Local Government (Disqualification) Bill Consideration of Bill, not
amended in the Public Bill Committee Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame
Rosie Winterton) Before I call Sir Christopher Chope, it may be
useful to Members if I set out the differences between Report and
Third Reading. Report is also known as “consideration”, and
provides an opportunity for the whole House to consider what has
been done in Committee. Members may table amendments either as
probing...Request free trial
Local Government
(Disqualification) Bill
Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill
Committee
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Before I call , it may be useful to
Members if I set out the differences between Report and Third
Reading.
Report is also known as “consideration”, and provides an
opportunity for the whole House to consider what has been done in
Committee. Members may table amendments either as probing
amendments to elicit more information, or because they want to
make changes to the Bill. The scope of the debate is restricted
to the amendments that have been tabled. Third Reading provides
the final opportunities for Members to pass or reject the whole
Bill; Members can speak about the Bill as a whole, and the debate
is much wider. Members may wish to consider that, and then decide
at which stage they want to try to catch my eye.
New Clause 1
Members of local authorities: disqualification relating to drink
and drug driving offences (England)
“In the Local Government Act 1972, after section 81 insert—
“81A Disqualification relating to drink and drug driving offences
etc (England)
(1) A person is disqualified for being elected or being a member
of a local authority in England if the person is subject to—
(a) a conviction for driving or being in charge with alcohol
concentration above prescribed limit contrary to section 5 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988;
(b) a conviction for driving or being in charge with
concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit
contrary to section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a person shall not be
regarded as having a conviction until—
(a) the expiry of the ordinary period allowed for making an
appeal against the conviction, or
(b) if such an appeal is made, the date on which it is finally
disposed of or abandoned or fails because it is not
prosecuted.””—( .)
Brought up, and read the First time.
11.41am
(Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Members of local authorities: disqualification
relating to controlled
drugs offences (England)—
“In the Local Government Act 1972, after section 81 insert—
“81A Disqualification relating to controlled drugs offences etc
(England)
(1) A person is disqualified for being elected or being a member
of a local authority in England if the person is subject to a
conviction relating to controlled drugs contrary to the Misuse of
Drugs Act 1971.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a person shall not be
regarded as having a conviction until—
(a) the expiry of the ordinary period allowed for making an
appeal against the conviction, or
(b) if such an appeal is made, the date on which it is finally
disposed of or abandoned or fails because it is not
prosecuted.””
New clause 3—Members of local authorities: disqualification
relating to anti-social behaviour sanctions issued by the Court
(England)—
“In the Local Government Act 1972, after section 81 insert—
“81A Disqualification relating to anti-social behaviour
sanctions
(1) A person is disqualified for being elected or being a member
of a local authority in England if the person is subject to a
civil injunction made under section 1 of the Anti-social
Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a person shall not be
regarded as being disqualified until—
(a) the expiry of the ordinary period allowed for making an
appeal against the civil injunction, or
(b) if such an appeal is made the date on which it is finally
disposed of or abandoned or fails because it is not
prosecuted.””
This new clause would disqualify persons subject to an
anti-social behaviour injunction from serving in local government
in England, as consulted on by the Government in 2017.
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “authority”
insert “(except a parish council)”.
This amendment excludes parish councils from the provisions of
Clause 1.
Amendment 2, page 2, leave out line 2.
This amendment (and Amendment 3) remove being subject to a sexual
risk order from the list of reasons for disqualification from
serving in local government in England, as consulted on by the
Government in 2017.
Amendment 3, page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 4, page 2, leave out lines 42 to 48.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
This is an important Bill, and I think everyone supports it in
principle, because it is designed to ensure that those in local
government who fall short of the behaviour expected of them in a
civilised society are disqualified from being able to participate
in local government. My problem with the Bill at the moment is
that it is very selective. It deals only with sexual offences,
and does not extend to other offences which I think are equally
important, particularly in the context of local councillors who
have responsibility for road safety, for example, and also for
social services and dealing with the scourge of illegal drug
taking.
New clause 1 contains the first such addition that I want to
make. It accords very much with the strategy of the Bill, which
was set out by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer when he
was the Minister for local government. In his ministerial
foreword to the response to the consultation on updating the
disqualification criteria for councillors and mayors, published
in October 2018, he wrote:
“The Government considers there should be consequences where
councillors, mayors and London Assembly members fall short of the
behaviour expected in an inclusive and tolerant society… Elected
members play a crucial role in town halls across the country, and
are the foundations of local democracy. They are community
champions, and have a leading role to play in building a better
society for everyone.”
