HL Deb 01 February 2000 vol 609 cc201-13

(".—(1) The provision which may be made by regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (superannuation of persons employed in local government service etc) includes provision for or in connection with the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of such members of an executive of a local authority as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(2) In subsection (1) "executive" and "local authority" have the same meaning as in Part II of this Act.

(3) Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (schemes for basic, attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members) is amended as follows.

(4) At the beginning of subsection (1) there is inserted "Subject to subsection (1A)," and after that subsection there is inserted—

"(1A) In relation to a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council, subsection (1) above shall have effect with the omission of paragraph (b)."

(5) After subsection (2) there is inserted—

"(2A) Regulations under this section may authorise or require a scheme made by a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council to include provision for the payment to members of the council of allowances in respect of such expenses of arranging for the care of children or dependants as are necessarily incurred in the carrying out of their duties as members."

(6) In subsection (3), for "and (2)" there is substituted "to (2A)".

(7) After subsection (3) there is inserted—

"(3A) Regulations under this section may make provision for or in connection with—

  1. (a) enabling district councils, county councils, county borough councils or London borough councils which are operating executive arrangements to determine which members of the executive are to be entitled to pensions, allowances or gratuities,
  2. (b) treating the basic allowance and the special responsibility allowance as amounts in respect of which such pensions, allowances or gratuities are payable.

(3B) Regulations under this section may make provision for or in connection with requiring every district council, county council, county borough council and London borough council to establish and maintain a panel which is to have such functions in relation to allowances, or pensions, allowances or gratuities, payable to members of the council as may be prescribed by the regulations.

(3C) Regulations under subsection (3B) above may include provision—

  1. (a) with respect to the number of persons who may or must be appointed to the panel of a council,
  2. (b) with respect to the persons who may or must be appointed to the panel of a council,
  3. (c) for or in connection with the appointment by councils of joint panels.
  4. (d) for or in connection with enabling the panel of a council to consider and make recommendations to the council on the level of allowances payable to members of the council,
  5. (e) for or in connection with enabling the panel of a council which is operating executive arrangements to consider, and make recommendations to the council on, which members of the executive are to be entitled to pensions, allowances or gratuities."

(8) In subsection (4), for the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) there is substituted— (ba) make provision with respect to the amendment, revocation or replacement of a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations, and".

(9) After subsection (5) there is inserted—

"(5A) In making or operating any scheme authorised or required by regulations under this section, a district council, county council, county borough council or London borough council shall have regard to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State.

(5B) In this section "executive" and "executive arrangements" have the same meaning as in Part 11 of the Local Government Act 2000."").

[Amendment No. 264A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 264, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 264 agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 265 and 265A not moved.]

Clause 67 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Principles governing conduct of members of relevant authorities]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 266 to 268: Page 17, line 14, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 17, line 16, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 18, line 6, at end insert— ("(6) In this Part "co-opted member", in relation to a relevant authority, means a person who is not a member of the authority but who—

  1. (a) is a member of any committee or sub-committee of the authority, or
  2. (b) is a member of, and represents the authority on, any joint committee or joint sub-committee of the authority,
and who is entitled to vote on any question which falls to be decided at any meeting of that committee or sub-committee.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 [Model code of conduct]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 269 to 271: Page 18, line 8, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 18, line 11, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 18, line 36, after ("concerned") insert ("or the Partnership Council (as the case may be)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 [Duty of relevant authorities to adopt codes of conduct]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 272 and 273: Page 18, line 44, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 19, line 16, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 273A: Page 19, line 23, after ("newspapers") insert (", which may be or include a newspaper published by the authority.").

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 273A seeks clarification of what is a "newspaper" for the purposes of Clause 36(5). The provision requires a local authority, after adopting or revising a code of conduct, to publish certain matters in a newspaper circulating in its area. My amendment proposes that such a newspaper may include or may be a newspaper published by the authority. In raising this point I am aware of the issues concerning what is proper publication of indicators and reaching performance indicators where local authorities are required to publish details of how they have met certain targets.

