Clause
133
Information
to be provided to Standards Board by relevant
authority
3
pm
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Neil Turner (Wigan) (Lab): Following our debate on
vexatious and politically motivated complaints, may I suggest that the
Minister talk to the Standards Board about a way in which we might tie
down some of the issues through the requirement for local authorities
to report on their work annually to the Standards Board? I believe that
Wigan is recognised as having one of the best councils in the
country—I say “one of the best” in deference to my
hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. Perversely, however, it
has one of the highest numbers of complaints against its members. That
is largely because one party—the main opposition, which is not
represented in this Committee—uses complaints in the way that
other hon. Members have described.
I read the comprehensive
performance assessment and the local standards report. The local
standards report quite properly made the point that such exercises are
not without cost. If a complaint is made to the local standards board,
the board has to take on board the complaint and consider it, and that
costs time to officers as well as real money, which has a real impact
on the services that a council can provide, because the money has to
come out of the council’s coffers rather than going into
front-line services.
I
wonder, therefore, whether we should not give the Standards Board for
England the opportunity to include in its report the number of
vexatious and politically motivated complaints that it receives, and
the cost of handling such complaints for local authorities. I wrote to
the board to request a list of the complainants in Wigan to find out
whether I could prove what I knew to be the case, but the board said
that it could not provide such a list. It could give me the number of
complaints made by councillors and by the general public, but it could
not give me a breakdown by
individuals.
The
particular party that makes the large number of complaints in Wigan is
called the Community Action party, although we know it in Wigan as the
no-community no-action non-party, on the basis that it proposes not
having community councils, has never
proposed any action, and its members fight like rats in sacks. It uses
its membership to make complaints as well, so most complaints come from
that one party. Dealing with the complaints will have a major impact on
the finances of the local authority in Wigan, despite the fact that the
motivation for them is
political. I suggest
that we give the oxygen of publicity to that issue, so that we can say
which party is costing people money and how much, and tell the electors
that the money is coming out of the budget for teachers, social
services and street cleaning. That might make the complainants think
twice.
Mr.
Syms:
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a very good
point. There is no penalty for submitting a complaint that is vexatious
and a waste of time, and which is made merely in order to produce a
headline. There is nothing that we can do about the free press, and we
would not want to do anything, anyway. I wonder, however, whether when
local standards committees deal with complaints they should make a
judgment on whether those complaints—even if not
upheld—are either reasonable, or politically motivated or
vexatious. Why should they not be able to comment on
that?
There might be
individuals in a district who are always making complaints. One cannot
stop that, but if the committee considers five complaints from
Mr. or Miss X, and all of them are trivial, that should be
on the record so that people are aware of what that person is doing.
Then, the next time that he or she rings the press or sends in a press
release, the council can say that that person has complained on five
separate occasions and that each complaint was either vexatious or
unimportant. That would impose a test on those who used the system,
whereas at present there is no cost to making a complaint. I am not
sure whether it would be possible to do, but will the Minister consider
some way of allowing the people who judge the individuals who are
complained about to make some comment on the person who makes the
complaint?
Mr.
Woolas:
I said at the beginning that I
wantedto build strong support in the Committee for this
process. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan and Opposition Members
have made the same point. I am obliged to try to achieve that, and I
certainly agree with it. I shall explain what the clause does, because
it goes some way to make the point, and then I will respond to the
specific questions.
The clause enables the Standards
Board to direct an authority to provide it with periodic and ad hoc
information about the allegations of misconduct it has received, any
request to review a decision to take no action, and the exercise of any
of the functions bythe standards committee or the monitoring
officer.The authority must comply with the request for
information by the date that the Standards Board
specifies.
The measure
is quite tough and reflects the fact that we are creating a new regime
with 450 authorities in the country. It also covers the point that my
hon. Friend the Member for Wigan made. The Standards Board
can request information as it sees fit. The
information is primarily intended to be used by the Standards Board to
monitor the performance of the committees and the monitoring officers,
who often have an influential voice in the matter. The ability to
request information is needed to ensure that the board is able to
decide what further support and guidance it needs to provide to help
standards committees and monitoring officers. That is the purpose of
the clause, which covers the point being
made. Bringing the
council into disrepute is a matter of conduct as well. In response to
the points made from both sides of the Committee, I shall write to the
Standards Board in relation to the types of information it provides to
see whether it has a view on that point. We discussed a sanction on
vexatious complaints and that is something that was consulted upon. The
example that my hon. Friend has given highlights the costs. I could
make the point that parliamentary questions are very expensive as well.
