Clause
132
Assessment
of
allegations
Mr.
Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I beg to move amendment No.
165, in
clause 132, page 92, line 20, at
end insert—
‘(1A) Where a
standards committee receives an allegation under subsection (1) it must
copy the allegation to the person who is the subject of the
complaint.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 166, in
clause 132, page 92, line 41, after
‘allegation’, insert
‘and the person who is the subject
of the
complaint’.
No.
167, in
clause 132, page 94, line 46, after
‘allegation’, insert
‘and the person who is the subject
of the
complaint’.
Mr.
Syms:
Under the clause, after a complaint goes in, the
person who makes it has to be written to after a period of time about
what is happening. However, the clause contains nothing about the
person who is being complained about. We suggest in amendment No. 165
that where a standards committee receives an allegation under clause
132(1), it must copy the complaint to the person who is its subject as
a matter of natural justice. If an allegation has been made, the person
against whom it is directed ought at least to have the right to know as
soon as possible what it is.
In proposed new section 57A(4) of
the Local Government Act 2000, the standards committee
“must take reasonable steps to give
notice in writing, to the person who made the allegation, of the
decision and the reasons for the
decision.”
However, there
is no recognition that the person who is being complained against
should also be written to and told why the standards committee is or is
not going to proceed. That is why we have tabled the amendments. Our
aim is to balance the legislation. I could say a lot more, but I will
not do
so.
Mr.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con): I support amendment No. 165.
Recently in my constituency, an independent councillor against whom a
series of complaints were made to the Standards Board was not aware
that a complaint had been made until the announcement of the result. As
it happens, the Liberal Democrat mayor of Bridgnorth made the
complaints. The matter caused considerable distress to the councillor
because it happened not once, but twice. It is entirely reasonable to
propose that individuals of whatever party or cause who are the subject
of a complaint be notified before a result is
determined.
Mr.
Woolas:
Our desire is to encourage the efficient working,
transparency, and fairness of the operation of a Standards
Board’s role of assessing allegations. I accept the importance
of providing information to the person against whom a complaint of a
breach of the code has been made, so that he or she knows what the
accusation is and is able to defend him or herself.The
national Standards Board currently provides information to the person
whom is the subject of a complaint. In any event, I expect that the
guidance the board will give to standards committees will include a
requirement to inform and that they will follow that
practice.
By tabling
the amendment, the hon. Member for Poole has raised the question of
whether the measure should be in the Bill. I have a strong tendency to
agree with amendment No. 165, but I ask the Committee to give me some
time to ask the Standards Board for its view. I have a couple of
problems with the drafting of the amendment. I hope I am not being
pernickety but, for example, the amendment does not indicate when an
allegation must be copied to an individual. Should that be before a
standards committee meets to decide an outcome?
None the less, I am minded to
accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument. I do not know whether
other people agree with me, but the amendment seems sensible. However,
I would like to ask the Standards Board for its view on whether such a
measure should be in the Bill, and to come back to the Committee as
soon as possible.
Mr.
Syms:
It is most acceptable and I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Syms:
I beg to move amendment No. 151, in
clause 132, page 93, leave out lines 9 to
29.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 152, in clause 132, page 93, line 34, leave
out ‘and
57B(4)’.
No.
153, in clause 132, page 94, leave out
lines 4 to 9.
No. 154,
in clause 132, page 95, leave out line
20.
Mr.
Syms:
The clause deals with the right to request the
review of a decision to take no action. As the Bill stands, a person
who puts in a complaint has a second go, because they are able to go
back to a committee. I would like the Minister to explain how that
would work. When a complaint is made, a committee decides either to
farm it out or not to act. The committee might then tell the individual
who has made the written complaint that it will take no action. On what
grounds within the 30 days that have to elapse can the complainant
write back? Can a complainant request more information from the
committee or the council? If a person simply reiterates the original
complaint, does the committee have to consider it or can they bin it? I
would like more information on those matters. If a committee decides
not to examine a complaint made by someone it has decided is absolutely
barking, it gives the complainant another 30 days to get more coverage
in, say, the “Tameside Herald”, and to go back to the
council for another go with their
complaint.
Mr.
