 51(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22), those
mandatory
provisions.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government new clause 17—Certain references to code of
conduct to include default
code.
I hope that the
Committee will agree that it is important that members of councils
should give a clear and transparent promise that they will abide by the
higher standards of behaviour. The amendments relate to how members of
councils will undertake to comply with the code of conduct. Such an
undertaking will,in effect, include the code’s new
remit in respect of members’ behaviour. It is a long-standing
procedure that, when taking up office, members should give an
undertaking that they will comply with the code of conduct adopted by
the authority. We want that arrangement to continue so that members
will still make a commitment.
When authorities have not
formally adopted a code, the legislation provides that the mandatory
conditions of the model code of conduct issued by the Government should
apply to their councillors. There is currently no express requirement
for members whoare subject to the mandatory provisions of the
code to
give a similar undertaking. The amendments, taken together, therefore
provide that councillors who are subject to the mandatory code should
be required to give the same undertaking to follow the code as the
legislation already provides for councillors whose authorities have
adopted a code.
The
second amendment in the group is designed to enable authorities that
have not adopted their code to operate the rules relating to the
conduct of their members more effectively. An authority that has not
adopted a code of its own will be required to maintain a copy of the
mandatory model code as part of its constitution. Provision is also
made for the functions of standards committees to extend to the
assistance of members to follow the mandatory terms of the code in
cases when the authority has not adopted a code of its own. I commend
the amendments to the
Committee.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
As we discussed this morning,
the Minister has clarified the Government’s intentions in
respect of the clause and those clarifications are welcome. However, I
hope that he will take the opportunity when replying to this short
debate on the clause as a whole to colourin a little of the
detail that he set out this morning. During the break, I returned to
the consultation on amendments to the model code of conduct that he and
the Department issued in January, just to makesure
that—[
Interruption.
] I am asked,
“What about lunch?”. That is a very good question, which
I do not intend to
answer.
It was said
this morning that the limitation on the extension of the code beyond
nine to five to 24/7 would be restricted to places where a member had
received a criminal conviction. The Minister was tested quite a bit on
what that meant. I asked whether that referred to UK criminal
convictions, but he sensibly did not venture into that territory. I
draw his attention to his consultation document, particularly to the
final paragraph on page 9, which states:
“Ministers are currently
minded to provide that only private behaviour for which a member has
been convicted by a court should be proscribed by the code of
conduct”.
That is not
exactly the same as what he said this morning in relation to a criminal
conviction. We discussed that point—about whether a conviction,
a recorded conviction or a criminal conviction was meant. I hope that
the Minister will say something about where that boundary lies and
whether he would consider introducing a Government amendment at a later
stage to make explicit on the face of the Bill the limited extent to
which private behaviour will be invaded by the code.
On a different point, I note
that at the bottom of page 10, the comment about paragraph 5 of the
draft code appears not to be controversial at all. It says that there
will be
“specific
reference to clarify the intention that an authority’s resources
should not be used improperly for party political
purposes.”
That is a common-sense provision and
mirrors closely what is said in this House.
However, I draw the
Minister’s attention to the fact that, periodically, members of
a council—particularly those in opposition parties—are
highly discontented about the use of the council’s PR machine in
the propagation of a ruling group’s policies. It happens in this
place as well: we have concerns about the waythat the
Government use their machinery, althoughI appreciate that, by
definition, anything that the Government do could not possibly be
improper. On that specific provision, it would be helpful if the
Minister set out how he is minded to advise the Standards Board or how
he believes the code should be interpreted in that grey
area.
I welcome what
the Minister said this morning about seeking an opportunity for a
debate to take place when the statutory instrument comes before the
House. That is welcome as far as it goes, but I remind him, that will
be at the point at which the code is a statutory document brought to
the House for approval. He knows that when a statutory instrument is
debated, even if the whole Committee unanimously rejects it, it has no
effect in the terms of the procedure of this House. It is therefore not
a very powerful lock, or even a constraint, on how that code is
constructed and implemented. It would be helpful if he revisited that
point and helped Members to contribute on some of the nitty-gritty
issues in the code document. I am sure that you would not permit us to
do that in the context of this debate, Mr. Benton, and
anyway we have other important matters to deal with. There is a host of
other minor issues—minor in the context of the Bill—to do
with the shape of the statutory code to come. My colleagues and I
believe that they should have an airing before the door is shut and the
key thrown away.