One estimate puts the cost of answering at £1,500 per question,
which makes the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) a very
expensive Member indeed. However, I promise not to issue a press
release on that point.
Tom
Levitt:
On the question of vexatious of complaints,
will my hon. Friend make it clear—either in legislation or in
subsequent guidance—that the timeliness of the
committee’s response to a complaint is also very important? In
particular, could the committee weed out the trivial and vexatious
complaints quickly? That means not waiting for an entire committee
cycle to go on before a complaint is deemed to be trivial or vexatious.
There needs to be a way for standards committees to meet on an ad hoc
basis to weed out vexatious and trivial complaints very quickly, so
that they are not given time to ferment in the media and
elsewhere.
Mr.
Woolas:
Under the regime, the chair would be allowed to
act to speed things up. That is one of the reasons why I am proposing
the idea of a strong independent chair. In other circumstances,
committees can delegate matters to the chair and I think that that
regime is correct in that respect. That will help to address the point
that my hon. Friend has made. If the chair is strong and independent
and the committee has confidence in him or her, and if the chair is
able to knock back complaints that are, in his or her view, clearly
mischievous, that could help to resolve the
problems.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 133 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
134
Chairmen
of standards
committees
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I commend the
clause and believe that it providesthe integrity for standards
committees now thatthose bodies have further local
determination. The impartiality of committees is properly enshrined
because chairmen will now be independent of both members and officers
of the relevant authority.
May I briefly recount the
experience in Enfield? We had one of the first standards
committees—we had one before the guidance to do so, and before
much decision making was referred to the Standards Board. We in Enfield
determined a number of complaints involving councillors and others
locally, and the chairman dealt with vexatious complaints in the same
way that the Bill proposes. Enfield still has the same independent
chairman, Geoffrey Mills, who performs an excellent service and takes
his role very seriously.
My question is about the burden
on the chairman. Historically, Enfield had local determination powers,
which have been taken away from it over the years. When I was a member
of the committee, the chairman took his role seriously, but his burden
was considerable. To draw out the point made by my hon. Friend the
Member for Ludlow about resources, in order to support good chairmen
such as Geoffrey Mills and to attract people to the role of chairing
standards committees, which authorities are now obliged to have, proper
resources will have to be provided to support the work of such offices.
I support the view that the Government need to look seriously at the
issue of resources, not only those provided for the monitoring officer,
but at the remuneration available to chairmen. Given the vital
importance of protecting the integrity of a standards committee by
having independent chairmen, remuneration should not be prescribed or
limited.
Mr.
Woolas:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that
point, and for his support for having independent chairmen. The issue
of resources, which the hon. Member for Ludlow raised, is important and
will be dealt with after the deliberations of the Committee. There will
be consistency throughout the country. Via the training and guidance
that will be available, I am trying to create a superstructure and
framework of support for committees, chairmen and monitoring officers,
rather like those in place for returning officers, who are often
employees of a council, but who operate independently.
To briefly explain why I want
independent chairmen, I am trying to create a situation in which
members of standards committees have experience of local councils and
elected members from across the political spectrum. To make a
comparison, employment tribunals have an independent chair who has
knowledge of the tribunal and carries its respect. Often, although not
by prescription, the tribunal also has a retired trade unionist or
officer and a personnel officer or manager, both of whom have
experience at the front line—at the chalk face. It is important
that standards committees have on them elected members and councillors
of different political persuasions, with the guarantee of an
independent chair and some independent members. That is the thinking
behind the measure.
The chair will receive
allowances according to a council’s own scheme. Local
authorities set allowances having regard to the advice they receive
from their own independent panels. That is something that neither I nor
my predecessors got involved in. The consultation did not throw up a
problem with that, but it may come up in future. The clause deals with
independent chairs, but I note the hon. Gentleman’s
point.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 134
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 135
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
136
Joint
committees of relevant authorities in
England
3.15
pm
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Woolas:
Clause 136 inserts new section 56A into the Local
Government Act 2000. It will empower the Secretary of State to make
regulations under whichtwo or more local authorities may
establish a joint committee and arrange for functions that would
normally be carried out by a standards committee to be carried out
instead by the joint committee, so particular districts and groups of
councils can have the same committee. It may be difficult to recruit
enough people in counties with seven or more districts, for instance,
if seven committees are required. That isthe simple idea, and
I commend the clause to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 136
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 137
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
138
Ethical
standards officers: investigations and
findings
Mr.
