| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I realise that it can be trying for those who are subject to an allegation that takes some time to investigate and resolve. Investigations can become protracted for a number of reasons. Some cases are complex and require the collection of evidence from a number of witnesses. In addition, fresh evidence may come to light during the
investigative process. We must also consider the fact that, unfortunately, the investigation can be protracted owing to malicious behaviour on the part of the subject or subjects of the allegation, or perhaps others who have reason to fear its outcome.
Let me turn to the issue of misconduct. The Adjudication Panel for England, the Standards Board for England and the standards committees of local authorities are all part of a conduct regime underpinned by the local authority members’ code of conduct. The code makes it clear to councillors and their communities what might constitute a personal or a prejudicial interest, for example, and it addresses issues such as gifts and hospitality, which are clearly not relevant to this case. However, the code also addresses fundamental issues of behaviour and conduct.
Founded upon the seven principles of public life, the code states, for instance, that councillors must not abuse their position as councillors and that they must not disclose confidential information in an inappropriate manner. The code directly addresses matters more fundamental still—not just those that are fundamental to public life, but principles so fundamental that I hope that we would all strive to meet them unconsciously in everyday life. The code explicitly states:
“You must treat others with respect”,
“You must not...bully any person”
Let us take bullying as the most obvious example. Bullying, I hope we can all agree, is unacceptable. It does not matter whether bullying happens in the playground, the workplace, the Chamber or the barracks—any civilized society rejects it. That is why bullying is in the code—because it is a serious issue when it happens between individuals, damaging people, and because it is a serious matter when it happens in a local authority, damaging the working of the authority and, potentially, confidence in democracy if exposed, and the delivery of services if not. Simply put, unacceptable behaviour is not tolerated. Those who are guilty of misconduct are investigated and sanctions are brought against them. The conduct regime, underpinned by the members’ code, will ensure that that continues to be the case.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether the Government should allow standards committees to investigate, for example, allegations against local authority officials such as chief executives. He will be pleased to know that we recently held a consultation on whether there should be a model code of conduct for local authority officials, just as there is one for local authority members. We are currently considering the more than 1,000 responses to the consultation that we have received. The consultation included proposals to transport some aspects of the members’ code to senior officials. The code will form part of an employee’s terms and conditions of employment and could be used in any disciplinary procedures. I should just add that whether the standards committees or other bodies should have the authority to enforce the code is an issue on which we shall consult.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger:
I thank the Minister and I welcome his words. I am delighted to hear that, but unfortunately it will not help this gentleman. Will the
Minister give an indication of the time scale involved? I know that we are in the middle of the consultation, but he must have a thought in the back of his mind as to when this will happen. It is extremely important in trying, as it were, to even things out on both sides.
Mr. Khan: I think it is important to have political consensus in this area. I do not wish to make cheap political points, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party is committed to abolishing the Standards Board, so the idea of having a parallel system for senior officials would obviously not work if the Standards Board regime were abolished. I am keen to move forward as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman’s example is not the only example of allegations—these are allegations—against senior officials, and the issue of public confidence is important.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the meantime, it is open to the employers of senior officials to take disciplinary action if they have breached express or implied terms in their contracts of employment. I nevertheless understand the point that he has raised and the sense of urgency, as we do not want examples of serious allegations against senior officials not being taken seriously or not being considered by a similar code.
Before concluding, I want to address another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised—Southwest One. My Department has no formal involvement in the development of Southwest One, but if allegations of corruption are made, they should clearly be viewed as a criminal matter requiring the involvement of the police. If there is any evidence of corruption in this case, it should be turned over the Serious Fraud Office.
Mr. Liddell-Grainger:
There is no indication that there has been criminal intent, partly because Avon and Somerset police are involved, as is the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). What has happened here is
that there has been a desperation to do a deal for procurement, which neither side disagrees with. We agree in the House that efficiency is right. It is the undue haste and the way it was set up that has been the problem, but there is nothing criminal about that. It is just that the procedures were not followed and when somebody said, “Look, this is wrong,” they sacked him. Another illustration is that the union leader, Nigel Behan, who has also tried to lead on this, has been fired as well. He is seeking reinstatement at the moment, so the issue has deepened, but there is no criminal intent.
Mr. Khan: Let me conclude. I recognise that investigations into allegations of misconduct impact on reputations, careers and lives; they are not undertaken lightly. I recognise, too, that there are those who would try to twist the conduct regime—which is intended to give councillors an ethical framework to work within and to give the public a clear expectation of the standards of behaviour they can expect from those they voted for—for their own ends. I believe that the conduct regime is robust, reasonable and proportionate and that it provides a framework to work within and an enforcement method to address those who are guilty of misconduct, so helping to maintain confidence in democracy.
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for raising some important issues tonight and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) for his important interventions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I have not gone into specific detail about the history of the case he raised. I know that the Under-Secretary for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), was due to meet the hon. Gentleman today, and I am sure that he will be happy to reschedule the meeting in order to deal with the important issues raised about Southwest One.
10.13 pm
| Index | Home Page |