HC Deb 05 March 2003 vol 400 cc838-46

82A Monitoring officers: delegation of functions under Part 3

(1) This section applies to functions of a monitoring officer of a relevant authority in relation to matters referred to him under section 60(2), 64(2), 70(4) or 71(2).

(2) Where the monitoring officer considers that in a particular case he himself ought not to perform particular functions to which this section applies, those particular functions shall in that case be performed personally by a person nominated for the purpose by the monitoring officer.

(3) Where a deputy nominated by the monitoring officer under section 5(7) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (nomination of member of monitoring officer's staff to act as deputy when monitoring officer absent or ill) considers that in a particular case he himself ought not to perform particular functions—

  1. (a) to which this section applies, and
  2. (b) which, by reason of the absence or illness of the monitoring officer, would but for this subsection fall to be performed by the deputy,
those particular functions shall, while the monitoring officer continues to be unable to act by reason of absence or illness, be performed in that case personally by a person nominated for the purpose by the deputy.

(4) Where functions to which this section applies are to be performed by a person nominated under subsection (2) or (3) who is an officer of the relevant authority, the authority shall provide the officer with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in the officer's opinion, sufficient to allow those functions to be performed.

(5) Where functions to which this section applies are to be performed by a person nominated under subsection (2) or (3) who is not an officer of the relevant authority, the authority shall—

  1. (a) pay the person a reasonable fee for performing the functions,
  2. (b) reimburse expenses properly incurred by the person in performing the functions, but only to the extent that the amount of the expenses is reasonable, and
  3. (c) provide the person with such staff, accommodation and other resources as are reasonably necessary for the person's performance of the functions."

(3) In section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (designation etc. of monitoring officers), after subsection (7) there is inserted—

"(7A) Subsection (7) above shall have effect subject to section 82A of the Local Government Act 2000 (monitoring officers: delegation of functions under Part 3 of that Act).".'.—[Mr. Leslie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Mr. Leslie

New clause 14 is an important proposal concerning standards committees and monitoring officers in local authorities and makes two important changes in the regime governing the conduct of local councillors introduced in part 3 of the Local Government Act 2000.

The first important change allows standards committees of local authorities to create sub-committees. That is necessary because if standards committees are to consider reports of alleged misconduct, it would be fairer and more consistent with human rights for a small tribunal—say, between three and five people—to constitute the tribunal, rather than the full standards committee.

Mr. Hammond

I do not disagree that a smaller committee may be convenient, but I would be fascinated to know where in the Human Rights Act or the European convention on human rights the Minister finds any reference to the size of the tribunal.

Mr. Leslie

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks me that. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights states that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing. Some standards committees have 19 members, so there is a risk that such a tribunal would be too large and the case would turn into a show trial. A large tribunal could be intimidating to some members whose case was being considered. Case law suggests that we should make sure that the opportunity for a fairer hearing for those cases is available. We need to make the change in primary legislation so that the regulations can follow.

The second change allows monitoring officers of local authorities—those in local councils who will do the job of investigating—to delegate the function of carrying out the investigation. The provision is needed because monitoring officers can have other responsibilities in local authorities, especially smaller local authorities—for example, they may be the local council's principal legal adviser. On occasions monitoring officers may, therefore, have been involved in the very matters to be investigated, possibly having given informal advice earlier to a councillor under investigation. To avoid conflicts of interest, the new clause provides an explicit power for a monitoring officer to delegate those functions to another person.

David Winnick (Walsall, North)

In recognising the importance of what the new clause proposes on standards committees and monitoring officers, may I ask whether such provision is not all the more necessary in view of the scandal at Westminster? What steps, if any, are the Government taking to get Lady Porter to pay the £26.5 million that the House of Lords has stated that she owes to the London borough of Westminster? Is it not essential that the Government regard that notorious scandal, and Lady Porter's refusal to pay despite her huge fortune, as a matter of concern?

Mr. Leslie

My hon. Friend tempts me to discuss that case in general terms, but, sadly, I do not think that it would be appropriate for Ministers to take on the role of the Standards Board for England and the auditors in respect of that case. As he will know, it is for Westminster city council to pursue any financial matters on its doorstep. We shall see how the council manages to do that job.

I was speaking about the second important change that the new clause makes. Such changes are known as section 66 regulations, under the Local Government Act 2000, and many locally elected councillors who serve on standards committees, including a number of independent members who have given up their time to do so, have been waiting for some time for changes to complete the standards regime process and allow cases that can be best dealt with locally to be handled at local council level.

