Parliamentary Debates House of Commons Official Report General Committees

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

LOCALISM BILL

Seventh Sitting Thursday 3 February 2011 (Morning)

CONTENTS Written evidence reported to the House. CLAUSES 13 and 14 agreed to. SCHEDULE 4 agreed to. CLAUSES 15 and 16 agreed to. CLAUSE 17 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at One o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £4·00 PBC (Bill 126) 2010 - 2011 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 7 February 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 279 Public Bill Committee3 FEBRUARY 2011 Localism Bill 280

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: MR DAVID AMESS,†HUGH BAYLEY

† Alexander, Heidi (Lewisham East) (Lab) † Ollerenshaw, Eric (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con) Barwell, Gavin (Croydon Central) (Con) † Raynsford, Mr Nick (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con) (Lab) † Cairns, Alun (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) † Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/ † Clark, Greg (Minister of State, Department for Co-op) Communities and Local Government) † Seabeck, Alison (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab) † Dakin, Nic (Scunthorpe) (Lab) Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP) † Dromey, Jack (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) † Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con) † Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) (Lab) † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) † Gilbert, Stephen (St Austell and Newquay) (LD) † Stunell, Andrew (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of † Howell, John (Henley) (Con) State for Communities and Local Government) † Keeley, Barbara (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) † Ward, Mr David (Bradford East) (LD) † Lewis, Brandon (Great Yarmouth) (Con) † Wiggin, Bill (North Herefordshire) (Con) McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) † Mearns, Ian (Gateshead) (Lab) Sarah Davies, Committee Clerk † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † Neill, Robert (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) † attended the Committee 281 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Localism Bill 282

When we adjourned on Tuesday, the Committee Public Bill Committee had agreed that clause 12 should stand part of the Bill. We now move on to clause 13, which is about predetermination—the difficulty that arises when people Thursday 3 February 2011 come to a meeting having already decided what they believe, irrespective of the evidence. That is not a problem (Morning) that we have here at all.

Clause 13 [HUGH BAYLEY in the Chair]

PRIOR INDICATIONS OF VIEW OF A MATTER NOT TO Localism Bill AMOUNT TO PREDETERMINATION ETC Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Written evidence to be reported to the Bill. House L 48 Philip Coleman Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab): It is a pleasure to be back in Committee Room 12 for a L 49 David Alexander second day, for the seventh sitting of this Committee. L 50 Institute of Historic Building Conservation The Law Society has expressed concern about whether L 51 Highgate Society “closed mind” is the right term to use in subsection (1)(b). L 52 Development Trusts Association The Law Society feels that the benefit of the clause could be eroded if an individual expresses a view on L 53 County Councils Network development and is later perceived to have had a closed L 54 E.ON mind. That would make an individual susceptible to L 55 Professor Tony Warnes and Dr Maureen Crane challenge, and I do not think any of us want councillors L 56 Keep Britain Tidy to be challenged on such issues. Will the Minister consider tabling an amendment to correct that wording, if it is L 57 Federation of Master Builders problematic? L 58 British Retail Consortium L 59 Rick Long MRTPI Robert Neill: I have listened to the hon. Lady, and I L 60 Richard Carter will take the point on board, but we do not believe that L 61 Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council the wording is problematic. Lawyers are like economists: if there are enough of them in a room, there will be a L62Moat number of varying opinions. However, I do of course L 63 Highbury Group on Housing Delivery take the view of the Law Society seriously, and we will consider it. I get the sense from the hon. Lady’s observation 9.30 am that the objective of the clause is accepted by Members on both sides of the room, and given that, I hope that The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the clause may stand part as it is. If there is a difficulty, Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): On I will happily speak to the Law Society and other a point of order, Mr Bayley. Good morning, and welcome interested parties and keep the hon. Lady informed. back to the Chair. On Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich raised the pertinent issue of charging being restricted to the territorial sea of the Barbara Keeley: Could the Minister report back at a United Kingdom or otherwise. I have written to him later stage, if that discussion produces anything worth today, and I have ensured that copies of the letter are while that I could then consider? available on the table. My letter confirms the prescience of the observation of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Robert Neill: Yes, I will happily do that. Moor View; the measure is designed to reflect provisions in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, so that the Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con): My point relates to regimes are the same. It will cover not only the channel the definition of “relevant authority”. My constituency tunnel, but oil rigs and structures such as lighthouses has a unitary council, and subsection (4) mentions a that might be just beyond the territorial