It may well be that a local authority newspaper which is delivered free to every household will have a better circulation than a commercial newspaper. In moving the amendment I seek to learn the Government's intention in this matter. I hope that they will feel able, if not to accept the wording, at least to accept the spirit of this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, adoption of the amendment would mean the Bill being amended in order that information regarding the adoption of a code of conduct would be published in a newspaper published by the authority alone. While we would certainly encourage local authorities to circulate their code of conduct through their own publications—the Bill as drafted would not prevent that—we are wary of including an amendment that could reduce the requirement for publication of information on the adoption of a code of conduct solely to a newspaper published by the authority. I can see a position arising where an authority may be tempted to publish even though the circulation of the newspaper is based on membership of the electoral roll. 'That can exclude people who are new to the area and people working in the area and can be limiting.

I should remind the noble Baroness that we are not asking for a large item to be published in a newspaper. We are asking only that information about the code being adopted and where it can be seen is published. In the light of that and the reassurance that there is no need for a specific amendment which requires a local authority to publish information about the availability of the code in one of its own newspapers as well, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

I take the point that one has to be careful about using an authority's. own publication, but it seems to me that it is doing no more than meeting a bit of fine print to have a small advertisement in a commercial newspaper which is unlikely to be read by anyone other than its most devoted reader. It might be more effective to have the information published in an authority's own newspaper.

As I was speaking, it occurred to me that there might be a mechanism allowing the standards board to assess the means of publication proposed by an authority. It is not a major issue but one which is worth considering. Perhaps I may leave that thought with the Minister and with myself because it has only just occurred to me. It may be that we can discuss the matter after this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 274: Page 19, line 29, at end insert— ("(iii) specifies the address of their principal office, and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [Duty to comply with code of conduct]:

[Amendment No. 274A not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 275 to 277: Page 20, line 13, at end insert— ("( ) A person elected as a member of a relevant authority to which section 83 of that Act does not apply may not act in that office unless he has given the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the authority's existing code of conduct under section 36."). Page 20, line 15, at end insert ("after a member of the authority has begun to act in that office"). Page 20, line 16, leave out ("each member of the authority") and insert ("he").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 277A not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 278 to 280: Page 20, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) Any person appointed as a co-opted member of a relevant authority may not act as such unless he has given the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the authority's existing code of conduct under section 36. ( ) Where a relevant authority adopts or revises a code of conduct under section 36 after a co-opted member of the authority has begun to act as such—

  1. (a) he must, before the end of the period of two months beginning with the date on which the code of conduct is adopted or revised, give to the authority a written undertaking that in performing his functions he will observe the code or revised code, and
  2. (b) if he fails to do so. he is to cease to be a co-opted member of the authority at the end of that period.").
Page 20, line 30, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 20, line 33, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 280A not moved.]

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38 [Standards committees]:

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 281: Page 20, line 38, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 281, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. We want to ensure that the same high standards of conduct apply to all local authority members. Local people must be able to trust their councils to serve them properly. A consistent conduct framework that applies to all levels of local government is vital to achieving this.

Clause 34 lists the relevant authorities to which the general principles, and hence the code of conduct, apply. Parish councils, joint authorities, police authorities, fire authorities, national park authorities and the Broads Authority are included in the list. However, Clause 38 of the Bill, as currently drafted, excludes parish councils and all the other authorities I have listed from the requirement to establish separate standards committees. The original reason for this was to avoid placing an extra administrative financial burden on these relatively small councils.

Amendment No. 282 and the consequential amendments extend the requirement to establish standards committees to all the relevant committees listed in Clause 34 of the Bill. Amendment No. 307 achieves an anomaly whereby the parishes within the framework would not, because of the varying size and character—in England alone there are more than 10,000—and without overburdening themselves be able to set up an arrangement under these proposals.