Mr. Edward Davey

One problem that local authorities experience with standards committees is dealing with an awful lot of trivial, silly and frivolous complaints, often made on partisan grounds, from people in all parties. Will the new clause help to reduce the number of such complaints? If not, when will the Government tackle that problem?

Mr. Leslie

As the hon. Gentleman knows, claims and counter-claims in politics are, I am afraid, inherent in the nature of the business. There is obviously a need to ensure strong guidelines for dealing with frivolous or vexatious claims, especially if they can be dismissed very quickly. Nationally, the Standards Board for England has been carrying quite a burden in terms of the number of complaints, many of which are very minor, if not irrelevant. The board is setting up processes to ensure that it can quickly dispatch its business and clear people against whom spurious allegations have been made.

Introducing regulations to ensure that a national standards board no longer considers every single complaint and allowing complaints to be quickly delegated to a local level, where they can be dealt with equally speedily by the local standards committees, is the best way of proceeding. I do not think that it would be possible to write into primary legislation some definition of spurious allegations, as the matter is very complex, but it is best and most appropriate that local standards committees can make that judgment.

Mr. Davey

Is not part of the problem the fact that various councillors and members of the public can make such allegations cost-free? As they stand to lose nothing, there is almost an incentive in some areas for people to make vexatious claims. The situation may be difficult, but if the Government are prepared to consider complex powers on local retention of rates, they should put their mind to this matter, which is causing real problems and wasting a lot of office time and taxpayers' money.

Mr. Leslie

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the tribunals in such cases are not the same as industrial tribunals, where the complainants themselves may have an expectation of compensation in making a complaint against some wrong that was done personally to them. Although cost awards might be appropriate in such cases, I do not believe that they are appropriate in the more civil situation in which complaints are made on the basis of standards and ethics, whether at a national or local level. I believe that we can strike the right balance by giving guidance to standards committees, so that they can dispatch their business efficiently. Indeed, the Standards Board for England is likely to issue guidance across the board on the questions involved, not least of which is whether monitoring officers can delegate functions to other officers.

1.45 pm

As I said, local councils are eager for the local arrangements to come into effect. They now have strong standards committees with independent members, and these workable rules will allow them to get on with the job appropriately should the circumstances arise. I hope that the new clause and amendments will be agreed to.

Mr. Hammond

I shall be brief.

We agree that most cases of misconduct are best resolved at local level. To the extent that the new clause seeks to remove impediments to the underlying intentions framed in the Local Government Act 2000, it is welcome. That prompts the question of why it was tabled on Report rather than being included in the original Bill or tabled in Committee. Will the Minister clarify that point, which is not a last-minute one, as concern has been expressed about it for some time?

There is also concern that the need to correct deficiencies arising from an Act that was passed only two years ago highlights the dangers of excessive legislative load, inadequate time for parliamentary draftsmen and the curtailed scrutiny and consideration that Bills often receive. I fear that the consequence of that lack of time will be that the Government will have to introduce an increasing number of measures to correct defects in legislation passed only relatively recently.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me his interpretation of article 6 of the European convention on human rights and the way in which it militates towards a smaller rather than a larger tribunal. He spoke about a tribunal of three or four people and cited the example of a committee of 19 as excessive in terms of that article. It might be reassuring if he would confirm that he does not regard 12 members as excessive for a properly constituted tribunal in the terms of article 6. It could have serious ramifications for our legal system if he feels that 12 is excessive,. I look forward to his comments.

I must again take a few moments of the time of the House to make a couple of drafting points of the type that would have been made in Committee if the same provisions had been considered there. New section 82A(4) to the Local Government Act 2000, as set out in the new clause, provides that where the person nominated … is an officer of the relevant authority he will be afforded such staff, accommodation and other resources as are, in the officer's opinion, sufficient to allow those functions to be performed. Where a third party is nominated to carry out the functions, however, subsection (5)(c) provides that he will be afforded such staff, accommodation and other resources as are reasonably necessary for the person's performance of the functions. The criterion of being "reasonably necessary" is a rather better one than is provided in subsection (4). It is an objective criterion and I cannot see any obvious reason why a local government officer should be deemed able to determine the resources that he needs for himself, apparently without any qualification of reasonableness, while a third party is afforded only those resources that are reasonably necessary. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would like to examine that with a view to ascertaining whether, when the Bill reaches the other place, it could be amended to apply the "reasonably necessary" criterion in both cases. I have no other substantial points to make about the new clause.