limit but could “county borough council”. Is that a unitary council for be reached by coastguard or other boats, if they required the purposes of the definition? Why were such councils the assistance of the fire services. not referred to in clause 7, where the definition of “local authority” excludes county borough councils and makes The Chair: I thank the Minister for that, although it no reference to unitary councils? is not strictly a point of order. Robert Neill: The provision mirrors the standard terminology. Although we have defined unitary councils, Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab): if we look at other enactments, we see that unitary Further to that point of order, Mr Bayley. I thank the councils are frequently referred to in legislation as district Minister for his most helpful contribution. or other councils. That does not create any problems, as I understand it. I assure my hon. Friend that the clause The Chair: Good. I am grateful to the Minister for covers all authorities, including unitary authorities, which coming back to the Committee, as he promised he would. have the functions of borough or county councils. She 283 Public Bill Committee3 FEBRUARY 2011 Localism Bill 284 can rest assured that the rule will apply to unitary accountability function of Parliament, and I would like councils as much as to any other councils, not least the Minister to tell me why the impact assessments were because my interest in the subject was prompted by the so late. difficulties my wife had when she was a member of a The impact assessment for this part of the Bill tells us unitary authority and found that she was constrained that the misconduct of failing to treat others with when raising issues on behalf of her constituents. respect amounts to 30% of breaches of the code, while acting in a manner that could reasonably be regarded as bringing the authority into disrepute amounted to 20%. Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab): Deep in the recesses The impact assessment says: of my mind, I seem to remember that county boroughs “Risks may arise from breaches related to bullying others or were established under the Municipal Corporations disclosing confidential information, but it would be possible for Act 1882. Many of those county boroughs have been authorities to put procedures into place to minimise these risks.” subsumed into unitary or metropolitan authorities, but As I see it, if codes of conduct were voluntary, the staff there are still some dotted around the country. of councils and members of the public would have no effective redress against such misconduct. Robert Neill: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In evidence to the Committee, John Findlay of the This is one of those interchangeable bits of terminology, National Association of Local Councils made the case but the purpose of the clause is to capture all directly that there is a demand for a code of conduct: elected authorities. It also, for the sake of fullness, “Most of our councils welcomed the idea that they were includes co-opted—as well as elected—members of national subject to a code, but it was more on the basis that at least it was park authorities and other relevant bodies, such as the same that the principal authorities—the counties, districts and boroughs—were treated to”. those that carry out planning functions. On the question of the code being voluntary, Mr Findlay said: The Chair: I will not ask the Clerk to bring the “The problem here is that every council will make up its own relevant Act into the room for Members to consult, but mind. The choices that are available here do not seem quite right it is in the Library, should any Member wish to look to us, because the options are: have no code at all; have some at it. voluntary code that we have written for them; keep the old code— the Standards Board code—or write their very own local code. It Question put and agreed to. is a bit of a mess, to be quite honest, and it needs clearing Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. up.”––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2011; c. 153, Q251.] Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, in its Schedule 4 agreed to. briefing to this Committee, said that arrangements envisaged Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. in the Bill had three main elements. First, serious misconduct for personal gain would be a criminal offence, and quite rightly so. Secondly, individuals who have been personally Clause 16 disadvantaged by something a councillor has done will be able to complain to the local government ombudsman. Thirdly, for other instances of misconduct, the remedy VOLUNTARY CODES OF CONDUCT will be left with the ballot box. That seems like a clear analysis, and it also seems Barbara Keeley: I beg to move amendment 41, in clear that many instances of misconduct will now probably clause 16, page 15, line 44, leave out ‘may’ and insert go without remedy. Taking the instance that I gave ‘must’. earlier of the councillor in my constituency, he was The amendment makes a code of conduct for councillors re-elected after a three-year ban from public life, because compulsory, rather than voluntary.Members and co-opted there was enough support for his party for that to members of a local authority should have a code of happen. Within no time, there were further complaints conduct to guide them and to ensure that they are and another case of misconduct, this time against a accountable to the public. Of course, good local authorities policewoman. So the ballot box is no guaranteed remedy would always have a code of conduct, but all local for the public against misconduct. authorities need one. The Committee had excellent advice from Mr John Mann, who has been the independent chair of the In the constituency that I held before 2010, a London borough of Brent’s standards committee since councillor—of a different party from mine, I should 2002. I would like to thank him both