I
would like to comment on what the Minister said this morning about a
common code of conduct for all those in elected office—Members
of Parliament and councillors. The outside world would expect a code of
conduct for Ministers, Members of Parliament, councillors and parish
councillors that reflects ethical values and proper levels of conduct.
If an ordinary member of the general public were asked which of those
groups should have the highest standards expected of them, they would
reply, in descending order, Ministers with Government responsibility,
Members of Parliament and, somewhere further down, councillors and
parish councillors. In this country, however, we have codes that have
the stiffest standards for the people at the bottom of the
pyramid.
I do not make
any judgment about the performance of people at different levels. I
entirely agree with the Minister that the huge majority of councillors
do not just avoid ethical problems, but struggle desperately to provide
a proper service to their constituents and the last thing on their mind
is breaching those standards. It rubs hard with them to see a less
severe code applied to Members of Parliament than is applied to them. I
hope the Minister will be able to help us with that
issue.
Finally, I
return to what the Minister traded as one of his big concessions this
morning—that in future councillors will be able to support their
local communities when contentious decisions are beforethe
council. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised the case of
his golf club—sorry, not
his golf club, but an adjacent one—and the 500 houses. The
Minister explicitly said in his response to an intervention that in
future councillors would be able to participate in such
cases.
I refer the
Minister to a letter which I think was sent to all members of the
Committee, but was certainly sent to me on January 23 by Mr.
David Prince, the chief executive of the Standards Board for England.
The letter contains a before-and-after checklist comparing the
requirements of the existing code with those of the new code. On page 3
of the letter there is
a
“note on
predetermination and
bias”,
which states
that
“Members
who will be voting on a planning and licensing matter and clearly
identify themselves with an outcome to an application which they will
be involved in considering make a decision open to legal
challenge.”
That is not
because of the code; it is because of the common law doctrine on
predetermination and predisposition. I am not a lawyer. I have had the
law on that point explained to me several times and I am still
struggling with it. That it exactly the sort of matteron which
monitoring officers make their money by providing interpretations.
According to the Standards Board, at least until January, members would
not be able to take part in decision making on issues such as houses on
a golf course in their ward. I would like the Minister to comment on
that.
Will the
Minister consider tabling a Government amendment or look favourably on
an amendment from another quarter that would set aside the common law
doctrine on predetermination in respect of councillors performing their
duties on behalf of their local community? When I started as a
councillor, in 1979, nobody had discovered that doctrine. Councillors
from every party on the authorities that I served on took strong public
views about the progress of a planning application as a matter of
course, followed it through in committee and voted accordingly. The
doctrine has emerged over the past 20 years to the detriment of local
government, local democracy and strong local representation. I say to
the Minister that it should be overturned. If that requires an
amendment to the Bill, that is what should
happen.
I hope that the
Minister understands that I am in no way failing to acknowledge the
progress that has been made and I appreciate what he said earlier.
However, the Committee may have got the impression that the Minister
has gone further than he has. I will welcome any clarification from him
on the points that Ihave raised and any help that he can give
us on howwe might proceed from now to the point of
implementation of the code, so that it is appropriate to the needs of
local democracy and fully secure against any subsequent mission
creep—either from this place or from monitoring officers around
the
country.
2.15
pm
Dr. Roberta
Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab): I, too, welcome you back to
the Chair, Mr.
Benton.
I want to pick
up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. On
conduct that may be covered by the code, will the Minister consider
whether current regulations and the new draft code
adequately cover material that councils might
placeon their websites? It appears that some councillors,
including in City of Durham council, which I know well, are using
websites inappropriately and that the Standards Board does not appear
to be clear about how it can prevent that, particularly when it
involves material from individual councillors passed through
officers—for example, the relevant press officer. Such material
can be personally abusive or factually inaccurate, yet the Standards
Board appears to think that it has no jurisdiction over such matters.
Will the Minister consider that issue and, in particular, whether
current legislation is indeed inadequate to safeguard against political
bias or personal vindictiveness? If it is, will amendments be
considered on
Report?