Woolas:
We all agree that the conduct regime should be
fair to both those facing allegations and those who make them. It is
therefore important that provision should be made for those making
allegations to request a review of a decision to take no action. We are
talking about the gateway—the prima facie decision, not the
investigation and decision itself. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that
point in his remarks. The provisions will allow the right to request a
review in that period, whereupon the standards committee must
reconsider the complaint
afresh.
2.45
pm
I can see where
the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and the provision sounds slightly
overzealous on the face of it. Apart from natural justice
considerations, my thinking is influenced partly by a pragmatic point.
We are talking about local standards committees in every council in the
country, so the issue relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the
Member for High Peak about consistency in decision making. The
provisions will be beneficial particularly in the early days.
We expect that the guidance on
practice will be much quicker in dealing with prima facie allegations
than has been stated. For that reason, we and the Standards Board
wanted the assurance in the Bill so as to provide and be seen to
provide a guarantee. There have been examples of complaints being
knocked back, so the complainant will have the right to ask for that to
be reconsidered. Obviously, it must be done efficiently and
expediently. That was the thinking behind the
clause.
Mr.
Syms:
I thank the Minister for that answer. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Syms:
I beg to move amendment No. 164, in
clause 132, page 93, line 38, at
end insert—
‘(1A) The
Standards Board for England shall publish the reasons for making or
revoking a direction under subsection
(1)’.
This
part of clause 132 contains a power to suspend standards
committees’ powers. The amendment would require the Standards
Board to publish the reasonfor doing so. I should be
interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that suggestion,
as there ought to be some justification for the action
taken.
Mr.
Woolas:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should
be justification for the action. The board should be transparent in its
processes and decision making. However, although I agree with him,
proposed new section 57C(6) of the Local Government Act 2000 will
provide for that. In light of that, we certainly wish the Standards
Board to publish the reasons for making or revoking such a
decision.
Mr.
Syms:
I realise that I should have read that at lunch
time, but I was doing something else. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Woolas:
I beg to move amendment No. 190, in
clause 132, page 94, line 26, at
end insert—
‘(e) modifying
section 67(2A) in relation to any case where a direction under this
section is in force at a time when the Public Services Ombudsman for
Wales is of the opinion mentioned
there.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 191 and
192.
Mr.
Woolas:
I thank the hon. Member for Poole for his comment
on the previous amendment. It gives me the opportunity to put an
important point on the record, because many councillors will agree with
him.
Government
amendments Nos. 190 to 192 will provide for regulations to amend the
existing arrangements for consultation between the public services
ombudsman for Wales and the Standards Board when a direction issued by
the board is enforced. The need for the amendment is a consequence of
the exercise of the board’s direction-making powers and will
allow, for example, that, when the direction provides for the standards
committee of another authority to deal with misconduct allegations, the
Wales ombudsman can consult the committee rather than the board if he
considers an issue has arisen that may relate to a breach of the code
of conduct and which should be considered by the
committee.
Amendment
agreed
to.
Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Dr.
Pugh:
The Minister, laudably, said that the whole thrust
of the Bill is to provide a level playing field between those who
accuse and those who are accused. If we consider how the process of a
complaint is handled, we must say that it will be judicious; it will be
balanced; it will be well evidenced and so on. As we all know, very few
charges actually stick, but much
publicity is attached to the process of making a charge. It often takes
place during a fevered electoral period. There does not seem to be
anything in the Bill or in what the Standards Board tells us that will
resolvethat difficulty. It is a simple expedient device used
regrettably by all parties from time to time to make an allegation in
the run-up to election time, the accused being exonerated afterwards.
Of course, during election time, it is rare to get a council committee
together because all the councillors are out campaigning for
re-election. Has the Minister or even the Standards Board given thought
to not only how the process can be balanced, but how the relating to
the public ofthe complaints process can be balanced, which is
something altogether
different?
Mr.
Dunne:
I welcome the proposal to devolve a lot of the
responsibility for investigating complaints to the local standards
committee, but I wish to raise a specific concern that was highlighted
by the Graham committee when it reported on resources in January 2005.
