Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

It has been a long day. This clause was the subject of some debate in another place, particularly by Liberal Democrat peers. Those of us who were local borough and district councillors or were involved in local government in the 1980s and 1990s understand the background. The Widdecombe report of 1986 correctly led to the decision to exclude certain officers based on salary from serving in a representative capacity on other local authorities under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

The Opposition believe that the clause is incongruous. It is clear from the debate in another place that there was no rationale for watering down the Widdecombe proposals. The Minister may refer to the Councillors Commission’s decisions on political restrictions, but the clause begins the process of undermining what eventually had a political consensus when it was established. That  legislation defended the integrity and professionalism of officers and reassured elected councillors that the advice that they received from paid officers was both impartial and not the result of their political allegiance. The clause, however, begins to undermine that by seeking to disregard the responsibility and duty of the local authority to keep a register of those affected by the 1989 Act.

On that basis, perhaps the Minister will explain the rationale for including the clause in this part of the Bill. It seems to be a case of micro-managing the affairs of local authorities who are perfectly capable of interpreting correctly the prevailing legislation. Can the Minister reassure us that this is not the beginning of the end of ensuring that political partiality does not creep back into the system?

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

Conservative Members think that the clause will water down the Widdecombe rules, and I share some of their concerns that it does appear to be a partial process: it will remove the salary restrictions but will not seek to put anything else in its place. Simply imposing an arbitrary wage level may not make sense, because some posts with lower wages may be politically sensitive and other posts that are above the threshold may not need to be politically restrictive. I would like greater freedom for local authorities to determine such things and to ensure that declarations of interest can be registered for all employees using a clear system.

Speaking as someone who was employed by a local council, I think that just because someone is unable to be politically active does not necessarily mean that their decisions are therefore impartial. Someone may not be able to declare their views publicly, but that does not mean that their private views might not cause similar difficulties. In this case, the Government have a much bigger story to tell. They are nibbling away at one aspect of it without necessarily giving people confidence that there is a process further down the line that will keep partiality out of key areas of government, as it rightly needs to be.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Before Report, I wonder whether the Minister could give us a list of the number of people in one county who are councillors on a different council. I wonder whether it is a real or a mythical problem. I cannot think of a single person in North Yorkshire, in the whole time that I have represented it, who has been an employee of one authority and a councillor in another. People cannot leave their political allegiance behind when they go in and out of the relative town hall.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

My understanding is that this is not just about standing for election, but about being able to express views publicly in favour of a political party. It is not simply about conflicts arising from individuals standing for public office.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

No, I accept that, but the most high-profile way in which someone might wish to express a political opinion is by standing for election to a council, and there are a number of bodies that have a political role to which people can be nominated. The Dales national park is not entirely made up of councillors, for example. I wonder how real the issue is. Quite frankly, why are we bothering with it? I think that we have invented a problem, and I do not understand why we should invent a solution to a non-problem.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

Hon. Members’ contributions suggest that there might be some misunderstanding about what the clause will actually do. It will merely remove the link between salary level and the designation for local authority posts. The salary level is currently a sum of money, not a scale for a post, and the sum of money has not been updated for a number of years. We therefore continue to support the policy behind the Widdecombe rules, which help to ensure the political impartiality of local authority employees. The removal of the link between salary and whether a post is considered politically restricted will not undermine the impartiality.

If the legislation is enacted, the following posts will remain politically restricted: chief executive, chief officer, deputy chief officer, monitoring officer, political assistant, and any person whose post is specified in a list maintained by the local authority whose duties involve giving advice to the authority on a regular basis and/or speaking regularly to the media on behalf of the authority. In relation to the last category, the ultimate test of whether an individual post is politically sensitive will depend on the nature of the duties that the post entails. Every officer falling within that category may be entitled to exemption from political restriction if the nature of the duties of that post does not require the post holder to be politically neutral. Applications for exemption are considered by the local authority standards committee.

David Curry (Skipton & Ripon, Conservative)

Will the hon. Lady give me the assurance that anyone involved in planning will be covered by the restrictions?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

That would be up to the individual local authority to determine. It would have to apply the rules that I have set out and would be subject to the standards committee.

Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth & Camborne, Liberal Democrat)

I am trying to understand what process will follow if the changes are adopted. Presumably, some posts are automatically politically restricted at the moment because of the salary level. If, after the proposals are put in place, some posts will not be automatically restricted because of the salary level and a judgment may be needed about whether or not they should be deemed to be politically restricted, will every council therefore have to go through a process of auditing those affected to ensure that positions are not missed or added by mistake?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

I am perfectly happy to confirm that to the hon. Lady. The clause will provide a more sensible way of going forward than using an arbitrary sum of money or a salary level.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I do not think that there was any confusion among Conservative Members. We just want assurances from the Minister that the Government are still committed to the enduring principles of the Widdecombe report, which have lasted for 20 years. In fact, the Library supporting documents state that the clause is not related to a monetary sum but to spine point 44 on the national scale.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government; Portsmouth North, Labour)

I think that we are getting into specifics, because it is a point on the scale of salaries, but it will be a specific sum of money each year. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman’s point is the Opposition’s position, but in the other place Lord  Hanningfield certainly welcomed the provision, agreed that we should look at the role played by the officer, rather than the salary, and described the salary point as “totally outdated.”

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I still think that there are some serious questions about the operation of the clause and suspect that, if it is accepted, there will need to be a significant amount of secondary legislation to support it, because of the number of elected councillors who might be affected by it. Given the Minister’s assurances, which I think the Committee will find satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

Order. There is no amendment. This is a clause stand part debate.

Stewart Jackson (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Peterborough, Conservative)

I am sorry, Mr. Illsley. I will rephrase that: we are minded not to vote against the clause standing part of the Bill.