HC Deb 25 March 1981 vol 1 cc965-9
Mr. Gordon Wilson

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 15, line 10, at end add— 'In section 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (2) A complaint shall be entertained under this Part of this Act if it is made in writing to the Commissioner by the person aggrieved or with the consent of the person aggrieved by a person acting on his behalf with a request to investigate the complaint".'. The amendment's objective is simple. It relates to the system of local authority commissioners, which is dealt with in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to allow members of the public to go direct to the local government commissioner if as aggrieved persons, they have an objection to or complaint against the actions of a local authority.

When the local government commissioners were first introduced it was probably a fairly revolutionary step for United Kingdom administration. For the first time there was to be reference of a dispute with an elected or administrative body to an administrative official whose job it would be to investigate those complaints thoroughly and impartially, and to make a report which would be published thereafter. At the time, Members of Parliament were greatly worried. I was not a Member of Parliament at that time, so I cannot be too forceful about that matter. Councillors were also worried that their rights would be invaded by the change. In Scandinavia it is possible for citizens to take such complaints direct to the ombudsman, as the commissioner is known there. Here the complaints must be referred only through the Member of Parliament or a councillor in the authority concerned.

The change was applied to local government in 1975. Many of the worries of Members of Parliament and councillors about that new system have long since disappeared. It is interesting that in one of his most recent reports the Parliamentary Commissioner has recommended that access to him should be direct, without going through a Member of Parliament. That recommendation has not been put before us in the form of legislation for implementation. Perhaps it is stacked up on the shelves of a Government Department.

However, we now have before us a local government Bill which is not only couched as a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill but deals with the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland, contained in clause 21. Schedule 1 also deals with that.

This change is fairly innocuous. It would fit in well with the Bill, which is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. We should take advantage of the experience which has been gained with the local authority commissioner system and the Parliamentary Commissioner. A change should be introduced to that system, which would allow aggrieved persons to go direct to the local authority ombudsman. I invite the House to accept my amendment.

Mr. Bill Walker (Perth and East Perthshire)

I am at a loss to understand why the hon. Member's amendment has been tabled.

I am a member of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee, together with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who will confirm that the local government commissioner for Scotland comes to Parliament and reports to the Select Committee. He has on occasions drawn our attention to the fact that members of the public can, at his discretion, write and complain direct to him on matters of maladministration. that facility exists now, is used by members of the public and has been used by them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

It is true that the local government commissioner is prepared to entertain a complaint from an aggrieved person if a councillor has refused to take up a case or if he said that he would take up the case, but has not done so. I am suggesting that the citizen should have the power to go direct to the ombudsman, who would then have the opportunity to make the necessary inquiries into the case without going through the elongated procedure at which the hon. Gentleman has hinted.

Mr. Walker

I am interested in that intervention, because I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has studied in detail the reports of the local government commissioner or the Parliamentary Commissioner. If he had done so he would realise that the local government commissioner for Scotland had said that he was satisfied with the system. The Select Committee felt that the area concerning the Parliamemtary Commissioner could be looked at and added to. The amendment is unnecessary. My reading of the words on the Notice Paper is not in accordance with what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Maclennan

I was the first hon. Member to introduce a Bill to set up a Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland. I withdrew that Bill on an undertaking given by the then Labour Government that they would seek to bring forward such legislation. Therefore, I have retained ever since a parental interest in the development of the powers of the Commissioner for Local Administration.

There is substance in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). The position of the commissioner is different from that of the parliamentary ombudsman. It is correct that the parliamentary ombudsman should be approached by the Member of Parliament, the Member of Parliament having no part in the administration that is being investigated. The case in respect of local government is different. The councillor who is approached may have had some part in the direction of the administration, or in decision making, which led to the grievance that gave rise to the complaint. It is in part to protect the interests of the members of the local government that the proposed amendment commends itself to me. All too often such complaints are subject to delay—the circuitous route is blocked after some embarrassment. I shall support the hon. Member for Dundee, East if he presses his amendment to a vote.

6 pm

Mr. Russell Johnston

I have four points to make. First, I compliment the Government on approving the ombudsman procedure in general in the Bill. Secondly, there is not much evidence that sifting matters through councillors improves efficiency. Thirdly, the citizen may be reluctant to go to a councillor and may not know that he can write to the ombudsman direct. We must never underestimate public ignorance. It must be made known that access can be direct. Access is generally thought to be only through a councillor. If the citizen is reluctant to go to a councillor he is unlikely to take advantage of the procedure mentioned by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker).