Amendment No. 307 achieves that by providing that every district council within which parish councils are situated should carry out the functions of a standards committee on their behalf, either within their own committee or within a sub-committee set up specially to consider parish council conduct issues. It must be subject to consultation and agreement with the parishes involved. The amendment further provides that at least one parish member must be present when the committee or sub-committee discusses parish issues.

The final piece of the jigsaw for parish councils is the provision of a monitoring officer. Parishes are not currently required to appoint such officers, but the monitoring officer has an important part to play in the operation of the new ethical framework. Amendments Nos. 361 and 362 therefore provide that the monitoring officer of the appropriate district or unitary council will take on similar functions in relation to parishes in their area. I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond

I wish to refer to Amendment No. 282, which concerns relevant authorities. I ask the Minister a simple question: what consideration have the Government given to the impact of those proposals on police authorities? I chair a police authority and I am a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities, so I have something of a vested interest in her answer. I assure the Committee that all police authorities are committed to high standards in public life; in fact, we feel it incumbent on ourselves to set an example because we expect absolute integrity and professionalism from our police services. Police authorities throughout the country greatly welcome the Bill generally. But we are different from other local authorities. We are single service, single purpose authorities and we are independent of local government. Having worked with the Government in that area, we believed that they had listened to our concerns about the excessive bureaucracy that would be created were such measures imposed on us. That is why, when the Bill originally came to the House, it excluded police authorities from the obligation to have standards committees. It was rather a shock to discover that the Government had reversed their position.

My association has made it clear on numerous occasions that we are only too willing to help the Government to reach sensible arrangements to embrace the spirit of the proposals. But the problem may be that proper consultation has not perhaps taken place across government departments. Has the Home Office been consulted on the new move? Equally importantly, the provisions before us do not currently apply to the new Metropolitan Police Authority or even the service authorities for the National Crime Squad, of which I am a member also, or the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Should it not do so?

Furthermore, what about Wales? Responsibility for policing the area has not been devolved to the National Assembly, yet where will Welsh police authorities fit into the framework? I wish to work with the Minister in a positive and constructive way to try to resolve those issues and I offer to put my services at her disposal.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I assure the noble Baroness that the Home Office has been consulted. However, I guarantee and undertake to consider carefully the points that she raised. Amendment No. 282 and the consequential amendments extend the requirements to establish standards committees and, as the noble Baroness says, include the police authorities. Following the consultation that took place, we believe the setting up of standards committees within such authorities as police authorities is unlikely to be as onerous as was originally believed. It would indeed be possible under the legislation as amended for the whole authority, with the addition of an independent member, to act as a standards committee if the authority so decided. If it was felt appropriate, through correspondence or meetings, to continue examining the points of concern raised by the noble Baroness, I should be only too happy to undertake to do so.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

I wish to address Amendment No. 307, which is grouped with Amendment No. 281. Why have the Government chosen district councils to operate the standards committees on behalf of parish councils? Having been a member of a parish council, a district council and a county council, I can see why the National Association of Local Councils is worried by the fact that district councils are to be the operators of the standards committees. The functions of district and parish councils are more likely to overlap. In fact, more district councillors are parish councillors than are county councillors. Some districts have devolved certain planning functions to parish councils. Some parish councils have housing allocation rights to social housing within their parishes and district councils may also, through their housing needs register, have a part of that. Such connections are less close with regard to county and district councils.

Planning and housing are probably the two most contentious areas when it comes to interests which should be declared but sometimes are not. Therefore, I believe that the standards committees should operate at county level for the parish councils It should also be remembered that the local associations of local councils are set up on a county-wide and not a district-wide basis. A collection of parishes will have its association on that county-wide basis and therefore it would be a more natural association if the county were the parent standards committee for all of the parishes.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

In response to the final point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, it is my understanding that not all parish councils are in membership of the county branches within a particular county area. There can be a very large number of councils within a county area. That would therefore make the task of a committee quite onerous at county council level.