for his evidence say—was found guilty of misconduct and suspended on and for the work that he and other independent people two separate occasions for bullying members of the do on the important issues of conduct and standards. public, officers of the council and, on one occasion, a Mr Mann makes it clear that he had to challenge the policewoman. A quick search of articles in the press view in the council that councillors’ behaviour could be suggests that this is quite a common form of misconduct satisfactorily dealt with by the party whips. We have two under the current code. Whips here and they do an excellent job, but they I want to mention the impact assessment for this part cannot do everything. of the Bill, and I also want to register a complaint. Mr Mann says: More than 30 separate impact assessment documents “I have no doubt that the existence of the Code and of the for the Bill were published on Monday, and the Committee Standards Committee have led to a higher awareness of the issues started on Tuesday morning. It is clear, Mr Bayley, that and higher standards of behaviour. Our ability to impose sanctions, some of them are not finished, as they are full of empty such as training, public apology and in one case suspension, has tables. I think that is an insult to the scrutiny and publicised the importance of high standards of conduct”. 285 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Localism Bill 286

[Barbara Keeley] It is in all our interests, as we know only too well in this place, to have clear standards of conduct. The From his eight years’ experience, Mr Mann judges it public should feel confident that those who are elected important to have a code of conduct for councillors. to public office, whether here or in local authorities, will The Opposition agree with him, and I hope that the maintain the highest standards of probity and good Committee can support the amendment. conduct. We cannot take that lightly or see it simply as a matter of localism and devolution. Certain principles should be upheld in public life at all levels, and it is our Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): I wanted responsibility as a Parliament to ensure that the framework to intervene on the hon. Lady, but I shall make a short promotes those standards. I give my wholehearted support contribution instead. The evidence that I have seen is to amendment 41. I hope that the Government will that councils use codes of conduct to address points of reconsider, because they are opening a can of worms, debate, not conduct. In a case recently in my unitary and for that, they may be blamed in future. authority, one councillor took another to the Standards Board not on any real point of conduct, but on a point of debate. The whole case cost something in the order Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD): I will pursue of £25,000, which is a colossal waste of public money. I my consistent theme of claiming that both sides are very much welcome the clause, which will prevent such wrong. I am trying to steer what appears to me—perhaps instances. only to me—to be a consistent course. In general, as I have said, I do not like “musts” for local authorities, except for a “must disclose.” I would much prefer there Mr Raynsford: May I express shock at the comments to be a “may,” which could also be a “may not.” A that we have just heard? The inference of the hon. “may” is appropriate in the basic rules for how an Gentleman’s comments is that it does not matter if authority operates. The Opposition’s argument is there are breaches of standards, or if councillors behave inconsistent when it comes to clause 16(5); what is the in an inappropriate way, and that that should simply be value in saying that an authority must have a code of left for the council to decide. The amendment aims to conduct, but may or may not publicise it? If it must ensure that there is a code in every local authority area. have a code, surely it must publicise it. Later on, there The danger here is the pendulum. We know perfectly will be other “may” and “must” discussions to be had. well that before the creation of the Standards Board The duty to disclose what the authority is doing is there were many cases and complaints about thoroughly imperative to protect the electors and to ensure that the unsatisfactory standards of conduct in local government, council is being run in an appropriate way. involving criminal activity in some cases, with police intervention being necessary in certain instances. In Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I rise to support the other cases, there was bullying and utterly inappropriate amendment. Although it is small, changing “may” to conduct and behaviour. “must” in relation to the adoption of a voluntary code For all the criticisms that have been made, the advent of conduct makes a large difference to the establishment of the Standards Board and the standards regime has of a benchmark standard across the country. We have helped to improve standards in local government. I made great strides forward in conduct and codes, and it understand the view that the majority of Conservative would be unwise to row back from that. I hear the Members have expressed, which is that the Standards arguments of the hon. Member for Bradford East, and Board was unduly prescriptive, and that a less centralised they are well put, in that if one moves from “must” to regime is necessary. I do not understand, and I certainly “may”, one should at least ensure transparency and do not support, any suggestion that a recognised code ensure a “must” in terms of publicising where one is, of standards should not exist in every local authority. because that will encourage local authorities to adopt The argument that that should be left to local discretion voluntary codes of practice. opens the door to precisely the kinds of problems and As someone who led a local authority for some time, abuse that existed in the past. I recognise some of the silliness around the edges that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South mentioned. 