Agenda item

The Interim Head of Legal Services presented his report on the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) consultation paper setting 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. Members were asked to put forward their views so a response to the consultation could be drafted.

The current criteria prevented individuals from standing for, or holding office as a councillor if they had received a sentence of imprisonment, suspended or not, for a period of no less than three months. The consultation issued by the DCLG sought views on extending these criteria for disqualification, with particular regard to sexual offences and anti-social behaviour.

SEXUAL OFFENCES

In relation to sexual offences, the consultation asked the following questions:

Q1. Do you agree that an individual who is subject to the notification

requirements set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (i.e. who is on the

sex offenders register) should be prohibited from standing for election,

or holding office, as a member of a local authority, mayor of a combined authority, member of the London Assembly or London Mayor?

Q2. Do you agree that an individual who is subject to a Sexual Risk

Order should not be prohibited from standing for election, or holding

office, as a member of a local authority, mayor of a combined authority,

member of the London Assembly or London Mayor?

The consultation proposed that anyone who was currently subject to sex offender notification requirements (otherwise known as on the ‘sex offenders register’) should be barred from standing for election, or holding office, as a councillor. However, the consultation did not propose extending disqualification to those subject to a Sexual Risk Order (SRO).

The Interim Head of Legal Services said there was an important distinction to be made between a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Acts 2003 and a Sexual Risk Order (SRO). An individual charged with a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would have been tried and found guilty of a criminal offence, whilst an SRO was a civil order against someone who was perceived as a threat to public safety, but was not dependent on a conviction.

Councillor Asker said public safety was paramount and suggested a similar approach to Licensing standards should be adopted. When drivers apply for a commercial license, checks are carried out to ensure they are not a risk to the public. The same should apply to those standing for elected office; if they are in receipt of an SRO they are a risk and therefore not fit to be a councillor.

Councillor Lees said an individual who had been given an SRO had not been convicted and therefore would be disbarred from standing for office on a suspicion. Councillor Dean agreed and said this should not be grounds for disqualification.

The Chairman said individuals with an SRO had been considered a risk for good reason and should not be allowed to stand for elected office. Councillors Asker and Sell agreed. The majority of members felt that individuals who been subject to an SRO should be disqualified from standing for office.

The Committee resolved that the Interim Head of Legal Services should draft a response agreeing with Question 1 but (by a majority) disagreeing with Question 2 of the consultation. 

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Concerning the anti-social behaviour orders, the consultation asked the following questions:

Q3. Do you 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 (made 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, mayor of a combined authority,

member of the London Assembly or London Mayor?

Q4. Do you 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, mayor of

a combined authority, member of the London Assembly or London

Mayor?

The Interim Head of Legal said there were two behaviour sanctions the consultation was seeking views on, a Civil Injunction and a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO). He asked members to consider if such sanctions warranted inclusion in the disqualification criteria. He also advised members to think about the difference between the two types of order, particularly the different standards of proof that applied in obtaining these sanctions.

In response to a question from Councillor Sell, the Interim Head of Legal Services said CBOs were usually issued to individuals who caused a public nuisance, such as street drinkers. Councillor Sell said if CBOs were enforced on frequent offenders, such a sanction demonstrated that an individual was not a fit and proper person to be standing for elected office. Councillor Dean said he was wary of disqualifying individuals on the basis outlined in the report as it was interfering with the democratic process; an individual could be elected with a democratic mandate only to be disqualified by the Standards Committee. He said it was up to the electorate to decide if an individual was fit for office. 

Councillor Lees said all individuals were capable of making mistakes and often people who were not perfect could connect and relate to the wider electorate. She added that there was an important distinction between a Criminal Behaviour Order mad following conviction for a criminal offence and a civil injunction. She asked the Interim Head of Legal Services if a person, under the proposed changes outlined in the consultation paper, could be barred from standing for elected office if they had been sanctioned for political campaigning, for example protesting against fracking. The Interim Head of Legal Services said that political campaigning which involved anti-social behaviour could result in a Civil Injunction or a Criminal Behaviour Order. Councillor Sell said pressure groups had taken direct action throughout history to enact change and, whilst not always acting within the strict confines of the law, these individuals could foreseeably be fit and proper people, as well as potentially effective representatives. He added that it was different if violence was involved.

Members agreed that the measures outlined in the consultation regarding anti-social behaviour were too crude. A consensus was reached that individuals should be prevented from standing for election if they had received a CBO, but a distinction had to be made between a CBO and a civil injunction order. Representations to the DCLG would be drafted along these lines.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

In addition to the questions on sexual offences and anti-social behaviour, the consultation asked:

Q5. Do you consider that the proposals set out in this consultation paper will have an effect on local authorities discharging their Public Sector Equality Duties under the Equality Act 2010?

Q6. Do you have any further views about the proposals set out in this

consultation paper?

Councillor Dean said that Westminster had more lenient disqualification criteria than those for politicians involved in local government. He said that standards should be consistent across the country, regardless of the tier of government. Following this consultation, he expected the new disqualification criteria to be applied to Parliament and asked for this point to be included in the response to Question 6. 

The Chairman said a suitable response to Question 6 would be to mention the concern shared by the committee of the lack of sanctions available when councillors breached the code of conduct. The Interim Head of Legal Services said he would include this in his draft response.

RESOLVED the Interim Head of Legal Service to draft a response to the consultation and circulate to members for comment.