Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

Amendments Nos. 260 to 264, which I also tabled, are consequential to new clause 64, which would abolish the Standards Board for England. From the outset I should declare an interest: my wife has recently been elected to the newly-formed Baildon parish council in the village in which I live in Shipley. The Standards Board for England has become a bit of a laughing stock in local government. It is damaging the reputation and standing of local councillors and local government. Indeed, the Committee on Standards in Public Life has said:"““The system has generated a large number of apparently minor, vexatious and politically motivated complaints””—" I could not have put it better myself. The number of complaints to the Standards Board has been rising year on year, from 2,948 in 2002-03 to 3,861 in 2004-05. And yet according to Government figures, in the last year for which figures are available only 3 per cent. of complaints resulted in a verdict that the code had been breached, and many of the breaches were very minor offences, such as not showing sufficient respect to people—as the Mayor of London can testify. This constant rise in the number of allegations clearly shows that either standards are not improving as a result of the Standards Board, or the process is fuelling unfounded and malicious complaints. There is very little comeback for complainants when allegations against local councillors are shown to be vexatious and lacking in substance. Worse, the Standards Board proudly states that for data protection reasons it does not publish the names of people who make allegations. That leaves councillors very exposed to politically motivated and unnecessary complaints. Even worse, it takes so long to investigate complaints. Sir Alistair Graham wrote in a report that research by the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that"““the time taken to complete investigations””" was"““an average of 8.5 months””," with"““a backlog of over 400 cases””." That obviously has a negative impact on people who are facing complaints, with the smell hanging over them for so long, and also sometimes on the people who have made a complaint, who feel that nothing ever seems to get done. Despite this absolute shambles, the cost to the Government of the Standards Board is forecast to rise to £9.4 million; that is up from £6.2 million in 2003. So not only is it damaging to local government, but it is a very expensive exercise. One of the consequences of this situation is that there is a reported shortage of candidates coming forward for places on parish councils, because they do not want to get embroiled in all this nonsense. In my local area we have a shortage of people wishing to stand for the parish council, and I do not think it any coincidence that that has happened since the introduction of the Standards Board. At this point I must pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who wrote a tremendous pamphlet on the Standards Board called ““A Question of Standards””. Given that we have limited time, I urge all hon. Members to read that pamphlet, which exposed the problems of the Standards Board and highlighted some of the cases that it has dealt with. In one case, the Standards Board investigated a complaint of misconduct made against a chap who was a long-standing parish councillor and county councillor, and indeed a churchwarden—an upstanding member of the community. Someone in the parish had baked a loaf of bread, and the lady claimed that this upstanding member of the community refused to eat her bread at a Sunday communion, and that that was tantamount to harassment and humiliation. She deemed him unfit for public office, and complained to the Standards Board. While that allegation was minor, the ridiculous investigations that ensue following such complaints are not uncommon. That emphasises the ridiculous situation that we have got ourselves into. The chairman of a parish council proposed that a grant of £300 be made to a village club for retired people. Two other councillors declared an interest as club members, and they did not speak or vote on the matter; but because they did not leave the room, an anonymous complaint was made to the Standards Board that they and the two other councillors were in breach of the rules. The resulting investigation lasted nine months, culminating in a full hearing involving 15 people, including lawyers, district councillors and a senior enforcement officer. The hearing lasted four hours. All were found guilty and sent on a training course on how to follow the rules. That particular charade cost the taxpayer thousands and thousands of pounds. Such instances are clearly not uncommon, given that only 3 per cent. of complaints lead to people being found in breach—and that was one of the 3 per cent. The whole situation is a shambles. There is now more scrutiny of parish councillors and local district councillors than there is of Cabinet Ministers. The Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for introducing the relevant legislation. If the Standards Board applied to Ministers, it is likely that by now, under the system that he set up for parish and district councillors, he would have been suspended. Quite apart from the way in which the Standards Board has operated, there is an important principle at stake—a principle of democracy. When people are elected as councillors, whether district, parish or county councillors, they are there to represent their constituents—the people who elected them. It should be for those people to determine whether they consider that their councillors’ actions are appropriate. It should not be for a committee of busybodies dealing with tittle-tattle to decide whether people who have been democratically elected have acted properly or improperly. Such matters should be decided by the electorate at the next election. The Standards Board is a shambles. It is incredibly damaging to the reputation of local councillors and local government generally. It serves no particular fit purpose. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division, to test the will of the House. I think that Members of Parliament should stand up for local councillors, who work incredibly hard on behalf of their electorate and do not deserve to have the smell of this self-serving Standards Board constantly hanging over them.