Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

I dread the idea of the noble Baroness getting tetchy so I shall deal first with her third amendment. Mysterious are the ways of parliamentary draftsmen. Amendment No. 238ZK is a minor drafting amendment which was elegantly introduced by the noble Baroness. I shall take it away and consider whether it would be sensible to incorporate in the Bill an amendment on these lines. We can certainly deal with that. As regards the other two important amendments, Clause 199 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the sanctions which a case tribunal, drawn from the adjudication panel, can impose. The intention is to allow the tribunal to impose a range of sanctions, including, for example, that the member should receive censure or undertake training or conciliation. This comes back to the debate we had on the previous group of amendments. Amendment No. 238ZH provides that the sanctions available to the tribunal should include specific measures listed in the Bill and not include any other measures. But we want to keep the flexibility to be able to support and develop a councillor rather than having to go for the punitive option. As to the notion of whether this indicates a hierarchy, no it does not. These three different options can be equally effective depending on which one is chosen to meet the situation. It is to make clear that this can be done legally under the power in Clause 119(5). Amendment No. 238ZJ provides that the sanctions available to the tribunal would not include the current option of disqualifying a member from office for a period of up to five years. I asked these questions when I came to look at this part of the Bill and it is quite interesting how the use of these sanctions is attached to very serious qualifications. For five-year disqualifications, there have been only three determinations in this period, including breaches for sexual assault and child pornography which resulted in a sentence of less than three months’ imprisonment; they are serious offences. For four-year disqualifications there have been five determinations, including breaches for being convicted of a public order offence. For three-year disqualifications there have been nine determinations, including breaches for the bullying and intimidation of an officer of an authority. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said earlier that you must not exclude the possibility of people having a row and a constructive dialogue in the process, but we have enough experience now of bullying in the public sector to know what it looks like and feels like. I believe that to have such sanctions on that kind of behaviour is quite proper. There were 134 determinations resulting in disqualification for one year or less, including breaches for disclosing confidential information and failing to register an interest. So you can see how the regime has been applied. The most serious cases of misconduct, such as sexual assault and child pornography, are dealt with by the courts by criminal conviction, but there are some serious cases of misconduct that may not come to court, including considerations like bullying and intimidation. They attract a three-year disqualification but do not end up in court. The ethical regime provides a necessary mechanism for disqualifying or suspending a member from office. Without it, an assault resulting in a criminal conviction and a prison sentence of less than three months would not of itself prevent someone from continuing as a councillor. We are looking for credibility and proportionality. It is interesting that there have been so few cases of five-year disqualifications.