Agenda item

5.1

The Monitoring Officer/Director of Legal and Governance submitted a report in relation to a Consultation on the Disqualification Criteria for Councillors and Mayors. The Government had issued a consultation paper, which set out its proposals for updating the criteria disqualifying individuals from being elected, or holding office, as a local authority Member or directly elected Mayor. The Committee was asked to consider a response to the consultation.

5.2

David Hollis, Assistant Director, Legal and Governance, introduced the report. He commented that the Government were consulting on widening the scope for disqualification to include any conviction related to sexual offences or anti-social behaviour. The Government was proposing that this criteria did not include sexual risk orders which was a Civil Order.

4.3

As there were no Members present from the main opposition party, Members asked that their responses to the consultation be shared with them for their input.

4.4

RESOLVED: That: (a) the Council’s response to the consultation should be as outlined below:-

“Q1. Do you agree that an individual who is subject to the notification requirements set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (i.e. 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?

Agreed

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 the London Mayor?

Disagree – They should be prohibited.  The highest standards should be expected from those in public office and this is also a safeguarding issue as elected members can have contact with vulnerable individuals.  As a Sexual Risk Order is made by a court after considering evidential submissions, it has the necessary safeguards for the individual.

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 Assemblyor London Mayor?

Agreed but see response to Q6 below.

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?

Agreed

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?

No

Q6. Do you have any further views about the proposals set out in this consultation paper?”

In making the comments above, it has had to be assumed that all orders are based on proper process and any convictions are correct.  However, it has to be recognised that there can be wrongful convictions and we are concerned that some forms of legitimate protest can lead to incidents that have arrests and prosecutions.  We want to be assured that the proposals will not have the effect of preventing or discouraging elected members and those seeking election from taking part in legitimate protest and think that a safeguard would be that any prohibition would only be effective at the end of any appeal process that was being pursued; and

(b) the Director of Legal and Governance and Monitoring Officer be requested to formally submit the Committee’s response to the Department for Communities and Local Government.