My view, reflected in new clause 1, is that councillors who fall
below the standards expected in relation to drink and drug
driving offences should be included in the category of those who
are disqualified from being able to serve as councillors and
mayors. I think that they fall four-square within the
Government’s definition of having been convicted of behaviour
which everyone in a right-minded society would say was
intolerable. Why should people who are in that position be
allowed to continue as councillors while other councillors who
have been convicted of a different set of antisocial offences are
excluded? That is the essence of new clause 1. If someone is
convicted of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with
excess alcohol or a controlled drug, they should not be able to
hold office as an elected councillor in this country.
11.45am
That brings me to new clause 2, which seeks, similarly, to extend
the provisions for disqualification to those who are convicted of
offences contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The new clause
is particularly topical, because it fits in with the “10-year
drugs plan to cut crime and save lives”, which Her Majesty’s
Government published in December 2021. As Members may know, that
contained a foreword from no less a person than our Prime
Minister. He said on page 4:
“And there will be no implicit tolerance of so-called
recreational drug users.”
What better way is there of making an example of that and
ensuring that the Prime Minister’s words are delivered into
action than by amending the Bill through new clause 2 and making
it clear that recreational drug users who are convicted would
also find that they are ineligible to serve as elected
councillors across this country, as champions of local people? If
the Government do not accept new clause 2, it would seem that
they are already stalling on actually delivering what is a clear
objective of the 10-year drugs plan, “From harm to hope”.
I will refer briefly to some of the content of that strategy.
Page 13 says:
“Legal consequences for this use”—
in other words, the use of illegal substances—
“have not been sufficiently applied across all levels of
society…We will improve our methods for identifying recreational
drug users and roll out a system of tougher penalties aimed at
this.”
That is what the Government said. The strategy also states:
“For those who nevertheless choose to continue with their drug
use, there will be swift, certain and meaningful consequences
which will be felt more strongly than today and will escalate for
those who continue to offend. Drugs are harmful to society and no
one is above the law.”
Surely if those words are true—I certainly support every
scintilla of them—we should ensure that we take every opportunity
to add to the deterrents and punishments for those who are guilty
of recreational and other drug use.
We understand that recreational drug use is treated by some
people in our society as relatively unimportant in terms of
compliance with the criminal law but the criminal law, under the
rule of law, should apply to all. In chapter 4, on page 45, the
strategy states:
“Adults using drugs socially often live relatively typical and
otherwise healthy lives and may not recognise their role in
fuelling the drugs trade or influencing and damaging the
behaviour of others, including children. They may also feel that
they are not at risk of experiencing any consequences themselves
from their drug use. This should not be the case.”
And so say—or so should say—all of us.
At page 57, the Government say:
“Prevention of substance use is a key element of the government’s
ambition to reduce the demand for drugs.”
What is also made clear in that document is that both local and
national Government are actively involved together in the drugs
strategy. It says, under the heading “Local outcomes frameworks”,
on page 60:
“For this to succeed, there needs to be alignment between
national outcome expectations and local delivery.”
Who are the people who are involved in local delivery? None other
than local councillors. So can we tolerate a situation in which
local councillors may themselves have been convicted of offences
against the Misuse of Drugs Act, in complete defiance of the
Government’s strategy, which I think has universal support across
the country? That is the essence of new clause 2.
It might be said that we cannot amend the Bill because we have
not yet consulted on these issues. In my view, that would be a
very technical defence and would not go to, if I can use the
expression, the substance of the concerns that I am expressing.
The Government did consult on this measure, as I have said, in
2017, with the results of that consultation being published in
2018. I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley
( ) for many years, from when
we worked together on Wandsworth council and in various other
roles, and I very much support the Bill and taking up the
proposals from the Government. But what I do not understand is
why a subject on which there was consultation—the issue of
antisocial behaviour—has been omitted from this Bill.
New clause 3 is designed to add to the Bill the provisions that
were originally the subject of consultation in 2017.
Question 3 in that document said:
“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?”
In introducing that, the Government suggested in the consultation
paper that they were of the opinion that such people should be
disqualified from holding office. In the response to the
consultation, they say that 65% of respondents agreed with that
proposal—the proposal to disqualify, for such behaviour, from
being able to be a councillor, 22% were against and 12% of people
did not know.