Syms:
I beg to move amendment No. 163, in
clause 138, page 98, line 32, leave
out subsection (3) and
insert—
‘(3) Section 62 of
the Act (ethical standards officers: investigations and findings) is
amended as follows—
(a)
omit subsection (1),
(b) in
subsection (2)(b) after “such”, insert
“documents,”.’.
I
could go into a long technical explanation of the amendment, but I
think that it would probably be better if the Minister explained his
view on
it.
Mr.
Woolas:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the
amendment, which would delete the ethical standards officer’s
existing right of access to every document that appeared to him or her
to be necessary and replace it with a power to require any person to
give the officer the documents necessary to conduct an
investigation.
Once a
misconduct allegation has been made and a decision is taken to
investigate it, it is crucial for the investigator to have access to
information to test whether a breach of the code has occurred. For that
reason, the amendment’s proposals to limit the ethical standards
officer’s access to documents are wrong. I do not think that it
would encourage public confidence in the robustness of the process. The
existing right of access to every document that appears necessary to
the
ethical standards officer is one of the many bits of procedure that
works at the moment. We fear that putting that right at arm’s
length might jeopardise it. That is our thinking on the
amendment.
Mr.
Syms:
I thank the Minister and beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Syms:
I beg to move amendment No. 155, in
clause 138, page 98, line 35, at
end insert—
‘(3A) In section
63(1) of that Act (restrictions on disclosure of information obtained
by ethical standards
officers)—
(a) at the
beginning insert
‘Confidential’;
(b)
leave out
paragraph(c).’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 156, in clause 138, page 99, line 5, at end
add—
‘(5) After section
63(1) of that Act
insert—
“(1A)
Confidential information obtained by ethical standards officers under
section 61 or 62 shall be disclosed to the person who is the subject of
the complaint on terms that the information is to be kept confidential
by that person, his solicitors or counsel, and named advisers, if it is
in the interest of fairness that it be
disclosed.”.’.
No.
157, in
clause 138, page 99, line 5, at
end add—
‘( ) After section
63(3) of that Act
insert—
“(3A) If
an ethical standards officer is not able fairly to continue his
investigation because of a notice given under subsection (2), he shall
discontinue his investigation and state that the investigation is being
discontinued because of the
notice.”.’.
No.
158, in
clause 139, page 99, line 15, at
end insert—
‘(3A) After
subsection (3)
insert—
“(3B)
Subject to subsections 3(C) and 3(D) where an ethical standards officer
produces a report under this section he shall take reasonable steps to
send a copy to any person who is named in the report or who made any
allegation which gave rise to the investigation and shall publish the
report.
(3C) If the report
contains information whose disclosure is prohibited by section 63 the
report shall be released to the person who is the subject of the
investigation on terms that the information subject to section 63 is to
be kept confidential by that persons, his solicitors or counsel, and
named advisers.
(3D) If the
report contains information whose disclosure is prohibited by section
63, the report which is sent to any person under subsection (3B) (other
than the person who is the subject of the investigation) and is publish
shall be in a redacted
form.”.’.
No.
159, in
clause 139, page 99, line 25, at
end insert—
‘(8A) After
subsection (5)
insert—
“(5A)
Subject to subsection (5B) where an ethical standards officer produces
a report under this section he shall take reasonable steps to send to
copy to any person who is named in the report (other than the person
who is the subject of the investigation) or who made any allegation
which gave rise to the investigation and shall publish the
report.
(5B) If the report
contains information whose disclosure is prohibited by section 63, the
report which is sent to any person under subsection (5A) and is publish
shall be in a redacted form.”.’.
No. 160, in
clause 139, page 99, line 32, at
end add—
‘(11) After section
71(3) of that Act (reports etc)
insert—
“(3A)
Subject to subsections (3B) and (3C) where the Public Services
Ombudsman for Wales produces a report under this section he shall take
reasonable steps to send a copy to any person who is named in the
report or who made any allegation which gave rise to the investigation
and shall publish the
report.
(3B) If the report
contains information whose disclosure is prohibited by section 63 the
report shall be released to the person who is the subject of the
investigation on terms that the information subject to section 63 is to
be kept confidential by that person, his solicitors or counsel, and
named advisers.