Andrew
Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab): Personally, I have
always been sceptical of the value of the Standards Board. Serious
cases have always tended to be flushed out by the system anyway. My own
concern is that it is basically a snitch’s charter for frivolous
and vexatious complaints. I have been a victim of those
myself.
They say that
an antisocial behaviour order is a badge of honour, but I have been
reported to the Standards Board for England on three occasions and no
action was taken on any of them. Such events cause a great deal of
concern and upset, and sometimes bad publicity when the press get hold
of the allegations. A person does not always have the opportunity to
put their side directly to the press until after the hearing when they
have been cleared. Having said that, I think that the Minister has
moved considerably in the course of today’s debate.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove
has raised real points about the inconsistencies between the different
tiers of government and the standards expected. For me, as a new Member
of this House, but having been a councillor for 11 years—I still
am—it has been a real eye-opener. Were this a local government
meeting, Mr. Benton, I would first have to declare an
interest as a member of Tameside metropolitan borough council. You
would determine that I would have to leave the proceedings; I certainly
would not be able to speak, let alone vote.
To put that into context, at the
Tameside council meeting about this time last year, when the
parliamentary boundary commission’s proposals were being debated
by the local authorities, I was at a meeting of Tameside council,
where, as Member of Parliament for one of the three constituencies
being considered as part of the review, I had to declare an interest,
as did my wife, a cabinet member on Tameside council, because she is
the wife of that Member of Parliament. We then both had to leave the
council chamber and take no part in the debate or the vote that
followed. That highlights the inconsistencies between how things work
in local government and nationally.
However, planning is the major
issue. When I was21 and only just elected to Tameside council,
I had a baptism of fire. There was a controversial planning application
affecting my ward. It was a proposal to build not houses but an
industrial estate on an open green space, which happened to be a golf
course—yes, we have golf courses in Denton. That was the
Kingswater Park development, and I was proud to be one of three Labour
councillors who—I hope that the
Whip is not listening—who defied the Labour group whip and voted
against the building of that major industrial estate in Denton.
Thankfully, the Deputy Prime Minister refused it planning permission on
three occasions. The point is that there was a massive 30,000-signature
local petition. People did not want to lose their piece of open space,
and as their councillor I spoke up for them and voted accordingly. I
would not have been able to do that if some of the present rules and
regulations had been in place in 1996. I might not have been one of the
Kingswater
three.
Dr.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I shall make a few remarks now
to save me from intervening on the Minister later. We appear to be
debating two distinct issues in connection with planning. One is the
role of local councillors. At one stage when I was on Sefton council,
we considered devolving a lot of planning decisions to the area
committees. Had the Standards Board made its subsequent ruling then,
the area committees would have been incapable of determining any of
them.
A fair case has
been made that local councillors have the right to express their views
on planning matters. However, that is separate from the question
whether councillors can express opinions prior to a planning meeting. A
different kind of ruling and adjudication is involved, and that rule
seems not to stem directly from anything that the Standards Board has
produced butto have grown over time. The distinction is partly
artificial. I can recall the days when many major planning committee
decisions were ratified in full council, and I do not remember people
absenting themselves on any ground to any great extent unless they had
a direct financial involvement.
I should be interested to know
at what stage the natural history of planning committees changed and
planning councillors—those who sat regularly on the planning
committee—were forbidden to express an opinion prior to the
committee’s determination. Was it identified as unlawful, or
simply as unwise? Clearly, if a planning committee member gives their
view before seeing all the facts and hearing the case made by the
applicant, there is a firm case for the applicant to register an
appeal, win and overrule the planning committee. Have the rules binding
planning committee members always been there? Has expressing a prior
view always been unlawful, or has practice
changed?
I support the points that hon.
Members have made on the planning issue and predetermination. I
mentioned it at some length earlier today, but I think that it is
important for the Minister to help us. I am grateful to him for his
response about the Standards Board, and I appreciate the
Government’s move on that, but like the hon. Member for Hazel
Grove and others, I should be concerned if the issue were to fall
between the two stools of the common law ruling and the Standards Board
regime. Either way, the current situation is nonsense; either way, it
is wrong.
