Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Sadiq Khan (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 7 October 2008. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Local Government Standards Boards.


Local Government Standards Boards

It is a pleasure, Mr. Key, to speak with you in the Chair the first time that I respond to a debate in my new role. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing this debate. He and I served on the Public Accounts Committee, on which he still sits, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the conduct regime for members of local authorities in England. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in this matter, not only because of his 13 years as a councillor in Sefton, but as a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government. This is the first Adjournment debate on the important issue of standards since the new regime, and it is particularly welcome as it gives me the opportunity not only to get off the mark, but to reassert the Government's support for the conduct regime for local authority members. I would also like to mention the Government's gratitude for the hard work of the Standards Board for England and the work of local authority standards committees. In the same way that premiership referees are not thanked enough, local authority standards committees are not thanked enough, and therefore I would like to thank them this afternoon. It is now almost six months since the Government devolved responsibility for dealing with the conduct of local authority members to local authorities themselves, so it is an apt time to hold this debate. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the tenor and spirit in which his comments were made. To be blunt, there is only one thing in the history he articulated with which I would disagree. As someone who was a councillor for only 12 years, I can say that the events in Wandsworth were nowhere near as flowery and colourful as they appear to have been in Sefton. I cannot think of one occasion on which anyone was threatened with having their arms ripped off, but I will check with other colleagues about whether that happened in Wandsworth. This debate gives me the opportunity to mention the extremely effective alternative action procedures, which are a fundamental aspect of the conduct regime and generally work well. The vast majority of people elected to serve as local authority members observe the highest standards of conduct, as do the officials who support them. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman addressed that in his speech and made the point that there might be problems with only a minority of councillors or officials. Trust in our local authority members is one of the cornerstones of healthy local democracy. Voters expect the local authority members for whom they voted to represent their interests and to behave with honesty and integrity, which is why actively promoting high standards of behaviour among local authority members is an important Government objective, and it is not a duty we take lightly. The strength of local democracy and the delivery of effective services depend very much on an elected members' willingness to serve and on their commitment. It would be awful if hurdles and barriers were put in the way to stop people or deter them from coming forward to stand for local government and become local councillors. Many men and women devote their time and energy to the service of their communities as local authority members and, as stated in the recent White Paper, ““Communities in Control: real people, real power””, we want more people to take on civic roles and to stand for office in their local authority. We also want to ensure that local authority members are an able, enthusiastic and diverse group and that local representatives reflect the communities they serve. In this country, we have high standards of probity, accountability and objectivity. That is part of the natural expectations of those we vote for, and it is enshrined in the conduct regime. However, we cannot ignore the fact that failings do occur from time to time, and there have been cases, albeit rare, where the conduct of local authority members has fallen short of the expectations placed upon them. When such misconduct occurs, it damages both the community that the local authority members were elected to serve and the wider reputation of local government. The public's trust and confidence in the democratic system as a whole is undermined. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the conduct regime, which was introduced in the Local Government Act 2000 to promote high standards of ethical behaviour by local authority members. The regime gives a clear ethical framework for local authority members to work within and makes clear to the electorate the standards of behaviour they can expect from those they vote into office. The regime also clarifies what constitutes acceptable standards of behaviour and has introduced an independent, robust and fair means of investigating allegations of misconduct. A regime was set up for dealing with those who have fallen short of acceptable standards of behaviour, and that regime is evolving. Last year, a revised code of conduct for local authority members was issued to provide a clearer, simpler and more proportionate code—I emphasise the word ““proportionate””. That code removed barriers to members being able to speak up for those they represent, for example on planning and licensing issues, and it has been well received by the local government world. All local authority members must abide by that code of conduct, which has been in place for over a year now, and my Department—I say that on just my second day in this role—has just gone out to consultation on it. We are asking for views on how it is functioning and how it might be improved. In May this year, the Government fulfilled their White Paper commitment to introduce a more locally based conduct regime for members that co-opted members of local authorities in England. The devolution of responsibility for conduct issues to local authorities provides them with greater ownership of the conduct regime and local conduct issues, and boosts their role in promoting and maintaining a culture of high standards of behaviour in local authorities.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
480 c61-2WH 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Complaints Councillors Local government Standards Standards Board for England
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk