Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated); and

B.    The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2016 (previously circulated).

Apologies were received from Mr R C Adams, Ms P A Hill, Dr K A Pollock and Mr C Slade.

None.

Members of the public wishing to take part should notify the Director of Resources in writing or by e-mail indicating both the nature and content of their proposed participation no later than 9.00am on the working day before the meeting (in this case 17 October 2017).  Enquiries about this can be made through the telephone number/e-mail address listed below.

None.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2016. (previously circulated – pink pages)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2016 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered a consultation issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government regarding the disqualification criteria for local councillors.

The consultation document posed a series of questions and the Committee discussed each one in turn as follows:

Question 1 - 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?

·         Why did the disqualification criteria exclude existing councillors? Simon Mallinson, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services responded that the proposed change in the law did not provide for retrospective effect. The Government sought to disqualify individuals from being elected in these circumstances and therefore existing councillors were unaffected until the next elections

·         Where a councillor was the subject of a pending court case under this legislation, would they be suspended from duty until the case was heard at court? The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that being accused of an offence by itself carried no sanction. There were no suspension powers. The proposed law would only impact on conviction or court order leading to being placed on the sex offenders' register.  The current disqualification followed conviction and sentencing of 3 months imprisonment or longer (including suspended sentences), not pending court cases

·         There was an unfortunate stigma associated with individuals who were the subject of a pending court case. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services added that there was a wider issue around the right of anonymity granted to the complainant but not the accused in some sex cases but these issues were not addressed in the consultation document

·         If an individual were held in custody before the matter came to court, would they be able to continue as a councillor? The Head of Legal and Democratic Services commented that they would continue as a councillor, the issue would be the potential for disqualification through non-attendance at meetings for 6 months

·         Did the proposed legislation conflict with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that the Government would need to ensure that the pieces of legislation matched. 

The Committee agreed with the question.

Question 2 - 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?

·         In response to a query, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services commented that Sexual Risk Orders were in relation to persons who had  not been cautioned or convicted in criminal process and thus differed from the categories in question 1

·         There was a possibility that a Sexual Risk Order would prevent an individual from having any contact with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 258.

The Committee received a Code of Conduct and complaints update from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.

In the ensuing debate, it was commented that not only were the sanctions available to councils minimal at a local level but if a councillor resigned before the investigation was completed then the investigation was dropped. This created the unsatisfactory situation where the complaint was left unresolved which was unfair on the complainant and the accused.

RESOLVED: the outcomes of recent formal complaints that members have breached the Code of Conduct be noted.