I say to the
hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that I too was elected to a council
at 21. I can only promise him that it gets better as one gets older. I
made
my maiden speech in the council chamber opposingan industrial
development in my ward. There was no problem with that under the old
regime, but the common law on the matter has grown, more judge driven
than driven by any will of the House, which is troubling. We might need
to examine it.
I served
for a time as a member of a planning committee back in the ’70s
and ’80s. The rules were not as rigid then as they are now. Our
problem now is that councillors feel gagged when dealing with key
issues. For many—particularly in small authorities, although it
applies to London boroughs as well—planning issues are the bread
and butter of their ward work, especially major issues involving
matters of principle, such as the cases that we have discussed, which
affect whole communities and not just individuals. It is important that
we do not allow—for any reason, be it judge-made law or a gap in
the regulations—an unreasonable fetter on elected
representatives carrying out their job and what the public perceive to
be their job. Any help that the Minister can give us will be much
appreciated by Members from all parties, because there is a consensus
that the current situation is not
acceptable.
Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): I rise as one who
had reached the comparatively ripe age of 24 before first being elected
to a local authority—I was a late starter. That causes me to
reflect on the average age of councillors now—the late 50s. In a
later debate we might discuss the fact that it is difficult for any
party to attract young people to become members of local
authorities.
I am more
sympathetic to the Standards Board than some of the other hon. Members
who have contributed to the debate, although I would be even more
sympathetic to a board that had a lighter touch than has been the case
of late. There is no doubt that both the board and the code have been
brought into disrepute for a number of reasons that include vexatious
complaints, high-profile cases such as that of the London Mayor, and
officers who have been over-zealous in their interpretation of the
code.
I welcome the
clause and the provisions that follow it because I have no doubt that
they will provide an appropriate balance between a national framework
and local discretion. I hope that the Committee will approve the clause
as amended. I am minded to referto the debate on Second
Reading, in which some Opposition Members expressed scepticism about
whether the Bill contained anything worth while. There is much else in
the Bill that is worth while. However, if there were there nothing else
worth while in the Bill, and there is much that is worth while, it
would be worth while for the clause and the following clauses
alone.
Mr.
Woolas:
I suspect that the Hansard report of the
last 26 minutes will be among the best read reports of a Standing
Committee that there has been for some time. Many thousands of
councillors are looking to us for guidance, so I shall be careful both
in answering the points and in my choice of words, in order to convey
the Government’s policy intention accurately.
I thank the hon. Member for
Hazel Grove for giving up his lunch—he and I were considering
the same matters. I gave the Committee the good news on local
representations and the criteria that the Government are proposing, but
there is an important point on planning and licensing that enters the
equation. My remarks were outside of those two areas, but that is not
to say that the Government disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The tests
on planning and licensing that are being questioned are not based on
the same principle. A planning committee member must abide by planning
law, and must justify his or her decisions in planning terms; the fear
of being prejudicial is what causes the problem.
The hon. Member for Southport
made an important point—he asked whether certain conduct was
unwise or unlawful. I am informed that the current position is largely
the result of case law and of the fear of appeals being contested on
case law grounds. The answer to his question is that the Government
undertake to consider the matter in a sympathetic light—indeed,
we are discussing the issue in planning policy. The problem cannot be
solved directly through the code of conduct, however; we will have to
consider the case law on
planning.
The remit of
licensing committees has changed under the Licensing Act 2003, and it
is opportune for me to undertake to the Committee to discuss the
potential future period of development in the field of licensing with
my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If a
planning area can be contentious, the grant of a licence could be even
more so, and we do not want Parliament’s will to be overtaken by
the case law that could develop in that
area.
I sincerely thank
the hon. Member for Hazel Grove for giving up his lunch. When we began
debating this part of the Bill, I said that I wanted to try to build a
consensus. If I am to be true to that commitment, I shall be obliged to
consider the points that he has made, and I shall do so with all
seriousness.