I appreciate the point that has been raised but I would draw attention to the fact that, within a subcommittee set up specifically to consider parish council conduct issues—that has to be subject to consultation and agreement with parish councils—it would be possible to have regard to the concerns that were raised. Close functional links are helpful, not unhelpful, in many ways. There can be a problem with counties. For example, in north Yorkshire there are almost 900 parish councils. We accept that a degree of co-operation will be needed between districts and their parishes to make the provision work smoothly.

I shall consider carefully the points raised by the noble Baroness. However, I do not say that in the context of believing that we would wish to change our position on this matter.

Baroness Byford

Perhaps I may add my voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I have been in contact with local councils serving both towns and the country. They state clearly that they are concerned about the direct link to district councils. But I am somewhat relieved by what the Minister has just said. Therefore, I shall save my remarks until I have had a chance to read Hansard and then may come back to this matter.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 282 to 287: Page 20, line 38, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 20, line 40, leave out ("section 39") and insert ("this Part"). Page 20, line 40, at end insert— ("(1A) Subsection ( 1) does not apply to a parish council or community council."). Page 20, line 41, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 20, line 43, leave out ("subsection (5)(a))") and insert ("any provision made by virtue of subsection (5)(a) or (6)(a))"). Page 20, line 44, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").

On Question, amendments agreed to,

11 p.m.

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 287A: Page 21, line I, leave out ("one person who is not a member, or an officer,") and insert ("a majority of persons who are not members or officers").

The noble Baroness said: The amendment relates to standards committees. The Bill provides that a standards committee must include, at least two members of the authority, and … at least one person who is not a member, or an officer, of that or any other local authority".

The amendment suggests that that balance may not be appropriate.

The possibility of the majority of the committee being members of an authority may not be right. The amendment proposes that, rather than have a single person who is "independent"—I use the term as shorthand—adequately fulfilling the provision, it would be more appropriate to have a majority of people who are not members or officers.

It is important not only that standards committees operate properly—using the term to mean "with propriety"—but that they are seen to achieve the job that they set out to do. There should be no suggestion that, because the committees include members of an authority, they are almost by definition and from the outset tainted. It might be more appropriate to show the world that the standards committee has a majority of independent members who do not have the kind of vested interests that the public might regard members of the authority as having. I beg to move.

Lord Filkin

I am minded that the provisions relating to the standards board and the adjudication panel have changed considerably since the publication of the draft Bill. In the draft Bill the board was very much concerned with investigating individual cases of misconduct. Under the Bill as it now stands the board has a wider remit to consider a range of guidance-making powers and will administer the adjudication process as well as overseeing investigations into misconduct as originally intended.

In those circumstances, I wonder whether the wider remit that is now given to the board under the terms of the Bill might benefit from the setting out of some over-arching or guiding purpose to inform its work, or to ensure that it pays due regard to the wider responsibilities conferred on it. That might be a way of introducing a broad purpose or function for the board, perhaps to uphold the principles of conduct set out under Clause 34.

Lord Whitty

In relation to the noble Lord's last point, it is true that some of the functions of the standards board have changed. Consideration of its over-arching objectives may well be appropriate. Perhaps I may take the matter away and return to noble Lords on that point.

Our approach in the Bill is to provide as much flexibility as possible at local level. Therefore, the provisions on the face of the Bill and the regulations would provide for a wide range of circumstances with minimum criteria on membership, which would prevent, for example, a mayor being elected or an executive member chairing a committee, and provide for at least one independent member. It does not preclude a majority of independent members. However, we felt that in this area it would be appropriate to leave the exact composition of the standards committee to local circumstances. There are sufficient safeguards in the provisions as a whole to ensure that councils are guided in a reasonable way but retain choice as to the precise composition. The Secretary of State has power to make regulations in this area, although our preferred approach is not to be too prescriptive. We shall review the matter in the light of experience. If it proves necessary to be more prescriptive in relation to the number of independent members, we shall do so by regulation rather than on the face of the Bill.