9.45 am He is right about that, and it would be better to get rid If the Government believe that enacting this legislation of it. That, however, is about human behaviour; it is not with that permissive power for local authorities to decide about whether there is a code. The code gives everybody whether they want standards will absolve them of any a clear standard on what they should be doing. In my problems, they are, frankly, deluding themselves. That role as leader of a council, it would have been helpful to will be a green light to certain authorities and public have a code, because it would have been something that representatives. We are talking about a minority, and I everybody could refer to, that was transparent and open do not want to overstate the case, but unfortunately and that assisted everybody in being up to the mark and people transgress and behave inappropriately in public in maintaining high standards, which is what we are all life, in organisations including local government. If about. they believe that they can do what they like and get away with it, and that no pressure will be put on The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for them—possibly because they come from a majority Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell): party in a local authority and believe that their leader It is good to be back in front of you again, Mr Bayley. and chief whip will cover up any allegations of misconduct We are discussing an important provision, which, I against them—we are opening the door to a thoroughly remind the Committee, was included in the manifestos dangerous and unsatisfactory situation that many of us of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats thought we had eradicated. and was written into the coalition agreement in May. I 287 Public Bill Committee3 FEBRUARY 2011 Localism Bill 288 am pleased to see that the Opposition fully accept the employer’s legal duty. It would entitle employees to need to change what was a burdensome and bureaucratic claim compensation from the employer or, in the worst system. Those of us with any experience of, or contact case, constructive dismissal. with, local government will know that that system was There are legal remedies available to anybody who is an almost constant source of irritation to almost every subject to intimidation or harassment, whether or not local authority. It is imperative that we deal with it they are an employee. The Protection from Harassment clearly and decisively. Act 1997 makes it an offence for a person to pursue a The issue that the amendment raises is what the legal course of conduct which “amounts to harassment” or statutory obligation on a local authority should be “which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment”. when it comes to monitoring and responding to breaches That Act gives people who are subject to harassment a of good behaviour by its members. I remind the Committee right to go to the civil courts to obtain an injunction that there is, for example, no statutory requirement on a and damages. A council, as an employer, could consider local authority to have a code of conduct for its employees; undertaking proceedings to support an employee under as a matter of course, however, all local authorities do. the Act, if it felt that it was an extreme case. Good practice is, in fact, universal on that point, but there is no statutory guidance framework. The Government In other words, the hon. Lady seeks to create a therefore believe that if a local authority wants to adopt special category of situation for councillors—as compared its own code of conduct, it should be free to do so. It is with anybody else—who harass an employee or a member almost inconceivable that authorities will not adopt of the public. She is trying to re-impose a statutory duty one, as has been found in the case of a policy for on councils to have something that councils do not even employees. have for employees, never mind for councillors, so we certainly want to resist the amendment. Authorities should, however, have that freedom, and I must say that the evidence that we received from the National Association of Local Councils was that the Mr Raynsford: I find it difficult to follow the Minister’s problem was that logic. What he is saying, in essence, is that because there is an alternative route of redress—in this case through “every council will make up its own mind”.––[Official Report, Localism Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2011; c. 153, Q251.] employment legislation—there is absolutely no need for a code. If you take that argument the whole way, there is Coming from the National Association of Local Councils, no need for any code of standards whatever, because that seems an extraordinary criticism, because it believes acting unlawfully would result in the possibility of that every council should be free to make up its own criminal conviction. So a councillor who defrauds his mind on just about everything. As the tier closest to the authority does not need a code on standards of probity, community, it is right that councils should have that because there is an alternative criminal route for remedy power. In giving evidence to the Committee, the against him. That argument seems completely absurd. representative was perhaps reflecting on the fact that We are talking about standards—standards in public somewhere between two thirds and three quarters of all life and in local government. If the Minister is seriously complaints reported through the Standards Board suggesting that other remedies are available and that mechanism came from parish and town councils. Those there is no need for any statement of standards, he is complaints were often trivial, a waste of money and arguing a case that very few members of the public reputation, pointless and meaningless. would think was in the least bit credible.

