5
CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH ALLEGATIONS
One thing has been clear from the testimony and documentary evidence to my Inquiry. As with other
major British political parties, there is a lack of clarity and confidence in current disciplinary procedures
from all sides of the Party, including on the part of those who have complained and been complained
against. Whilst my remit is racism, I believe that the recommendations that I make here are of wider
applicability to all aspects of discipline and to the relationship between the membership, elected and
staff structures of the Party apparatus. Party staff have often been in an invidious position due to a
lack of appropriate expertise, sufficient resources and clarity in both practice and perception as to who
is ultimately responsible and accountable for discipline within the Party and how those powers are to
be exercised. In any democratic political party, discipline ultimately rests with those elected to deal
with that function. Labour Party staff (whether at regional or national level) are currently between "a
rock and a hard place" (however they act or do not act), and are subject to fierce and sometimes
personal criticism, with (understandably and necessarily) no right of reply. It should also be
remembered that the Party's membership has enjoyed a significant increase in recent times. This is
exciting and welcome but brings an inevitable need for additional resources to serve that larger
number. The following recommendations are as much to make the working lives of staff easier as to
improve confidence in the system and values which they serve.
General Counsel
The General Secretary of the Labour Party has an incredibly important and difficult job. He has
responsibility for hundreds of paid staff around the country, a significant if inadequate budget
(compared to other parties) and governance and secretarial responsibilities in relation to the Party's
elected committees. This role is under-supported, not least for the lack of a single in-house lawyer,
notwithstanding his responsibilities for electoral law, data protection and aspects of the disciplinary
process of which I am writing now.
I understand, appreciate and welcome the fact that many Labour-leaning lawyers in private practice
have offered their services on a range of complex issues either pro bono or for a fee over the years.
However, testimony to my Inquiry reveals the sheer inadequacy of the in-house resources in an
organisation understandably primarily equipped for political campaigning rather than due process,
whether at regional or national level.
Whilst I understand the continuing need to engage a number of varying private practice lawyers to
advise on various compliance and other legal issues, it is vital in my view, that there is internal legal
expertise, not least to give urgent advice, achieve consistency and take responsibility for instructing a
range of external lawyers (thus avoiding either favouritism or capture) where appropriate.
-
I recommend the urgent appointment of a General Counsel or other staff lawyer to the Labour
Party to give initial advice, including and in particular on disciplinary matters and to take
responsibility for instructing external lawyers as appropriate. I also recommend further
additional expert staff (quite possibly legally or part legally qualified), trained and equipped to
work on matters of discipline. They could either work to the General Counsel directly or in the
15