The Government, to give a flavour of the responses received,
quoted, among others:
“We agree on the basis that the period of time for which they
would be barred would end once they are no longer subject to the
injunction or order”,
and
“it would not be considered acceptable for people to stand for or
hold office where they have been issued with certain Civil
Injunctions and Criminal Behaviour Orders”.
So the responses were very much in support of what was then the
Government’s proposition. The Government themselves said:
“The Government considers that an individual who is subject to an
anti-social behaviour sanction
that has been issued by the court,”—
a civil injunction made under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime
and Policing Act 2014—
“should be barred from standing for election…as a local authority
member”.
The disqualification period would end when they were no longer
subject to the injunction or the order. So not only did the
Government consult on the issue and the responses support the
measure, but the Government themselves supported the measure in
2018. By implication, I imagine the current Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who was then the Minister with responsibility for
local government, also supported it. I submit, with all modesty,
that new clause 3 has support at the very highest levels of
Government from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as we have not
heard anything from him to suggest that he has changed his mind
since 2018.
Why, then, is that provision not included in the Bill, which is,
as I understand it, essentially a Government handout Bill? One
can only surmise that the Government are now watering down their
support for that proposition, which they consulted on in 2017,
said they supported in 2018 and committed to try to get early
legislation on at the same time. We have waited three years-plus
to get to this stage. Now we are at that stage, why can we not
accept new clause 3? The other amendments I have fit in with what
I have just been saying.
Amendments 2 and 3 seek to leave out of the Bill measures that
were also the subject of consultation and where consultees
disapproved of the proposals. Indeed, in the consultation, the
Government themselves said they did not want to include in the
Bill issues relating to serious risk orders. Paragraph 15, on
page 12 of the document issued in September 2017, states:
“The Government does not propose including another type of civil
order, the Sexual Risk Order, as this person would not have been
convicted or cautioned of a sexual offence under the Sexual
Offences Act 2003 and are not subject to notification
requirements for registered sex offenders. A Sexual Risk Order
does require the individual to notify to the police their name
and their home address. A Sexual Risk Order can be sought by the
police against an individual who has not been convicted,
cautioned etc. of an offence under Schedule 3 or Schedule 5 of
the 2003 Act but who is nevertheless thought to pose a risk of
harm to the public in the UK and/or children or vulnerable adults
abroad.”
The question posed in the consultation was:
“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”.
The result of the consultation was that the public agreed with
the Government’s view in 2017 that the sexual risk order should
not be extended to the provisions. What do we find now? We find
that that provision, which the Government said should not be
included, is now included in this Bill. I cannot understand why
because it taints the Bill. It means it is not just confined to
people who have been convicted before the criminal courts—it also
deals with people who are effectively in receipt of civil
penalties. It offends against the very principles to which I have
just referred and which the Government thought in 2017 were a
reason not to include these measures in the Bill.
12.00am
The respondents to the consultation agreed with the Government
view at the time, but we now understand that the Government have
changed their mind. Is that not extraordinary? Why is it that the
Government are now changing their mind on the issue when they
have already consulted on it and the majority of respondents to
the consultation agreed with the proposition that risk orders
should not disqualify people from being able to serve as a local
government councillor in our country?
One can see quite a lot of anomalies in all this. At the
beginning of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, you made a
statement about Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of legislation.
It is a pity that none of the people who were privileged to serve
on the Bill Committee thought fit to get down to the detail of
the Bill and its background and to test the Minister on the
Government’s rationale for being so selective in their response
to the consultation. I hope that today’s debate will give the
Minister an opportunity to fill that gap. Had I served on the
Bill Committee, I would have been able to raise these issues and
table amendments in Committee, but all I can do now is raise them
on Report and hope we will get some responses. Madam Deputy
Speaker, you said that we can table amendments and new clauses
with different objectives; the final group of amendments to which
I shall speak are more probing amendments than amendments
designed to highlight real shortcomings in the legislation.
Amendment 1 and the consequential amendment 4 are designed to
restrict the legislation so that it does not apply to parish
councils. I say that because of the tenor of the legislation and
the remarks, supported by the Government, about the importance of
councillors setting a good example. That applies in particular to
what we call principal councils throughout the country, but I am
not sure it applies in quite the same way to local parish
councils and community councils.
On a practical level, how will it be easy for some parish
councils, some of which are very small and do not have full-time
clerks, or even part-time clerks with any qualifications, to
police the proposals that are designed to apply to them? I ask
because there is obviously no point in our having laws that
cannot be properly enforced. We would not want to burden parish
councils with new responsibilities that they find difficult to
fulfil, particularly in respect of sexual misconduct orders. They
are not convictions and the people to whom they apply are not on
the sex offenders register, so it will be even more difficult to
identify them.
