---

Local Government Standards Boards

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, to which I am coming—the foundation of guilt. I think that that is the point to which he has alluded in correspondence. I understand that he has concerns that when an allegation is referred for action other than investigation, the subject of the allegation is not afforded an opportunity to have their name cleared. Let me assure him that in terms of the conduct regime, that concern is without foundation. I do not for a moment underestimate the fact that the subjects of allegation, breach of the code, innocence and guilt are very sensitive matters. Reputations are important in local democracies where the candidate and the voter trade in the currency of trust. However, let me reiterate—this is explicitly stated in the guidance issued by the Standards Board—that if a decision is made to refer a matter for alternative action, everyone involved in the process should be made aware that the purpose of alternative action is not to determine whether an individual has failed to comply with the code of conduct, and it should be clear that no finding of guilt or innocence can or should be made. The hon. Gentleman is right to distinguish the example that was given from one in which there is evidence—for example, in the case of a motoring offence, a camera has taken a photograph of someone speeding through the light. As I have explained, one of the roles of the Standards Board is to offer advice and guidance about the conduct regime to local authority standards committees. That is an important part of the board's work. A robust conduct regime, trusted by local authority members and the people who vote for them alike, is an essential part of supporting the trust in local government to make local democracy function. I welcome the contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made to this important area, and I look forward to working with him over the coming months and years to improve the system even more.