Ian Mearns: My only problem with the evidence from Andrew Stunell: It is fortunate, therefore, that that is the National Association of Local Councils is that, as not the argument that I am deploying. Tomorrow, when an organisation, it does not cover the whole country; it the right hon. Gentleman reads the Committee record, covers only town and parish councils. In particular, he will see that in my first few words, I made it clear that large parts of urban areas are not included, so the views I think that local authorities will, as a matter of course, of such communities are not reflected at all. Although have a code. I remind him that nearly all local authorities its councils are spread around the country, it is a pepper-pot had a code before it was a mandatory, statutory requirement, organisation that does not cover all of it, and it therefore so I do not want him to erect a false argument and try to cannot be said to reflect the views of councils around jam it down my throat. Let us stick with what I am the country at all. actually saying: were an authority not to the very sensible thing and have a code, there are remedies available. Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman: if he intervention. It is obviously up to Committee members believes that codes are so important that a statutory to weigh up the value and representative nature of those imposition is necessary, why was it never necessary in who gave evidence to us. his time to impose a statutory duty on councils to have such a code for their employees? Was not that as important I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member a matter? Of course, he does not see that need. for Worsley and Eccles South made about bullying of staff by councillors—or indeed, bullying by councillors 10 am of anybody who is in a situation of formal employment. The primary protection for any employee stems from Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op): their position as an employee. The employer—the council This is a subject close to my heart, because before or the police service, for instance—has a legal duty to entering Parliament I ran what we in the Labour party provide employees with a safe system of work. Allowing call our local government committee in my borough. a situation to arise where an employee is subject to That is the body that deals with the selection and bullying or harassment would be a breach of that re-selection of candidates, and I am sure that there are 289 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Localism Bill 290

[Jonathan Reynolds] Barbara Keeley: I really do not think that that is acceptable. I have looked at the impact assessments and comparable bodies in other political parties. The Minister a number of them are full of empty tables; where there has entirely missed the political nature of the councillor’s are supposed to be figures, there are none. They look role, as opposed to the employee’s role, which is governed like a rushed job, put out on Monday even though they by the usual codes of conduct that are part of an were not finished. It is an insult to the Committee to put employment contract and the disciplinary procedures out 30 documents on the eve of a sitting, when we that follow. Surely, as someone with experience in this should have had time to prepare. As I will keep saying, area, he must recognise that it is always hard to separate there was no reason to rush the Bill out and into the disciplinary aspect of the political group from the Committee before it was ready. We hardly had any time political work of the group. There will always be battles between Second Reading and Committee; we could over who will chair what committee and who the leader have been given a few weeks. If the impact assessments will be. were not ready, it would have been a courtesy to give An external statutory obligation gives people who are Committee members more time. trying to produce good local government in their area an external reference point when dealing with cases that Andrew Stunell: I take note of what the hon. Lady come up. If they do not have that, they will always go says. However, I would like to make it clear that we back to a situation where things become subjectively want to keep the Committee properly informed in a based around the local politics of the area. That does timely way and ensure that the information that we not lead to good local government. provide is accurate and thorough. If she wants to raise specific points about particular impact assessments, I Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is actually arguing am certainly willing to listen to them, either in or for keeping the Standards Board. [HON.MEMBERS: “No.”] outside the Committee. Well, what is he saying? He seems to be saying that there should—[Interruption.] Well, let me point out to him Ian Mearns: It occurs to me that the clause seems to what I think will appear on the record: he said that there cover the adoption or otherwise of codes of conduct for should be an objective external body. The amendment is members and co-opted members of authorities. There about whether an authority should have a code itself, is no provision