Baroness Hamwee

The Government do not want to be too prescriptive but have prescribed that the standards committee should include at least two members of the local authority and one person who is not. If the Government want to leave it to each authority, possibly under some kind of overarching guidance from the standards board as the Minister suggested, the logic of it is that this provision merely requires one member of the authority and one independent member. I am at a loss to understand that approach. The words used by the Minister do not appear to be reflected in the provisions of the Bill that the Committee is asked to address.

Nor is it appropriate—the Minister draws my attention to this matter—that under subsection (3) there is a requirement as to the composition of a standards committee and in subsection (5) the Secretary of State may make regulations for the composition of standards committees. I had initially read it as meaning that the regulations to be made under subsection (5) could not override the primary legislation in subsection (3).

I end by being more rather than less concerned. However, this is not an area in which we seek to lock horns with the Government. By and large, we support this part of the Bill, but it is important that the details are correct. I do not pursue the point at this moment, but I invite the noble Lord to reflect on whether the answer that he has given is supported by the words that the Committee is being asked to agree.

Lord Whitty

Perhaps I may seek to clarify the matter. The ability to make regulations does not override the provisions on the face of the Bill which are the minima. The Secretary of State can make more substantial regulations.

Baroness Hamwee

One supposes that the Secretary of State could reverse the balance between members of the authority and independent members, which I sought to do. I believe that to have that balance on the face of the Bill is a more straightforward approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 288 to 292: Page 21, line 2, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 21, line 3, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 21, line 8, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 21, line 16, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 21, line 20, leave out from second ("or) to end of line 21 and insert ("such committees").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 293: Page 21, line 21, at end insert— ("(6A) The Standards Board for England—

  1. (a) may issue guidance with respect to the size and composition of standards committees of local authorities in England, and
  2. (b) must send a copy of any such guidance to the Secretary of State.
(6B) The Standards Board for Wales—
  1. (a) may issue guidance with respect to the size and composition of standards committees of local authorities in Wales, and
  2. (b) must send a copy of any such guidance to the National Assembly for Wales.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 293 is part of a separate group and I speak briefly to it. This amendment is concerned with part of the provisions that deal with the standards board. In addition to investigating breaches of codes of conduct, we envisage that the standards board will have an important role in best practice, to which my noble friend Lord Filkin has just referred. The power to issue guidance on the size and composition of standards committees is part of that role. Once the basic framework is in force the standards board will be able to issue further guidance, for example on the details of the appointments process for independent members, suitable membership balance and so on. This is guidance short of regulation, as we debated in the context of a previous amendment. The Secretary of State will still be able to make regulations, but the standards board can issue guidance in this area.

The other two amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 310 and 313, serve to clarify that the standards board may publish any guidance it issues on the conduct of members. That guidance may be issued to an individual authority, a group of authorities or local authorities generally. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 294 to 296: Page 21, line 22, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 21, line 24, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 21, line 29, leave out subsection (9).

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox)

I understand that by pre-emption, with Amendment No. 296 agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 296A.

[Amendment No. 296A not moved.]

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 297: Page 21, line 38, after ("committee") insert ("of a relevant authority").—

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 297A: Page 21, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) Nothing in this section has the effect of abolishing existing parish council power; and delegated functions.").

The noble Baroness said: We on this side of the Chamber have been concerned by reports that the Secretary of State at the DETR has ambitions to abolish all 10,000 parish councils in England. The noble Lord, Lord Graham—he is no longer in his place— touched on the issue when using the phrase "if' they were allowed to continue. He, therefore, has heard rumblings.

The matter was first reported in October of last year and reiterated on 23rd January this year in a Sunday Express article headed "Parish Councils face axe". Some 10,000 parish councils cover hamlets, small villages, large villages and towns as big as Hereford, Lichfield and Weston-Super-Mare. Together they are responsible for some 15.8 million people and are a working example of devolution at the lowest possible level.