We know from recent experience that it will be difficult. For
example, the police and crime commissioner legislation prohibits
someone from standing for office or being elected as a police and
crime commissioner if they have been convicted of a drink-driving
offence. In Wiltshire last year, a candidate who was “elected” as
a police and crime commissioner had in fact fallen foul of the
primary legislation because he had been convicted in the past.
Even for a police and crime commissioner election, it was
difficult for the authorities to establish whether the person
standing in the election had already been convicted of
drink-driving. That is even more the case when the offences are
not criminal offences and have not been properly recorded. I hope
that the Minister will be able to help us on that aspect as
well.
This is an important Bill. On the one hand, it gives the House
the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to maintaining the
highest standards in public office, and on the other, it also
ensures that we respect civil liberties and do not start
condemning people for conduct that is not the subject of a
criminal conviction or even a criminal charge. Many anomalies
remain in the Bill and I hope that we will be able to resolve
them in the time remaining for debate today.
(Luton North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak for the Opposition on
this important Bill. I commend the hon. Member for Mole Valley
( ) for using his precious
private Member’s Bill to close this concerning loophole.
As for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch
( ), there is of course an
important discussion to be had about what should disqualify one
from being able to run for office, as there is about behaviour
while in office. I note that the hon. Gentleman quoted the Prime
Minister and his views on what would be needed for higher
standards in office for councillors. Given the votes of no
confidence being tabled across the country by Conservative
associations, I would hazard a guess that not even Conservative
councillors are in the mood to take lectures from the Prime
Minister about the standards that people should uphold.
What has been missed by the amendments is that the Bill would
close a loophole that allows sex offenders in positions where
they should be protecting the vulnerable: it is not an
opportunity to rewrite the law entirely. I genuinely do not know
why the hon. Member for Christchurch is so against protecting
some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The hon. Lady has just made a ridiculous assertion that is not
backed up by anything I have said or anything I believe in. Will
she withdraw that?
I may be new to this place, and particularly new to the spot I am
standing in, but having watched previous debates on closing
loopholes on female genital mutilation and upskirting, and now
this specific Bill about protecting young children, that is the
evidence that I have for making the comments that I made, and I
do not see a reason to withdraw them.
Just as a matter of record, because the hon. Lady obviously has
not read the record, I supported both the pieces of legislation
to which she referred. All I did was to try to ensure that they
were debated in the House so that they did not pass without any
debate.
The hon. Member supported them so much that he managed to talk
them out so they could not be passed. This time, I ask him to
give those tired antics a rest and allow this uncontroversial
Bill to pass. I do not think anyone in this place would condone
antisocial behaviour or driving under the influence. Any changes
to the disqualification criteria such as those he proposes
deserve a much longer debate in their own right. The amendments
threaten to weaken the specific point of the Bill. I suspect that
he knows that, and will not be surprised that we will vote
against them if pressed.
(Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments all together. Before I came to
this place, I was a councillor for many years, and I absolutely
uphold the principles of the Bill and of the Nolan principles of
conduct in public life. I also believe in redemption. I have
dealt a lot with issues relating to county lines and there is
nothing more powerful than seeing somebody who has been involved
as a victim but who is none the less convicted because at a very
young age they were involved in something over which they had
very little choice. The thought that in later life that person
might be disqualified from serving in public office is wrong, and
it is my understanding that that would happen if we included
these amendments. We need to reflect on the fact that people in
public office need to have experience and sometimes that
experience may be in areas where they need to advise people of
their past mistakes. Safeguarding is a different issue and I
absolutely support the Bill in that regard. As a result of that,
I will not support the amendments if they come to a vote.
(Mole Valley) (Con)
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch ( ), as he said, for some
considerable time; we were both on a south London council.
Although we are on the same side of the House, sometimes we agree
and sometimes we do not. This afternoon, although I have sympathy
with what he is plugging for, I do not think this is an
appropriate Bill for what he is proposing. It is a Bill that is
answering one small point, on which there has tremendous
pressure, because there has been evidence of it and of the
loophole being abused. As has been said, the loophole is child
protection and the relationship with elected councillors. There
has been wide consultation with local government before this Bill
on the specific issue. The measures it contains are very
deliberate and not retrospective. They are also de facto
time-limited by the nature of the current legislation relating to
the sex offenders list.