at all for adopting or not adopting a not whether there should be an objective external body. code of conduct for elected mayors. Jonathan Reynolds: Let me clarify. I am saying that there should be a code of conduct in authorities, as the Andrew Stunell: My understanding is that mayors are amendment proposes. elected members and are covered by the same provisions. I could speak on another point for a minute or two while the scribblers confirm that. My clear understanding Andrew Stunell: Right. The hon. Gentleman is speaking is that elected mayors, legally speaking, are members of in support of the amendment, but perhaps when he the authority and are therefore fully covered. [Interruption.] spoke about an external body he deployed an argument Indeed, I refer the hon. Gentleman—as, of course, I that took him beyond where he intended to go. The knew all along—to clause 15(5), where that provision is point I want to make clearly to the Committee is that we set out. trust local government to manage its own affairs. We trust it, as the Labour Government did, to manage its affairs in relation to employees, and we trust it on the Barbara Keeley: MPs, councillors and mayors are management of the behaviour of councillors. political leaders. That is an important distinction, which I want to pick up on a couple of points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde other hon. Members. I look forward with real anticipation was right to draw. We must not blur codes of conduct as to the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for they apply to staff—important as they are—with codes Bradford East to the debate, and I hope that there will of conduct for political leaders. MPs have a code of be an occasion when one side or the other gets something conduct, which I am sure most of us believe is very right. We will see what we can do about that. His point important given everything that has happened recently. about “may” and “must” in clause 16, in which an In addition, we take an oath, and the code of conduct authority that has a code may publicise it, is interesting, links to that. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for and I will certainly consider it at some point. I think he supporting the argument that we are making for the has described himself as a localist fundamentalist, so I amendment, which is important. hope that he agrees that on this occasion, and on the I say to the hon. Member for Bradford East, who amendment, the Government have got it right. seemed torn between opinions on the matter, that we The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South must think about local people and the staff of a local raised a point about the impact assessment. The Bill is authority that has bullying and abusive councillors. In large and complex and, of course, impacts arise from my constituency, I had a bullying and abusive councillor, many of the provisions. We have gone to considerable and the ballot box was not a remedy. He was re-elected, lengths to ensure that the impact assessments are substantial got back into the same position and had to be banned and thorough and, more to the point, that the interaction from public life again for another period. The provision between different provisions is taken properly is not too much to ask for; it is a small thing. into account. I apologise to her for not producing the If the Minister is so sure that every local authority impact assessments a long time ago, but with a large, will continue to have a code of conduct, why not allow complex Bill, we ought to aim for thoroughness rather this small amendment? I am particularly thinking about than speed in the impact assessments. those people whose experiences of bullying and misconduct 291 Public Bill Committee3 FEBRUARY 2011 Localism Bill 292 make up 30% of the cases. We have supported all the Secondly, the Mayor of London has commented other measures in the section of the Bill relating to that, under the Bill, standards, duties and powers will standards, but we feel that there absolutely must be a be a matter solely for the London assembly. The Mayor code of conduct. feels that such a regime should be shaped by the Mayor In conclusion, the Minister is rather naive if he thinks as well as the assembly, because the Mayor will be that the remedies he has talked about, particularly for subject to the regime. The question of how such things local authority staff, against a council’s political leadership cover mayors is important, so do the Government propose are realistic. There is a very unequal power relationship to amend the Bill so that the Mayor of London and in that regard, which is why people in public and the assembly will be jointly responsible for shaping the political life have to adhere to higher standards. In regime? councils across the country, more than 100,000 people Andrew Stunell: I will do my best to respond to the are waiting to hear whether they still have a job and hon. Lady’s questions, but if she wants further information, whether they will keep their job over the coming months I may have to come back to the Committee with it. and years. That situation will carry on this year and First, I