Finally, if the complaint is frivolous or not well-founded, electoral pressures often cause the councillor to pass it on. That also applies to the Parliamentary Commissioner and Members of Parliament.

The proposal is simple and would help individuals with genuine problems. I see no reason for the Government to reject it.

Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow, Craigton)

I found the amendment difficult to understand. In addition, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) related it to the wrong section of the 1975 Act. It is directed to section 25 when it should relate to section 24, and would remove a necessary part of section 25, which covers a complaint when a potential complainant has died.

I am interested in the Minister's views. At present, a complaint normally goes through a councillor, as an elected representative, which is a useful procedure and ensures that the officials and the authority can examine it. The procedure prevents complaints that can be dealt with effectively by the authority going to the commissioner. The authority should first have the opportunity to remedy the problem. A system that prevents that happening would not produce a better result; it would cause confusion and give more work to the authority and the commissioner, to no good purpose.

Under the 1975 Act, if a councillor is not willing to take up a complaint and it can be demonstrated to the commissioner that he has been asked and has refused, the complaint can be made direct, so that a safeguard exists. If it is felt that the safeguard is not adequate, or is not working satisfactorily, I should be willing to improve the procedure in the interests of the complainant. I do not wish to diminish the necessity for an effective route for complaints to the commissioner, but I am not aware that the system is unsatisfactory. If it is unsatisfactory, I do not believe that the amendment provides the remedy.

Mr. Rifkind

I compliment the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) on raising a legitimate issue, but one on which there can be a difference of opinion. We all wish to ensure that the public's interests are properly protected and grievances are investigated and remedied where necessary. As the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said, the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently addressed his amendment to the wrong part of the Act, but that should not stop us considering the idea.

Should members of the public be able to ignore councillors when a problem arises out of a believed or alleged maladministration by the local authority? Dogma should not come into it, but it is, prima facie, undesirable to ignore elected members whose primary functions are to represent the interests of their constituents and to deal with problems that they may have as a result of local authority action. As the right hon. Member for Craigton said, we have to take into account not only the constitutional principle of the role of the councillor in dealing with alleged problems of maladministration but the question whether the problems could be dealt with easily and simply by the councillor taking them up with the local authority and expeditiously producing a satisfactory response.

When the local ombudsman, like the parliamentary ombudsman, was established, it was considered that recourse to him should be a last resort. One way to ensure that is by channelling grievances through the elected member and having the matter dealt with by the ombudsman only if the elected member feels it appropriate. The only reason for changing the arrangement arises if the councillor fails or refuses to pass on the complaint, so that he is not involved in considering the alleged maladministration. If that were a bar to the processing of the complaint there would be risk of injustice to members of the public, either because of malice or, more likely, incompetence by the councillor in failing to deal with the request. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) pointed out, the 1975 Act covers that possibility and allows discretion to the ombudsman where he is satisfied that the councillor has refused to pass the complaint to him, or has failed to do so. The position seems satisfactory.

Like the right hon. Member for Craigton, I am not aware of dissatisfaction with the arrangements or evidence to show that they have led to injustice. The Government do not have a closed mind. If there were evidence that the system was unsatisfactory we should wish to discuss it with the Secretary of State for Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to other parts of the United Kingdom to see whether changes were appropriate.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

I shall be brief in my final remarks on the amendment. First, my intention was not to detract from the valuable role of councillors. Nevertheless, there are occasions when citizens may be dissatisfied with the actions of councillors in relation to complaints, or, indeed, when they feel that the councillors are part of a group of people who would not be willing to take action. They are therefore disinclined to raise the matter with a councillor for submission to the ombudsman. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), the citizen has the right to take a complaint direct to the ombudsman if the councillor refuses to deal with it or procrastinates in his handling of it.

I confess that it would have been helpful if I had addressed the amendment to the appropriate section of the Act. That is usually an advantage if one wishes to press an amendment. I had not intended, however, to press the matter to a Division, as I know that time is limited. I intended to test the temperature of the water to see whether the Government accepted my worries about the lack of openness in the system. Having raised the matter, I have gained the fairly mild assurance from the Minister that, should any evidence emerge, he is prepared at least to consult his right hon. Friends in other Departments throughout the United Kingdom. He spoke as though he had it in mind that some great constitutional change was involved, which I certainly did not have in mind myself.

With those remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to