Clause 17
Localism Bill
10:15 am

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

In the debate on the last clause, the Minister set out his view that it was unnecessary to require local authorities to have a code of conduct because they would all choose to have one in any case. I hope that that is the case, but of course we are left with the question of what happens if they do not.

When we come to this clause, however, the Government appear to adopt a different logic. They are not saying that it is up to local authorities to decide whether they have arrangements that require a declaration of interests. Instead, the Secretary of State may determine through an order whether particular interests should be declared. That is inconsistent with the view adopted in the previous clause, and I hope that Ministers will explain why, having said clearly that they trust local authorities to develop their own codes, they do not trust them to have procedures for declaring interests, and why the Secretary of State has to intervene in this case.

May I also ask whether the regulations are being drafted? If so, what will they provide, what particular obligations will be imposed, and when we can expect to see a copy of the draft? Again, a clause gives regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State without any indication to the Committee as to what his intentions may be in respect of the requirements that will be imposed on local authorities.

I hope that we can have an answer on the apparent contradiction in the Government’s position on clauses 16 and 17.

David Ward (Bradford East, Liberal Democrat)

I am sure that there is an answer to that. However, I am confused. To be consistent, why did the right hon. Gentleman not table an amendment saying that the relevant authority must have a register of interests?

Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is less of a need for such an amendment because, clearly, the Government envisage a situation in which they will impose an obligation on local authorities to have a register. I wanted an opportunity to question them on how they proposed to do that.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my concern that we should be aware of what regulations the Government have in mind, what effect they will have and what the impact will be on local government. I hope that the Minister is able to give us a detailed explanation of what is envisaged, what regulations will be brought forward, when they may be brought forward and when we may have an opportunity to see them.

David Ward (Bradford East, Liberal Democrat)

I promise the Committee that this is the last time I will make this point—until the next time. By consensus, we will agree that we are not normal people; we are political activists and campaigners. I guess the view of my party is that the “mays” are acceptable because all of us would make short shrift of any local  authority that did not have a code of conduct or a register of interests. We would make sure that it got them.

However, that is not the case for the average member of the public. I believe that the control on, and justification 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 statement by an authority, under its duty to disclose, that states, “This is what this authority has decided to do for its code of conduct and its register of interests.”

The “must” is because the authority must make that information publicly available, and it will be for the public to decide—with or without political campaigners—whether they believe that the authority is operating appropriately.

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South, Labour)

I was not going to speak, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a point about consistency. In our assessment, the reason for having a “must” for the code of conduct and making it compulsory is that there is no remedy. When I spoke earlier, I mentioned the assessment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. There is a remedy for serious misconduct for personal gain, because that would rightly be a criminal offence. There is a remedy where people think that they have been personally disadvantaged by something that a councillor has done, as that will go to the local government ombudsman.

We spent some time discussing the other category of misconduct—bullying and abuse. In the words of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in such cases,

“the remedy will be left to the ballot box.”

That is not adequate.

I gave an example from my political experience where somebody was re-elected after serving a three-year ban. A commitment is often to a party rather than an individual, and sometimes people who should not be re-elected are re-elected. That is the reason. We agree. We support the tightening of the legislation and the criminal offences for things such as a failure to declare a financial interest or an attempt to make financial gain. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Stunell (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

It has been a short but interesting debate. First, I will deal with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. In that case, the essential difference relates to transparency and a register of interest that is, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East, published and available. People can see what the interests are and decide whether someone is behaving appropriately or prejudicially in relation to them.

David Ward (Bradford East, Liberal Democrat)

But we do have a “may” there. Clause 17(2)(f) states:

“Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision…requiring a relevant authority to make copies of the register available to the public and to inform the public that copies are available.”

There is no requirement for that information to be made public.

Andrew Stunell (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Communities and Local Government; Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

I reassure my hon. Friend that the “may” is about what the Secretary of State does, not about whether there will be publication. Perhaps the phraseology is parliamentary and legalistic, but the  “may” gives the Secretary of State powers to make publication compulsory. It is a roundabout way of saying it, but I assure my hon. Friend that it will be a published register.

The exact nature of those interests will be set out in secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Worsley  and Eccles South rightly asked when that will be. It will follow the arrangements closely.