reassure the Committee that, as we discussed in next year. the previous debate, mayors are covered by the Bill—they Liverpool is doing away with 1,500 jobs and Manchester are not excluded. However, there is a specific point in is having to cut 2,000 jobs. Will those people who are relation to London as to who has the ownership, or waiting to hear about their jobs really bring remedies guardianship, of the code. That will be in the hands of against the people who will decide whether they keep the London assembly, which may not give the Mayor their jobs? That is a very unequal relationship and local what he wants in terms of participation in the code. authority staff need the protection of knowing that Representations have been made on the matter, which there is a proper code of conduct. we will consider and come back to in due course. On the local government ombudsman, the hon. Lady Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con): Will the may want to take time to look at the impact assessment, hon. Lady give way? which assesses the additional costs that will be transferred from the system that we are abolishing to the new Barbara Keeley: No, I shall conclude now. We have arrangements. Once she has looked at that, I will be discussed the issue enough, and I would like to press the happy to respond, either in writing or in Committee, to amendment to a vote. any further queries that she might have. Question put, That the amendment be made. Barbara Keeley: If I might clarify my questions, I The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 14. understand that, as is the case with many of the organisations being discontinued, the abolition of the Division No. 7] Standards Board will be expensive this year. Will the Minister write to me—and copy in the Committee—with AYES this year’s costs of getting rid of the board, and with the Alexander, Heidi Mearns, Ian estimated increase for the local government ombudsman? Dakin, Nic Raynsford, rh Mr Nick Dromey, Jack 10.15 am Elliott, Julie Reynolds, Jonathan Keeley, Barbara Seabeck, Alison Andrew Stunell: Of course I will write and clarify any outstanding issues, but I refer the hon. Lady again to the impact assessments. NOES Bruce, Fiona Neill, Robert Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Cairns, Alun Ollerenshaw, Eric The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 9. Clark, rh Greg Smith, Henry Gilbert, Stephen Stewart, Iain Division No. 8] Howell, John Stunell, Andrew AYES Lewis, Brandon Ward, Mr David Bruce, Fiona Neill, Robert Morris, James Wiggin, Bill Cairns, Alun Ollerenshaw, Eric Clark, rh Greg Smith, Henry Question accordingly negatived. Gilbert, Stephen Stewart, Iain Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Howell, John Stunell, Andrew Bill. Lewis, Brandon Ward, Mr David Morris, James Wiggin, Bill Barbara Keeley: I have two questions about the clause. As I said earlier, the current standards regime is being NOES replaced by either criminal offences for serious misconduct Alexander, Heidi Mearns, Ian —for example, abusing a councillor’s position for personal Dakin, Nic Raynsford, rh Mr Nick gain—or complaints to the local government ombudsman. Dromey, Jack It seems obvious, following the debate that we have just Elliott, Julie Reynolds, Jonathan had, that the local government ombudsman will take Keeley, Barbara Seabeck, Alison the brunt of the cases that would have been referred to the standards system. What is the Department for Question accordingly agreed to. Communities and Local Government’s estimate of the increase in work, and what resources are expected to stem from that change? Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 293 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Localism Bill 294

Clause 17 authority that did not have a code of conduct or a register of interests. We would make sure that it got DISCLOSURE AND REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS’ them. INTERESTS However, that is not the case for the average member Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the of the public. I believe that the control on, and justification Bill. for, the “mays”—which may of course be “may nots”—is that people will be aware of what the authority has decided to do. All the “mays” will require a clear Mr Raynsford: In the debate on the last clause, the statement by an authority, under its duty to disclose, Minister set out his view that it was unnecessary to that states, “This is what this authority has decided to require local authorities to have a code of conduct do for its code of conduct and its register of interests.” because they would all choose to have one in any case. I The “must” is because the authority must make that hope that that is the case, but of course we are left with information publicly available, and it will be for the the question of what happens if they do not. public to decide—with or without political campaigners— When we come to this clause, however, the Government whether they believe that the authority is operating appear to adopt a different logic. They are not saying appropriately. that it is up to local authorities to decide whether they have arrangements