Congratulations are due to Mr. Lansley on bringing to the House's attention the case of his constituent, whose views have been represented. This case also raises wider issues of relevance to the hon. Gentleman's other constituents. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining my responsibilities in this regard; it is always helpful when that happens. I am conscious that whenever we debate parish matters, newspaper headlines reporting our deliberations do not scream off the presses. However, there are some 80,000 parish councils in the country, and in my experience it is wise to take these debates very seriously, because many councils rightly take a close interest in these proceedings. The issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised concerning the code of conduct apply not just to parish councillors, but to councillors across the board.

I am also grateful for the opportunity to discuss the rules of conduct for councillors in the context of the planning regime. These rules are set out in model codes of conduct for local authority members—including, of course, members of parish councils—with the aim of maintaining the highest standards of public conduct among local authority members. We consider it important to promote such standards for parish councils, as for other tiers of local government.

As has been said, it is difficult for me to comment on individual circumstances, but where allegations impinge on an individual planning application, that application could be referred to the Secretary of State or to one of her inspectors on appeal. In those circumstances, I would not wish to say anything that might subsequently prejudice the quasi-judicial appeal process.

Actively promoting high standards of behaviour among local authority members is of course an important objective for any Government. Many men and women devote their time and energy to the service of their communities, and the overwhelming majority of people elected to serve as local authority members already observe the highest standards of conduct. But it is also important to get the balance right—an issue that I will discuss in a moment.

We cannot disguise—nobody wishes to—the fact that failings occur from time to time, and given that tens of thousands of people are involved, that is going to be so. However, it is worth noting that instances of elected members falling short of the conduct expected of them are very rare indeed. Such misconduct not only harms the community that members are elected to serve; it can damage the wider reputation of local government and undermine the public's trust in, and confidence in, the system as a whole. I noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's reference to the pendulum perhaps swinging too far, as some might see it, and to that itself bringing the regime into disrepute. The need to maintain public trust is just as true for parish councils as it is for other tiers of government.

The planning system involves a considerable amount of discretion, and councillors on a planning committee may arrive at a decision based on a variety of considerations. However, the law defines that decision-making duty. Failure to act within the confines of these provisions may render the council open to legal challenge by means of judicial review. The role of an elected member on a local authority planning committee involves balancing the need to represent the interests of individual constituents and the community with the need to maintain an ethic of impartial decision making on what can be, and often are, highly controversial proposals.

In 1997, the Government committed themselves to reinvigorating local democracy, focusing on enabling councils to provide the local leadership that their communities need and to deliver the services they want. In order to tackle the need for a higher degree of public trust, we introduced a new framework under the Local Government Act 2000 to promote standards of ethical behaviour. We felt that the new framework must help to dispel public criticism about those in public life by demonstrating clearly that unethical behaviour is just as unacceptable to those who have been elected as it is to the communities that they represent.

The framework indicates the high standards that are expected and requires an explicit commitment to them. Let me remind the House that the most significant provisions of the ethical regime were: the introduction of new statutory codes of conduct; the establishment in each authority of a standards committee to provide support and guidance to members on the requirements of their local code; and the creation of what was then a new body, the Standards Board for England, to promote high standards nationally and to investigate alleged breaches of the code in an independent and consistent manner.

The codes of conduct set out the conduct that is expected of members and provide a sensible framework for handling personal interests which should ensure that, providing that they have no prejudicial interests, councillors can take part in discussions and decisions and so represent their electors to the best of their ability. From May 2002, the provisions of the codes have applied to all councillors, and any allegations that the code has been breached can be reported to the Standards Board, which can then decide whether to investigate.

The model codes provide that members have a prejudicial interest in a matter if, as the hon. Gentleman said, the interest is one that a member of the public would reasonably regard as so significant as to be likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest. A member with a prejudicial interest is required to withdraw from the meeting at which the matter is discussed.

The codes also provide that members should not use their position to confer an advantage for themselves or any other person. Various further guidance documents have been issued to assist members in carrying out their roles in respect of the planning regime and the need to have regard to their own personal and prejudicial interests. Chapter 8 of the document, "Probity in Planning", which is issued by the Local Government Association, makes it clear that councillors who have openly declared a view on an application should not use their position to lobby other councillors or organise a caucus to support their position. Elsewhere in chapter 8, it is made clear that other political meetings should not be used to reach a decision in advance of the committee which will make the decision.

A document prepared by the LGA, "Member engagement in planning matters", gives similar advice. The purpose of that document is to explain to members how they can become more engaged in discussions without fettering their discretion. However, if they do, the guidance is clear. It states:

"Members who do take an active stand in support or assistance to an application should withdraw from the planning committee deliberations. Responding to lobbying is fully legitimate where a councillor openly admits an interest in the outcome of deliberations and withdraws from the discussions on which they have a particularly strong view and stands down for the period while the item is under discussion."

We wish to make the planning system fairer and more transparent. Accordingly, my Department continues to work with its partner bodies, such as the Local Government Association, to produce advice and guidance for elected members on propriety issues in planning. Indeed, the Planning Advisory Service, which is an arm of the Improvement and Development Agency, is financed by the Government. Its creation was one of the benefits of the £600 million in planning delivery grant allocation made available to improve the system.

When they were initially issued in 2002, the model codes were generally welcomed. There were certainly some complaints from the smaller parish and town councils, particularly about the requirements to register interests. It was feared that a sledgehammer was being used to crack a nut. However, many of the concerns have been eased as councillors have grown familiar with the conduct regime, and it now has broad support. This has been assisted by the Standards Board's own provision of support, guidance and training to parishes on the operation of the system.

It is sometimes suggested that the introduction of the code of conduct for parishes has caused parish councillors to resign. I took those fears very seriously, because it is obviously important to get the balance right. However, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that there is little or no evidence to suggest that significant numbers of councillors have resigned as a result of the code.

That brings me to the subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate. The recent reports of the Graham Committee and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Select Committee—which was so ably chaired by my hon. Friend Chris Mole— considered the future of the local government ethical regime. They supported the continuing inclusion of parish councillors within that regime.

The conduct regime has now been in operation for four years. We have recently reviewed it, and our proposals for change were set out in our discussion paper of 15 December 2005. They included proposals to make decision making under the regime more locally based, to make the Standards Board a more strategic regulatory body, and to make the code of conduct simpler, clearer and more proportionate. We are hoping to make changes to ensure that the framework meets the objectives that it was created to achieve, and that the lessons deriving from practical experience in operating the rules are learned.

As part of our follow-up to the discussion paper, our review of the code of conduct will take into account the recommendations on changes to the code made by the Standards Board. These include proposals for a reduction in the number of interests that members need to declare, and for a relaxation of the rules relating to prejudicial interests to support the advocacy role played by members, particularly in respect of dual-hatted members—that is, those who are members of more than one public body.

However, there is a continuing need to ensure that measures are in place to provide confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest, and that clear conflicts of interest—for example, where members stand to gain personally from a decision over and above the gain to others in the community—will continue to be proscribed by the code of conduct.

We believe that the vast majority of local councillors are honest and committed to the service of their communities. We wish to demonstrate to local communities that their councillors are signed up to the highest standards of conduct.