The policy, which will be recommended for approval at a Redcar and Cleveland full council meeting and added to the local authority’s constitution, means that elected councillors will be expected to undergo a basic Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check with their consent.
Some may also be required to have an enhanced check, designed for people working with children or vulnerable adults, depending on the role they undertake with safeguarding in mind.
A motion successfully proposed in February by Councillor Karen King, who heads up the council’s corporate parenting board, and which received cross-party political support, said if a councillor did not consent to, or was unable to obtain the relevant check required for a safeguarding-type role, the council should take appropriate steps within the law to ensure that they did not serve in that function.
That said, it was recognised that in circumstances where a DBS check disclosed a past matter it should not affect their ability to hold office as an elected councillor.
Council leader Alec Brown, speaking at a cabinet meeting, said the policy, along with potentially disclosing any failure to pass a check – which he wanted to see – was in the “public interest”.
He also said he would like the policy in place before the next set of local elections due next year.
Cllr Brown later posted on social media, making plain his support for the move and saying he was “amazed” such provisions were not already in place.
There was broad support from Facebook users who replied to the council leader, although several pointed out the pitfalls of publicly outing councillors should they fail checks, citing personal data concerns.
There was disagreement, however, among some council members over who should bear the cost of the checks.
Cllr King’s motion said that the cost should be met by councillors themselves, for example through a deduction from their annual allowance.
But Councillor Glyn Nightingale, presenting the views of the resources scrutiny committee he is chairman of, said it was felt the costs should be borne fully by the council.
A report for cabinet members summarising the new policy said: “This provides that all councillors will be subject to a basic level of DBS check, whereas those who wish to be nominated to specific committees will be required to undertake an enhanced DBS check.”
The report added: “Some discretion for the monitoring officer to waive the requirements for a DBS check (but only on a temporary basis pending the outcome of check being received) have been included in the policy.
“This is included because, historically, there have been significant delays in the DBS check process being completed and, if this arose in the future, it could result in a position, for example, where it was not possible to properly constitute committees at the Annual Meeting following the local elections.
“In line with the motion, the policy specifies that the cost of any DBS check will be borne by individual councillors.
“If the council pays any fees, then these can be recovered by deductions from allowances and a form will be developed for that purpose.”
The policy would also include a right of appeal for a councillor to dispute a decision arising from a DBS check – for instance where it revealed a conviction or police information – to be considered by an assessment sub-committee.
Electoral law allows individuals to stand for election as a councillor with a criminal record, but they are automatically subject to disqualification if they received a prison sentence of three months or more – including suspended sentences – in the five years leading up to polling, or if previously convicted of specific sexual offences or corrupt electoral practices.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login