Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

This group of amendments is significant and I was interested to hear what both noble Lords said. The amendments address what we have come to call the Widdicombe rules. Amendment 156 removes the link between salary and the designation of a local authority post as politically restricted. Essentially, the holder of that post is barred from taking part in certain political activities. The Widdicombe rules were introduced in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Their purpose is to preserve the visible political impartiality of senior local authority employees. This is a policy that we support, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, time has moved on and we fully acknowledge that change is required to the link between salary and political restrictions, so I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. Indeed, our 2008 White Paper Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power explained our intention of amending the rule about local authority workers above a certain salary band being barred from being politically active. It means that only the most senior council officers or those considered to be in politically sensitive posts continue to be barred. The noble Lord is right: one should look at the role rather than the salary levels. The Government are considering a more general review of the Widdicombe rules. We want that to form part of a draft Bill to be published in the spring. Because it raises a large number of contextual issues, that is the better way forward. I hope that noble Lords will bear with us on that. We are taking this matter very seriously. The fact that it is in the White Paper makes that clear and I am pleased to find that there is cross-party support for this particular proposal. Amendments 157 and 158 are slightly more complex in the sense that they address the relationship between being a local authority officer and a local authority member. I am sure that the Committee will agree that trust in those elected to office is one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy. As citizens, we need to know that local authorities are working on our behalf in an appropriate matter. That is why those sorts of expectations have been enshrined in codes of conduct and in legislation which has been on the statute book for a very long time. There are, for instance, rules to ensure that local authority members can be sure that the advice they receive from the officers of the authority is unbiased and that officers are protected from a conflict of interest. I am concerned about proceeding with insufficient caution before we dispense with legislation which has worked for more than 30 years. These changes proposed to the statutory provisions are substantial, and it is important that we take the time and the opportunity to consult local government, stakeholders and the public because of the potential to damage confidence. There may well be merit in the changes but they are significant and we need to approach them seriously and with consultation. I turn to Amendment 157. It is clear that some local authority employees are prevented from standing for election to any local authority because they occupy politically restricted posts. The amendment is concerned with local authority employees who are not subject to such restrictions but who wish to be elected as members for the authority by which they are employed. At the moment, if a local authority official wished to stand for election as a councillor, he or she would be expected to resign his or her post, and Amendment 157 would remove that expectation. The amendment poses a valid question about the expectations that we place on local authority officials, but this is a complicated issue. I say that in the knowledge that we are keen to encourage more people to become councillors, but we must also recognise that the rights of individual employees have to be balanced against the requirements of political democracy. I am afraid that making it acceptable for serving officials to stand for election may well, or may well be seen to, create problems because there is the possibility of a perceived conflict of interest. It would not be unreasonable, for example, for a councillor to question how a person might serve the elected members properly while seeking to take one of their seats. In addition, there is the important question of the impact on confidence in local democracy and confidence in elected representatives. For example, if officials stand for election, that opens them up to allegations of having access to information that other candidates do not have access to, and that might be perceived to be unfair. Amendment 158 seeks to reduce from 12 to three months the period of time that must elapse between a local authority member leaving office and taking up paid employment as a local authority officer, although a 12-month period is retained in relation to appointment to a politically restricted post or where the member has been involved in the appointment of a politically restricted post. We agree that there needs to be a period between leaving office and taking up employment as a local authority officer, as such a measure gives confidence to both voters and members that the appointment is made on merit, which is very important, and not as a direct result of any influence that the member may have exerted when in office. What we do not have is an objective basis for determining what that period should be. Over the years, the 12-month period has been seen to be robust and, unless there is compelling evidence that it is proving a serious obstacle or difficulty for those seeking employment as a local authority officer, I am not persuaded of the need to change it. I hope that, with the assurances that I have given, particularly in respect of the substantive amendment concerning breaking the link between salary and the ability to stand for political office, noble Lords are reassured that we are indeed on the same side.