Agenda item

REPORT OF THE MONITORING OFFICER

To update the Committee on standards issues generally.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the contents of the report be noted; and

(2)        That the Committee’s comments outlined in the preamble to this Minute above form the substance of NHDC’s response to the DCLG Consultation Paper on updating disqualification criteria for local authority members.

REASON FOR DECISION:  To ensure good governance within the Council.

The Monitoring Officer presented a report in respect of standards issues generally.  The following appendix was submitted with the report:

Appendix A – DCLG Consultation Paper: Consultation on updating disqualification criteria for local authority members.

The Monitoring Officer advised that three complaints (two relating to Parish Councillors and one relating to a District Councillor) had been received since the last meeting of the Committee and none had been pursued. 

The Monitoring Officer stated that, on 24 May 2017, training was offered to all Members on standards, finance and governance generally.  Unfortunately, the date had proven to be difficult for some Members, due to diary clashes, and only seven Members had attended.  Those who had attended engaged with the sessions and the training was generally well received.  It was hoped to re-run the session at a convenient point in the civic calendar.

The Monitoring Officer commented that the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) would be undertaking a review of local government standards during 2017/18.  The review would be based around a consultation to be launched in early 2018, with the findings and recommendations to be published later in 2018.

The Monitoring Officer advised that the review of the Protocol with Hertfordshire Police in relation of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) offences had not yet been completed, but was hoped to conclude in the near future.  The agreed changes would be reported to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Monitoring Officer explained that the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) was currently consulting on proposals to update the criteria that barred individuals from becoming or being a local councillor or directly-elected mayor.  Currently, individuals could not stand for, or hold, office as a local authority member if they had, within the previous five years or since their election, been convicted of an offence that carried a prison sentence of at least three months without a fine and whether suspended or not.  The consultation paper is attached at Appendix A to the report.

The Monitoring Officer stated that the Government was proposing to amend the disqualification criteria so that anyone convicted of a serious crime, regardless of whether it came with a custodial sentence, would not be able to serve as a councillor.  Individuals would be banned from standing for office if they were subject to:

·         the notification requirements set out in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (being on the sex offenders register);

·         a civil injunction granted under s.1 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the 2014 Act); or

·         a Criminal Behaviour Order made under s.22 of the 2014 Act.

The new rules would apply to councillors and mayors in parish, district, county and unitary councils, London boroughs, combined authorities and the Greater London Assembly.  The proposed changes would not be retrospective.  The closing date for comments on the disqualification criteria was 8 December 2017.

The Committee considered the six questions set out in the consultation paper, and commented as follows:

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?

Yes.

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?

No, the individual should be prohibited from standing for election or holding office.

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?

The majority of Committee Members agreed with the prohibition regarding Civil Injunctions, although it would be helpful to have greater guidance and the process needed to be better explained.  All Committee Members agreed with the Criminal Behaviour Order prohibition.

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?

No.  Those individuals subject to Community Protection Notices should also be prohibited from standing for election or holding office.  However, there should be no such prohibition for those subject to Dispersal Powers, Public Space Protection Orders and Closure Powers.

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 equalities concerns were raised.

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

·      There was inconsistency with other types of offences, specifically dishonesty offences;

·      Having clear timescales as to the length of time that was applied for various offences, particularly in relation to offences committed as a child;

·      How was the regime expected to be monitored and enforced?;

·      The three month in prison rule needed to be updated;

·      Non-custodial sentences were not reflected in the legislation, but should be;

·      The Standards regime should be re-strengthened to provide for more meaningful sanctions regarding breaches of the Code of Conduct ie. suspension/removal from office; and

·      The Standards Board for England should be re-instated.

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the contents of the report be noted; and

(2)        That the Committee’s comments outlined in the preamble to this Minute above form the substance of NHDC’s response to the DCLG Consultation Paper on updating disqualification criteria for local authority members.

REASON FOR DECISION:  To ensure good governance within the Council.