The Government so often impose obligations on local authorities and
expect them to fund obligations without providing additional help. In
this case, the Graham committee estimated that the Standards Board
would save £9 million through such measures. That was fine for
the board, but it implies that a cost equivalent to that is imposed on
local authorities. Has the Minister given thought to providing
resources to the monitoring officers to fund the additional work that
they will have to undertake and to providing additional funding out of
the savings that will be made by the board to give additional
allowances to the independent panel members whose numbers will
inevitably increase if there is an increased work
load?
Lynda
Waltho (Stourbridge) (Lab): I seem to be one of the few
members of the Committee who was not a councillor.
[ Interruption.] Oh, the hon. Member for Lichfield is in the
minority with me. For my sins, I was regional officer for the Labour
party. I was there to encourage councillors and to assist them during
the election period. Has the Minister thought about the way in which
publicity is used as a weapon? It is almost a legitimate campaign tool
inasmuch as its use appears to be fair game. I did not realise that my
hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish had suffered from that
particular weapon. Could the element of publicity be withdrawn until
the complaint had been properly
investigated?
Dr.
Pugh:
I merely point out that very few headlines say,
“Blameless councillor
exonerated.”
Lynda
Waltho:
Absolutely. I just feel that my suggestion could
be the way to stop the process being used in a vexatious way. In some
cases, the glare of publicity is basically a job done. We have had a
bit of a laugh about it, but it is really quite damaging to a
person’s reputation and family. I know of cases where a
councillor’s children at school have been upset and damaged by
the whole thing. I wonder whether taking the draw of publicity away
from it would assist us all.
Mr.
Woolas:
The hon. Member for Southport and my hon. Friend
the Member for Stourbridge have made similar points.
The hon. Member for Ludlow asked
a specific point and I should like to deal with that first. We
takethe new burdens policy seriously, not just in my
Department, but across government. That policy is about providing the
net cost of new burdens. Councillors often write to me about the gross
costs of new burdens, but never about the net costs. I am sure that, as
somebody who wants good use of public finances and to bear down on
inefficiencies, he will accept my point. In that regard, if the House
to agrees to the Bill, we will apply it in this instance. At the
moment, we estimate that the savings to the board are about £2
million. That will be reflected in the revenue support
grant.
Our policy is
that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, money in the RSG
should not be ring-fenced. That is also the hon. Gentleman’s
party’s policy. However, if the budget is not ring-fenced, can
one guarantee, and be seen to be guaranteeing, the independence of the
function? Although I have thought about that matter, thankfully we have
not had to address it yet. If I did so, I would be jumping ahead of
Parliament—and I would not do that. I will take on board soon
the points made by the hon.
Gentleman.
Regarding
the more general points, Mr. Benton, I do not think that you
want me to open up a general debate. I consulted informally a
cross-party group of councillors about what the solution to this
problem may be and it came up with the answer that my hon. Friend the
Member for Stourbridge gave, which is that if a law were passed saying
that a complaint could not be put it in the press until it is dealt
with, that would probably dry up the number of complaints made. My hon.
Friend the Member for High Peak will recognise that issue from his days
on the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards has to take swift action in response to
press inquiries that have been generated by press releases that arise
often before the complaint itself has
arisen.
Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): I was about to intervene when my
hon. Friend the Minister made exactly the point that I was going to
make, which was that even the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member
for Stourbridge would not work when people make complaints first to the
press and then to the formal body. As the Minister says, that happens
just as much in the House as it does in respect of the Standards
Board.
Mr.
Woolas:
We considered whether there might be a mechanism
to close that down again, but we quickly came up against the pragmatic
problems that would result. The freedom of the press would probably
have been an issue as well. As elected representatives, we have to live
with the fact that these problems happen in an ethical regime. As we
all know, complaints are made in letters to the Speaker of the House
about Members of Parliament, and those complaints often have nothing to
do with the
Speaker.
Part of the
thought behind the new framework and new strategy is that localising
the process will bear down on such problems for the reason that I gave
before. It is not as headline grabbing to go to a local
committee as a national committee. The chemistry will have that effect
as well, because individuals are likely to be known, the chair of the
committee is likely to know individuals and the local newspapers will
know them too. Crying wolf might, in time, help the
situation. I considered
the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge and by the
hon. Member for Southport. I have moved a long way away from the
clause, but I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 132,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