2.30
pm
I turn now to
the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and by
other hon. Members in relation to publicity and party political
propaganda. The code covers the behaviour of individual council
members. A decision by an individual councillor to misuse publicity for
party political purposes can be subject to the code as it is now and
the code as it will be, if it is implemented. There is a separate code,
a statutory code on publicity, that regulates the activities of an
authority—either groups of councils or the authority itself. If
an authority uses funds in breach of that code, it is a matter for the
auditor and for me or my successors, with the advice of officials. My
hon. Friend has written to me on that point. Therefore, the behaviour
of individual councillors and the decisions of authorities are separate
issues.
The hon. Member
for Hazel Grove made a very good point about the statutory instrument,
which is to be subject to the negative procedure. The same point had
occurred to me as a member of the former Whips’ club. It is
often not understood in the House that a negative statutory instrument
can be defeated, but that does not legally change anything. In my
earlier remarks, I added a second point that I would talk
to
the Leader of the House about it. I think it desirable to have a debate
on the code as well as on the legislation that is behind the code,
which we are debating now.
The hon. Gentleman referred to
the Standards Board’s consultation. It is perhaps not widely
understood—certainly not by the journalists who report these
matters—that the Standards Board itself is not the board that
takes decisions on conduct. The Standards Board, ably chaired by Sir
Anthony Holland and overseen by the chief executive, David Prince, runs
the Standards Board operation. It is the adjudication officer that
makes the decisions on conduct. However, the Bill provides that that
function be got rid of and that decisions be taken locally.
I believe that the change will
speed things up and cut the number of vexatious complaints, for the
simple reason—I apologise if I use layperson’s language
rather than legalistic language—is that a headline in the local
paper saying, “I have referred a fellow councillor to the
national Standards Board” is a bigger headline than one saying,
“I have referred him to the local standards
board”. Hon. Members on both sides of the
Committee are nodding, showing that they recognise what I am saying.
The experience of elected members at council level is why I want to see
party political appointments on the local committees. I believe that
the committees should have experience. Of course they should be
balanced and have an independent chair, but they should also have
experience to be able to judge these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Denton and Reddish referred to the Kingswater three. He shocked me when
he said that it was 11 years ago. The first early-day motion that I
signed was about Kingswater. My right hon. Friend the Member for
Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) told me to sign the piece of
paper and then told me what it was that I had signed. That resulted in
a phone call the following day from the leader of Tameside council, who
is still in his position. I realised then that politics was a tough old
game. I was damned if I did and damned if I didnot, so I never
signed an early-day motion affecting somebody else’s
constituency after that.
My hon. Friend made an important
point. For the record, he was referred to the Standards Board during
the course of the parliamentary selection procedure. I wondered at the
time, reading in Tameside Reporter, whether that had anything to
do with it, but who knows. He was, of course, cleared. He makes a
serious point about these processes, in which some councillors have
described themselves as being gagged. I hope that I have answered his
point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst and
others.
In light of my
opening comments—and in seeking strong support for the new
code—I have undertaken to consider the important points on
planning and licensing made in the debate and those made in the
response to the consultation on the code of
conduct.
Andrew
Stunell:
I appreciate the way in which the Minister is
approaching this matter. I am sure that he is right that the broader
the consensus that can be built, the more enduring the application of
the code can be. That consensus should extend beyond the Committee to
all our local government colleagues of all parties. Will his
reconsideration stretch as far as considering
whether, as well as reversing the judicial decisions in respect of the
Mayor of London, he might reverse those in respect of the
predetermination issue? That would be a major step forward for local
government.
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. The
Government are considering planning policy. We have made a public
commitment to a planning White Paper. I confirm that the matter is
being debated. The hon. Gentleman will have gathered from the tone of
my remarks what the thinking is inside Government. There is a cautious
note to be struck on the other side of the debate, which is that one
has, quite rightly, to protect the planning procedure. It is often
forgotten that proposers have rights as well as objectors, as the
Kingswater case
proves.
Andrew
Stunell:
I understand what the Minister is saying and I
would not want to push him so far that he predetermined his decision.
If he did so, he would not be able to participate in the final part of
the
process.
Mr.
Woolas:
That problem is avoided by the involvement of my
hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, whose job it is to
consider such matters, so I would be able to participate, but the hon.
Gentleman would probably press me on collective Government
responsibility.
I think
that I have answered all the questions. I commend the proposals to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 131,
as amended, agreed
to.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 2 March 2007 |