David Winnick

I support the new clause, which is necessary. I work on the assumption that most local government business is conducted honestly and I have no reason to believe otherwise. Clearly, a monitoring system is essential; I wish that one had existed previously. If such arrangements had been in place some years ago, the scandal at Westminster council could have been avoided. It is no good the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) disliking remarks that reflect badly on his party; they cannot be avoided.

Mr. Hammond

It is not a question of my disliking the hon. Gentleman's comments. I should simply be grateful if he extended their scope to include all the scandals in Labour-controlled authorities in the past 20 or 30 years.

David Winnick

It is up to Conservative Members to do what they consider appropriate; I am dealing with a specific issue.

If we believe that councillors' behaviour should be above board, it is essential to provide some guidelines. We know the district auditor's findings for Westminster council: 250 council properties in eight marginal wards were sold purely to try to obtain Conservative votes. That was unlawful, and that is what the district auditor found.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Winnick

In a moment.

The most important point is that the House of Lords found last year that Westminster council's conduct was unlawful. The highest court in the land concluded that Lady Porter's actions were unlawful. The sum involved is £26.5 million plus interest. When the issue was raised with the Conservative Government, the then Prime Minister and other Ministers said that they did not want to make a judgment or any comments until the legal process had been exhausted. That has happened. It is unfair that councillors can be surcharged, albeit small amounts, when the former leader of Westminster council can get away with not paying £26.5 million.

Mr. Hammond

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing an amendment to an Act that was passed in 2000, long after the events that the hon. Gentleman describes. Are they relevant to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order for the Chair. However, I say to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that we are considering changing structures, and not individual cases. I believe that he has made the point that he wanted to make and gone far enough down that road.

David Winnick

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall give way shortly to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who wanted to intervene earlier, but I want to make the point that if the structures had been in place at the time, the scandal that I mentioned would probably not have occurred. I therefore do not understand why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is so upset. I should like him to condemn from the Dispatch Box Lady Porter's refusal to pay the money involved.

Mr. Andrew Turner

My comments may be superfluous in view of your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely wanted to say that if the structures had been in place in the 1940s, Herbert Morrison might not have vowed to build the Tories out of London.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Hon. Members are straying further and further from the new clause. We should revert to it.

David Winnick

I simply ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to condemn what occurred and say whether he is reasonably satisfied that the new arrangements would prevent the sort of scandal that happened in Westminster. Preventing such scandals is essential for maintaining standards in public life. I also hope that the Conservative spokesman will condemn Lady Porter's refusal to pay the money involved. It is a simple request and I hope that it will be fulfilled.

Mr. Edward Davey

The Local Government Association has considered the new clause and given it cross-party support. That is relevant to our debate and decision on it.

I was disappointed by the Under-Secretary's reply to my intervention. He said that the provisions will not tackle the problem of vexatious complaints and that he is not minded to deal with that. He should reconsider.

There is no problem with the specific proposals and I add my support to the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Proposed new section 82A(4) refers to staff being sufficient "in the officer's opinion". I, too, believe that that should be subject to a reasonableness test. Officers might decide that they wanted a suite of accommodation and a range of support staff. Although an officer's decision could probably be reviewed, the process would be costly and time-consuming. It would be much simpler if we added the word "reasonable" in the appropriate place to ensure a balance and that taxpayers' money is not wasted.

Mr. Andrew Turner

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, in Committee, the Under-Secretary implied that reasonableness was built into almost any provision in any legislation? I am not sure whether he is currently operating on that basis. If so, it prompts the question of why "reasonable" appears in some places but not in others.

Mr. Davey

Indeed. That is why the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I made that point. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) will have noted that the phrase "reasonably necessary" appears in proposed new section 82A(5)(c). There appears to be some confusion among those who drafted the Bill and in the Minister's thinking. That is a small point and we do not want to press the new clause to a Division because of it, but I hope that the Minister will accept it and ensure that the measure is corrected before it appears on the statute book.

Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)

I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Sub-committees are sensible because they can deal fairly speedily with any allegations against someone. People are busy, and convening a full committee can prove difficult. I therefore believe that the new clause may speed up justice in the case of a complaint. That is sensible.

The point about vexatious and frivolous complaints is significant. There are approximately 20,000 councillors in Britain but, given that number, scandals are rare. All parties have occasionally been touched by scandal, but few councillors are locked up in jail. Some are, but most are honest and diligent.