that require a declaration of interests. Barbara Keeley: I was not going to speak, but the Instead, the Secretary of State may determine through hon. Gentleman has raised a point about consistency. an order whether particular interests should be declared. In our assessment, the reason for having a “must” for That is inconsistent with the view adopted in the previous the code of conduct and making it compulsory is that clause, and I hope that Ministers will explain why, there is no remedy. When I spoke earlier, I mentioned having said clearly that they trust local authorities to the assessment of the Committee on Standards in Public develop their own codes, they do not trust them to have Life. There is a remedy for serious misconduct for procedures for declaring interests, and why the Secretary personal gain, because that would rightly be a criminal of State has to intervene in this case. offence. There is a remedy where people think that they May I also ask whether the regulations are being have been personally disadvantaged by something that drafted? If so, what will they provide, what particular a councillor has done, as that will go to the local obligations will be imposed, and when we can expect to government ombudsman. see a copy of the draft? Again, a clause gives regulation- We spent some time discussing the other category of making powers to the Secretary of State without any misconduct—bullying and abuse. In the words of the indication to the Committee as to what his intentions Committee on Standards in Public Life, in such cases, may be in respect of the requirements that will be “the remedy will be left to the ballot box.” imposed on local authorities. That is not adequate. I hope that we can have an answer on the apparent I gave an example from my political experience where contradiction in the Government’s position on clauses 16 somebody was re-elected after serving a three-year ban. and 17. A commitment is often to a party rather than an individual, and sometimes people who should not be Mr Ward: I am sure that there is an answer to that. re-elected are re-elected. That is the reason. We agree. However, I am confused. To be consistent, why did the We support the tightening of the legislation and the right hon. Gentleman not table an amendment saying criminal offences for things such as a failure to declare a that the relevant authority must have a register of financial interest or an attempt to make financial gain. I interests? hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. Andrew Stunell: It has been a short but interesting Mr Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware debate. First, I will deal with the remarks made by the that there is less of a need for such an amendment right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. In because, clearly, the Government envisage a situation in that case, the essential difference relates to transparency which they will impose an obligation on local authorities and a register of interest that is, I assure my hon. Friend to have a register. I wanted an opportunity to question the Member for Bradford East, published and available. them on how they proposed to do that. People can see what the interests are and decide whether I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern someone is behaving appropriately or prejudicially in that we should be aware of what regulations the relation to them. Government have in mind, what effect they will have and what the impact will be on local government. I Mr Ward: But we do have a “may”there. Clause 17(2)(f) hope that the Minister is able to give us a detailed states: explanation of what is envisaged, what regulations will “Regulations under this section may, in particular, make be brought forward, when they may be brought forward provision…requiring a relevant authority to make copies of the register available to the public and to inform the public that and when we may have an opportunity to see them. copies are available.” There is no requirement for that information to be Mr Ward: I promise the Committee that this is the made public. last time I will make this point—until the next time. By consensus, we will agree that we are not normal people; Andrew Stunell: I reassure my hon. Friend that the we are political activists and campaigners. I guess the “may” is about what the Secretary of State does, view of my party is that the “mays” are acceptable not about whether there will be publication. Perhaps because all of us would make short shrift of any local the phraseology is parliamentary and legalistic, but the 295 Public Bill Committee3 FEBRUARY 2011 Localism Bill 296

“may” gives the Secretary of State powers to make and Eccles South rightly asked when that will be. It will publication compulsory. It is a roundabout way of follow the arrangements closely. saying it, but I assure my hon. Friend that it will be a 10.25 am published register. The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question The exact nature of those interests will be set out put (Standing Order No. 88). in secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Worsley Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.