(3C) If the
report contains information whose disclosure is prohibited by section
63, the report which is sent to any person under subsection (3B) (other
than the person who is the subject of the investigation) and is
published shall be in a redacted
form.”.
(12) After
section 72(5)
insert—
“(5A)
Subject to subsection (5B) where the Public Services Ombudsman for
Wales produces a report under this section he shall take reasonable
steps to send a copy to any person who is named in the report (other
than the person who is the subject of the investigation) or who made
any allegation which gave rise to the investigation and shall publish
the report.
(5B) If the report
contains information whose disclosure is prohibited by section 63, the
report which is sent to any person under subsection (5A0 and is
published shall be in a redacted
form.”.
(13) In section
83(1) of that Act (interpretation of Part III) insert after
“Police Act
1996”—
“redacted
form” means a version where confidential information has been
removed and replaced by a non-confidential explanation of the removed
material;’.
No.
161, in clause 140, page 99, leave out lines 36to
40.
No. 162, in
clause 140, page 100, line 2, after
‘report’, insert
‘and the ethical standards officer
has also produced the report in a redacted
form’.
No. 177,
in
clause 140, page 100, line 2, leave
out ‘it’ and insert ‘the unredacted
report’.
Mr.
Syms:
Again, I shall be extremely brief. The amendments
deal with provisions on essentially confidential information
accumulated by the ethical standards officers. They pursue a theme in
one or two of our other amendments by providing that the person against
whom the complaint is made should also have access to some of the
documents that the ethical standards officers have, so that there is a
degree of equity and fairness in the process. Again, I should be
interested to hear the Minister’s views on the
amendments.
Mr.
Woolas:
My argument is that there arealready
arrangements by which members’ conduct is investigated by
ethical standards officers under the auspices of the Standards Board
and not by individual local authorities. In future, those officers will
deal with the most serious allegations and because it is vital that we
have a robust conduct regime that carries public confidence, it should
allow information about the allegation and the results of the
investigation to be circulated to those who have an interest, to
ensure, for example, that the subject of the investigation knows his
position.
In principle, making reports
available to interested parties may be beneficial for various reasons,
including informing complainants about the allegations, as well as
encouraging the spread of information and experience on the operation
of the conduct regime. However, I am concerned about the implications
of the amendments. In particular, there are issues about the timing of
any such information being made available, the fear that we would be
cutting off our nose to spite our face, in line with the debate that we
had about mischievous allegations, and the balance between making
information available to the right people and ensuring that genuinely
sensitive information is treated appropriately. I worry that that
balance is not quite right.
The lead amendment would seem to
preventthe disclosure of information that has already been
disclosed lawfully to the public. The second amendment, which would
allow confidential information to be disclosed to the subject of the
investigation, seems likely to cause difficulties for investigators as
a result of the timing of the disclosure and not as a result of the
disclosure itself. Of course, it is vital that, when an investigation
is under way, witness testimonies are not passed to the subject of an
investigation until after he or she has been interviewed, in order to
avoid their memory of events being polluted. I think that that point
will be understood.
The
existing provision, whereby the ethical standards officer is required
to give the subject of the information the opportunity to comment on
any allegation, adequately allows for appropriate information about the
allegation to be given to the subject at the appropriate
time.
Amendment No.
157 would provide for the standards officer to discontinue his
investigation following a notice by the Secretary of State preventing
the disclosure of a document—that is an existing
power—but I believe that it is flawed. That is because the
prevention of the onward disclosure of a document by the officer is not
likely to prevent him from completing his investigation, as the
amendment could imply. The notice would prevent the officer from
passing the document to another person, but it would not prevent him
from undertaking his investigation.
The remaining amendments in the
group would require that reports by ethical standards officers be
published and copies sent to everyone mentioned in them. I am slightly
concerned that that would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. On occasion,
the number of people mentioned in a report exceeds 20. I therefore
believe that it would impose a disproportionate burden to require
copies to be provided for everyone mentioned, many of whom will not
have a particular interest in the issue.
The other amendments relate to
the disclosure of information by the monitoring officer, and we
consider that the proposals in the Bill make the provision that the
hon. Gentleman is seeking in his amendment for the information received
by the monitoring officer to be disclosed to interested
parties.
In short,
although I recognise the good intent of the amendments, we believe that
their aims are either already covered, or that they would cause
unintended consequences that would take us down the path that we
discussed before.
Mr.
Syms:
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer
and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
138 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
139 and 140 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
