---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 55: 55: Clause 182, page 129, line 9, leave out from beginning to the end of line 37 on page 130 and insert— ““(2A) The conduct of members and co-opted members in their private capacities is not covered by this Part of this Act except where it constitutes a criminal offence for which the member or co-opted member has been convicted and which is directly relevant to the performance of their official functions.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55 to 58 return us to the subject that we had much discussion about: the model code and the code of conduct for councillors. It is clearly the Government’s intention that the code of conduct should not apply where something would offend them if it was committed by a councillor in their private life, unless it was a criminal offence for which the councillor was found guilty. The trouble is that subsection (2B) does not say that; it says, "““where that conduct would constitute a criminal offence”” ." We had a lot of discussion about the interpretation of that, and it has been my view all along that it will mean that even if a councillor is never found guilty of a criminal offence, ““constituting”” a criminal offence is sufficient to suggest that they could be still hauled before the standards board for it. In another effort at this, we have tabled two possible alternative amendments. Amendment No. 55 would achieve the same thing as Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, but in a slightly more straightforward manner that I think would be less palatable to the Government as it would take out a whole chunk of the Bill. Amendment No. 55 would go further than the other amendments in the group as it would ensure that the same standard applied in Wales as well as England, which is not the case at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will tell us at some stage why Wales is not included in this, although it seems to be included in every other aspect of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 56 to 58 are a shorter means of achieving the same end, which, overall, is to clarify the Bill. The Government clearly intend that the code should apply only when a criminal conviction has been recorded and limit—by statutory instrument, as we understand it—the criminal offences that the code may cover. The amendments deal with both points, bringing in the substance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Dismore amendment. The words that still worry us are the ones I have already pointed out: the categoric statement in subsection (2B) that the conduct would ““constitute a criminal offence””. We would like to add, after ““constitute””, "““a criminal offence for which the member or co-opted member has been convicted””." That is derived from the 2007 model code of conduct in the Local Authorities (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2007. Paragraph 2(3) of that code applies certain provisions, "““where that conduct constitutes a criminal offence for which you have been convicted””." That deals with the problem the Minister encountered in the debate on Report: the Bill refers to conduct that would constitute a criminal offence but the intention in the Bill, which is not stated, is that it should be a criminal offence for which they have been found guilty. The amendments come with the Joint Committee on Human Rights seal of approval. They are common-sense amendments that are descriptive and clear, and they make sense of the Government’s stated intentions. They would clarify the Bill immeasurably. I hope the Minister will able to accept them so we can ensure that there is no problem over this aspect of the Bill, which, as we all know, has come about because of some actions that were found by the Crown Court not to constitute a breach of the code in a member’s private capacity. I beg to move.