The fact that this Bill carries no reference to parish councils has alarmed citizens throughout the country. It has attracted cynosure from no less a body than the National Association of Local Councils, to which we referred earlier. Their influence may have permeated the corridors of power, as I note that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has tabled a lengthy and related amendment.

Mr Meacher stated that Her Majesty's Government are more in favour of neighbourhood fora than parish councils. However, I have difficulty in embracing the concept of a code of conduct being applied to a talking shop. Presumably that is why neighbourhood fora are not covered in Bill. If the principle of local acceptance of local responsibility has any importance in this Government's scheme of things, the Minister must accept that parish councils play a vital role, particularly in rural affairs. Those who live in the countryside are subject to the same law, statutes and— alas, sometimes—European directives as those who dwell in large towns and cities.

Codes of conduct are all the rage at the moment and may turn out to be shortlasting, but to exclude parish councils from this clause implies that someone feels the latter are of no value. Perhaps the Minister, especially in the light of Amendment No. 307—we touched on it a little earlier—will interpret Mr Meacher's pronouncements for us. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that we are even more concerned by the rumours in such papers as the Sunday Express, to which she referred, knowing them to be false and knowing that the Government have absolutely no such plans. The fact that during the course of legislation parish councils have been treated differently with regard to standards committees is a recognition that they are different, not that they are of no value or in any way less important. I assure the noble Baroness from my background of the very rural county of Lancashire that I am fully aware of the nature of the role fulfilled by parish councils.

Clause 38 of the Bill sets out the requirements for local authorities to establish a standards committee. Amendment No. 297A would add a new subsection at the end of the clause specifying that nothing in that section would abolish any existing parish council powers or delegated functions. I should like to reassure the noble Baroness that in introducing a new ethical framework for local government we have no intention to reduce or abolish the powers of parish councils or the functions delegated to them. There is certainly no such suggestion in Clause 38 but I recognise that it does not make suitable provision for standards committees for parish councils—which was the reason for tabling Amendment No. 307, which sets out the detailed arrangements. Amendment No. 297A is therefore not required and I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw it. I hope that she will join me in making sure in future that the Sunday Express and other newspapers are properly informed of Government policy.

Baroness Byford

I thank the Minister for her robust reply. I obviously read the newspapers and sometimes treat stories with great scepticism, but it is important to clarify the matter in respect of not only that but other articles. At a fringe meeting attended by Mr. Meacher at last year's Labour Party conference, such views were expressed and discussed.

Earlier, I said that my amendment was probably not in the right place. It was difficult to find the correct location, so I am grateful to the Minister for her tolerant response. Many amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, respond to conversations with local councils, for which I am grateful. When the Bill was published, it did not give that recognition— which was the theme of my amendment. I heard the Minister's reply and will certainly read Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

11.15 p.m.

Clause 39 [Functions of standards committees]:

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 298 to 302: Page 21, line 41, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 21, line 44, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 22, line 1, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members"). Page 22, line 4, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 22, line 8, after ("members") insert ("and co-opted members").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 303: Page 22, line 9, leave out from ("conduct") to end of line 10.

The noble Lord said: The Bill provides for ethical standards officers to determine whether a case should be referred to an authority's standards committee. Amendments Nos. 328 and 335 change that, so the ethical standards officer will instead refer a case to the authority's monitoring officer. Under the new ethical framework, the monitoring officer will have responsibility for probity within the authority, including the provision of support to the standards committee—and so will be the person best placed to handle issues raised by the standards board.

Amendment No. 373 amends Section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to ensure that the chief executive is not appointed as the authority's monitoring officer, for obvious reasons. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 304 to 306: Page 22, line 11, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 22, line 14, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant"). Page 22, line 17, leave out ("local") and insert ("relevant").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 307: After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—