---

Local Government Standards Boards

I can tell the hon. Gentleman, on day two in my job, that we shall shortly lay before Parliament legislation to enable the Standards Board to suspend a standards committee's local assessment of complaints functions if it believes that to be necessary. That will be a last resort, following work with the local authorities to help them to improve the way in which standards issues are addressed locally. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman issues his press release, the glory will be shared between him and me for the progress that has been made on day two of my job. I did not finish the point that I was making before the hon. Gentleman's very useful intervention. The belief in devolving down is shared by all those in local government. I know that he and his party believe in devolving down. The move to devolve responsibility was in line with the 10th report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in 2005, which recommended that high standards of conduct by local authority members are more likely to be guaranteed when most decision making on conduct is undertaken by local authorities. The Standards Board for England, which until that point had been responsible for investigating alleged breaches of the code of conduct, assumed its new responsibility as a light-touch regulator of local authority standards committees, responsible for monitoring their performance and issuing guidance on the conduct regime. Under the devolved conduct regime, allegations that a member of an authority has failed to comply with the code of conduct are initially assessed by the local authority's own standards committee, as has been said. That assessment is in essence a filtering stage. No decision is taken at that stage about whether a member has, or has not, failed to comply with the code of conduct. Any decision on whether there has been a failure to comply with the code—in other words, a decision about guilt or innocence—is determined in all but the most serious cases by a hearing of the standards committee after a full investigation of the allegation has been undertaken. The more serious allegations of misconduct are determined by the quasi-judicial adjudication panel for England. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in alternative action procedures and I shall now deal with those in slightly more detail. There is no doubt that elected members of a local authority who abuse their position or abuse others should be brought to book. That is what the conduct regime is there for, but often cases are not so clear-cut and can be the result of more complicated, deep-seated issues. Perhaps there has been a breakdown in working relationships, a long-standing dispute over a contentious issue, or a lack of training. The hon. Gentleman will recognise some of the descriptions from the example to which he alluded in Sefton. Recognising that cases are often not clear-cut, several years ago, Standards Board investigators sought and received the power to use their discretion in certain cases and, after examining them, to recommend an action other than full investigation—typically, facilitating mediation between disputing parties, whether two members of an authority, a member of the public and a member of the authority, or an officer of the authority and a member. The Standards Board considers that such an approach often yields the most successful, long-standing solutions. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of examples in which the complainant is an activist from one political party and makes a complaint against an elected councillor from another political party. When the new ethical framework was introduced this year, alternative action was therefore built into the system at an early stage. The devolved regime gives standards committees, if they consider that the merits of individual cases make it appropriate, the option to refer a matter for alternative action, rather than investigate it. That means that instead of an allegation of misconduct resulting in a full investigation and possibly a sanction, the matter can be quickly addressed at an early stage through alternative action, such as mediation, training or a review of the local authority's procedures. Under the devolved conduct regime, indications are that about 9 per cent. of allegations result in their being referred for alternative action. That is not a quick fix, and it will not be right in all circumstances. There is a right time and place for it to be used, but it is a useful tool, as it recognises that a problem has arisen and it attempts to deal with that problem in the most pragmatic way possible. Importantly—this is the nub of the concern that has been raised—such a recommendation does not, and should not, imply guilt. That course of action is consistent with other regimes that deal with complaints about individuals. I should make it clear that I am not advocating that all allegations that a local authority receives should be dealt with by action other than an investigation, or that there should be any default approach. The suitability of alternative action depends on the nature of the allegation. What is, I hope, apparent is that such a measure lends itself to allegations that might be judged to be less serious, where alternative action might be the most proportionate and cost-effective way of resolving an allegation.