Agenda item

Report of the Strategic Director, Corporate Services and Governance

The Committee were presented with a report seeking views about what the disqualification criteria for Councillors and Mayors should be.  In particular should they extend further than statute currently permits to include new criteria.

Currently under Section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972, paragraph 9 of schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and Section 21 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, Councillors and Mayors can be disqualified if:-

·         They are employed by the authority

• They are subject to bankruptcy restrictions or interim bankruptcy restrictions, or a debt relief order or interim debt relief restrictions order under the Insolvency Act 1986.
• Within five years before the day of election or since election have been convicted in the UK , Channel islands or Isle of Man any offence and have had passed on them a sentence of imprisonment ( whether or not suspended) for a period of not less than three months.
• They are disqualified under Part III of the Representation of the People Act 1983 ( this relates to offences of electoral fraud  i.e a candidate bribing someone to vote for them)
• They are employed under the direction of various local authority committees, boards or the Greater London Authority

·         They are a teacher in a school maintained by the local authority

The Government is seeking views about extending the reasons for disqualification to cover two main areas – sexual offences and anti-social behaviour.

The Committee looked at each of the questions posed as part of the consultation and made the following comments in respect of each question as listed.

Question 1 –

Do you agree that an individual who is subject to the notification requirements set out in the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 should be prohibited from standing for election or holding office?

It was the unanimous view of those present at the Committee that this should be the case.

Question 2 –

Do you agree that an individual who is subject to a Sexual Risk order should not be prohibited from standing for election?

It was queried whether a sexual risk order was made public in the same way as a person being registered on the Sex Offenders Register. It was confirmed this was not the case, but an SRO would be disclosed in an enhanced DBS check.

It was noted that whilst the matter would be dealt with at the Magistrates Court, the person does have a right of appeal.

Concern was also expressed that potentially someone could get through the selection process and be nominated to stand as a candidate.  If elected currently elected members are not subject to DBS clearing.  The Committee were advised that it would be up to the individual to declare anything which would bar them standing in an election or from becoming a councillor, and it was a serious offence to fail to disclose such information.

The consensus of those present at the Committee was that an individual should be prohibited if subject to a Sexual Risk Order.

Question 3 and Question 4

Do you agree that an individual who has been issued with a Civil injunction or a criminal behaviour order should be prohibited from standing for election or holding office as a member of a local authority, Mayor of a combined authority or member of the London assembly or London Mayor?

Do you agree that being subject to a civil injunction or criminal behaviour order should be the only antisocial behaviour reasons why an individual should be prohibited from standing for election?

The Committee noted that there might be a wide range of circumstances under which a person might be subject to such civil sanctions, including involvement in political demonstrations, and therefore a wider spectrum of degrees if risk to the the community should someone be elected if they had such an order place against them, given that someone would be excluded from standing in an election if they had a prison sentence of 3 months or more.

The Committee felt that using a blanket yes or no response to the above questions would not the best way of managing risk, given that the behaviour is so broad.  The Committee felt that using the offences rather than the detail around an individual is not the best way of managing the risk. It was felt that these risks were not of a level that would be associated with sexual offences where an individual could pose harm to individual members of their community.

Question 5 –

Do you consider that the proposal set out in this consultation paper will have an effect on local authorities discharging their public sector Equality Act duty?

The Committee did not feel that this would be the case as long as we look at people as individuals. 

Question 6 –

Do you have any further views about the proposals set out in this consultation paper?

It was noted that the rules which apply to councillors are technically stronger than those which apply to MPs, and felt that the rules should apply equally to MPs.

RESOLVED -That the comments received should form the basis of the response to the DCLG consultation on disqualification of Mayors and Councillors.