Under the current structure, party political groups tend to level complaints on a tit-for-tat basis. For example, a row happens in the council chamber and a complaint is made to the monitoring officer or the standards committee. I had experience of local government a few years ago and I have contacts today. I am always surprised by the frivolity of the complaints. One party starts, the other responds and the complaint keeps going. Guidance should include a reporting system to enable us to identify frivolous or vexatious complaints. They waste much time and effort in local government, which has many better things to do.

I am sure that monitoring officers will be pleased that they can delegate their functions. Some find themselves in the political position of being bombarded by complaints from various groups. They will be pleased to pass on their responsibilities when they can do that.

Matthew Green (Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned spurious complaints by councillors from both sides. I know of at least a couple of councils where senior officers used the threat of reports to the monitoring officer to try to keep their councillors going down the route that they would like. I am afraid that we see far too much of that officer-led situation in councils. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any similar circumstances?

2 pm

Mr. Syms

I was not aware of that, although the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

This sours relationships in local government and takes up an awful lot of time. The Minister said that the national committee has many frivolous matters referred to it. That should be made clear. Even if there were not to be a system of fines, there should at least be some system of monitoring and naming people who level frivolous or vexatious complaints, especially if they have a track record of levelling complaints that are not upheld.

Mr. Leslie

We have covered a large number of issues in a short time, which I welcome. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), I agree that there were several serious cases historically that led to the Government taking a strong decision to make structural changes in relation to improving standards and ethics in all levels of public life, not least in local government. Several cases gave grounds for laying the foundations for some of those changes. In the case of Lady Porter, it was the auditor who concluded that there had been scandalous misconduct in that authority. That is well known and on the record. My hon. Friend made the point extremely forcefully.

David Winnick

The Minister will know that that decision has been upheld by the House of Lords, the highest court in the land. As I said, Lady Porter owes £26.5 million plus interest, and she is obviously finding outlets in various parts of the world so as not to have to pay the money owing to the London borough of Westminster.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. May I repeat to the Minister what I said to the hon. Gentleman when he addressed the House—that I would rather he did not pursue that matter any further?

Mr. Leslie

The matter stands on the record, then, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised a number of issues. First, he asked why these changes were not anticipated at an earlier stage, perhaps in Committee. We have here a completely new regime for identifying misconduct, carrying out investigations, conducting hearings, imposing sanctions and so forth. The regulations governing the regime need to provide for fairness and efficiency across the wide variety of circumstances that might arise in each different local authority. That makes the regulation process somewhat complex. The need for the changes that we propose was identified following extensive consultation that we undertook, particularly last summer. We tabled the amendments in response to issues that were identified by the Standards Board for England and by monitoring officers and standards committees around the country.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to clarify whether 12 people were too many for a tribunal or, indeed, a jury. It was certainly not my intention to suggest that that number was excessive. I was trying to explain in a more sophisticated manner that it is important locally that standards committees have the opportunity to set up sub-committees so that the nature of the tribunal can most appropriately reflect the nature of the allegation in question.

The hon. Gentleman made a well-spotted point in noting that the new clause contains differing descriptions of the resources that can be allocated to monitoring officers who are undertaking an investigation and those that can be allocated to people who are delegated the function as a third person and who will have the resources that are "reasonably necessary" rather than simply sufficient to perform the function. That provision is there because it would not be right to give someone who is not an employee of an authority the automatic right to specify what resources the authority should provide. A situation involving a council employee, with the normal constraints in respect of ensuring that they have the necessary resources, differs from that involving somebody, say, from a neighbouring authority having a blanket right. That was the rationale behind the different phrases in the new clause, but I shall certainly look at that issue again to check that it does not give rise to any problems.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for helpfully pointing out that, in general, the reasonableness test under the Wednesbury principle should also apply to any activities and judgments of public officials. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made some important points about spurious or frivolous cases. It is important in any political situation that we allow complaints to go forward and that we do not put hurdles in their way. Although he may feel that too many cases concern allegations that are not well founded, some are genuinely and earnestly made, and we should not inhibit them. However, we also have to strike the right balance in ensuring that spurious complaints that are proved to be such can be dismissed quickly. In terms of inter-party banter, the public are pretty sophisticated and well able to make their own judgments about such allegations.

These are important provisions for raising standards in the ethical structures in local government and I hope that they can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to