Members are asked to consider the attached consultation paper issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on behalf of the Secretary of State. The consultation paper sets out the government’s proposals for updating the criteria disqualifying individuals from standing for, or holding office as, a local authority member, directly-elected mayor or member of the London Assembly.

The Interim Assistant Director: Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer introduced a report which set out the details of a Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) consultation exercise proposing to update the criteria that barred individuals from becoming a local councillor or directly elected mayor.

The Chair suggested that the responses to the direct questions 1 to 5 in the consultation document should be accepted and then opened the matter up for debate.

A Member queried the notification period for a person on the sex offenders register and the fact that somebody sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more up to 29 months was barred for 10 years from holding public office, whereas somebody sentenced to 30 months or more imprisonment was barred for an indefinite period and how was this defined.

The Interim Assistant Director: Law and Governance commented that an indefinite period was subject to review but as to who undertook that review it was not clear.

The Chair and Members suggested the need for Councils to have powers to temporarily suspend Members for a period of time or for a period up to when they were next due for election.

The Interim Assistant Director: Law and Governance commented upon the suggestion of suspension and that this would only be applied where the standards of behaviour had strayed so far that the Member was considered to be not a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold office. This could also apply to a suggestion put forward by one Council on the right of recall, where a person would be removed from office and a bye-election triggered. The Chair commented that these powers would only be used in absolutely exceptional circumstances.

Resolved - That this Committee, having considered the consultation on the disqualification criteria for councillors and directly elected mayors, instructs the Monitoring Officer to send a written response:

(a)  in accordance with the Committee’s views above; and

(b)  respond to the consultation’s direct questions that the Committee

(i).  Agree that an individual who is subject to the notification requirements set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 should be prohibited from standing for election, or holding office, as a member of a local authority;

(ii).  Agree that an individual who is subject to a Sexual Risk Order (SRO) should be prohibited from standing for election, or holding office, as a member of a local authority;

(iii).  Agree that an individual who has been issued with a Civil Injunction (made under section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) or a Criminal Behaviour Order (under section 22 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) should be prohibited from standing for election, or holding office, as a member of a local authority;

(iv).  Agree that being subject to a Civil Injunction or a Criminal Behaviour Order should be the only anti-social behaviour-related reasons why an individual should be prohibited from standing for election, or holding office, as a member of a local authority; and

(v).  Does not believe that the proposals set out in the consultation paper will have an effect on local authorities ability to discharge their Public Sector Equality Duties under the Equality Act 2010.

(vi).  It was felt that the Government's proposals are to be welcomed, but is a reaction to a particular circumstance and has not taken the opportunity to look more widely, such as in relation to occasions of violence or dishonesty whilst a Member, which are equally serious matters.

Without highlighting one act over another, there have been several cases cited, for example, where a councillor has been convicted not just of an act of dishonesty but an act of dishonesty in relation to their own authority which, in their receiving a non-custodial sentence, did not then result in their resignation as a member of that authority.

The Council considers that the scope of the consultation considered should be widened, therefore, to look further than the set criteria of section 80 and also look to options giving local authorities, or others (as in the case of Wales and Scotland), stronger powers over Members' behaviour such as:

·  misusing their public office or appointments;

·  reckless behaviour resulting in the Council suffering a loss;

·  persistently or materially acting against the interests of the Council (and/or partners and the public) and bringing the office of councillor or the Council into disrepute; or

·  a civil action for breach of confidence.

The Council would, beyond this, welcome consideration of the introduction of powers to suspend a councillor for a period up to, if necessary, the next election. This might, for example, be a direct ruling or be based on a new ‘right to recall’ councillors in the event of significant conduct or ethical breach, similar to that put in place for Members of Parliament by the Recall of MPs Act 2015.

The Council is of the view that further powers, beyond the rules suggested in this consultation, are absolutely necessary to show to the public the degree to which the Council (or another body) can deal with a person whose standards of behaviour as a Member have strayed so far from the principles of conduct as to not be a fit and proper person to act as a local councillor.