It would be fair to say that the new clauses came as a bit of a
surprise, although I should have anticipated them because I have
known my hon. Friend for some considerable time. I did ask him
whether he would like to serve on the Committee, because I knew
he would have issues to raise, but he declined to do so. These
new clauses will have a draconian effect on local government. I
am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they will be
retrospective all the way back to 1971 for drugs offences, to
1978 for drink-driving offences and to 2018 for social disorder
offences. There is no time limit for this disqualification and no
consideration given to the nature of the offence or the length of
the conviction. This is a retrospective,
one-strike-and-you-are-out proposal.
If the proposals were put to local government as they are on the
Order Paper, I suspect the response would include the far from
unreasonable request that such disqualification laws should be
applied to Members of Parliament as well. I am sure my hon.
Friend has no distant conviction, so there will be no difficulty
for him, but if he has, I suspect he may not be alone. More to
the point, I would strongly argue that any such purely
hypothetical conviction from decades ago would have no bearing on
his ability or that of any other hon. Member to discharge their
duties in this place.
The same applies to most, if not almost all, of our hard-working
colleagues in local government. When I looked at the amendments
and new clauses, I had visions of some poor councillor who had
the misfortune to be convicted in the late 1970s for a minor
drink-driving offence when a student—I remember my life as a
student; I got away with it—driving their battered Mini around
the university campus. This person may have gone on to serve as a
councillor or even as a mayor for decades, rendering great
service to their community, but they would be disqualified at a
stroke by the conviction many years ago, thereby forcing a
by-election. It is worth mentioning a point that will have
crossed the minds of some hon. Members. The inevitable and
aggressive partisan trawling for past convictions to be used as a
tool to unseat councillors will be particularly horrendous should
these new clauses be accepted. Certainly, we will see minor,
irrelevant incidents from the councillor’s past dredged up and
used as weapons to force the resignation of people who have given
huge amounts to their local community. That cannot be right on
the basis of the brief discussion that we have had on these
amendments today.
12.15pm
Finally, my hon. Friend moved an amendment proposing the subject
of the sexual risk order as a reason for disqualification from
serving in local government. The sexual risk order is made by the
court and imposes restrictions on a person’s behaviour that the
court deems necessary for the purposes of protecting the public
from the risk of sexual harm. An order can be made in respect of
any person who the police consider poses a risk of sexual harm to
the public, notwithstanding the fact that they have not been
convicted of a sexual offence. That is decided by the court. To
my mind, individuals subject to such orders have no place in
local government, and I fail to fathom the reason behind the
amendment, which seems to be arguing the opposite.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I have listened to my hon. Friend, so I would rather not.
The measure, in my view, only undermines the primary aim of this
Bill, which is to protect children. I was on the Committee for a
Labour Government Bill in 2003 that brought this through, and we
went backwards and forwards on this issue. Ultimately, I
supported it then, and I do so now. This is a uniquely important
issue, and I do not believe that it should be conflated with
broader arguments over what should or should not disqualify an
individual from participating in local government, as,
regrettably, these new clauses do.
The Minister for Equalities ()
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch ( ) for taking the time to
engage with the legislation. I know that he is keen to ensure
that Ministers have thought things through, and I am impressed
that he has actually gone through the consultation document from
2018. I disagree with his amendments and I hope that I can
convince him from the Dispatch Box that we are doing the right
thing. I also wish to put it on record that I disagree with the
rather unpleasant accusation that the hon. Member for Luton North
() made from the Labour Front
Bench.
New clauses 1 and 2 would have the effect of creating a new form
of permanent disqualification criteria for individuals convicted
of a narrow group of offences under section 5 or section 5A of
the Road Traffic Act 1988 or offences under the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971. There are a number of reasons why the Government are
resisting these new clauses. The first is the fact that they
propose that the disqualification would be permanent. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Mole Valley ( ) has said, this runs counter
to the principle and expectation that underpins our justice
system that offenders serve their time and are then rehabilitated
into society. It would have the effect of creating a permanent
bar to individuals contributing to public life in their local
communities for this limited category of offences. So, singling
out this narrow group of drink and drug offences for permanent
disqualification is disproportionate.
Secondly, the Bill legislates to capture not only local
councillors but mayors and London Assembly members. However, my
hon. Friend’s new clauses apply only to local councillors.
Thirdly, serious drink or drug-driving offences are already
covered by the existing local government disqualification
criteria, which bars anyone from standing or holding public
office in local government for five years if they have had a
custodial sentence of three months or more.
Amendments that create new, punitive measures to permanently
disqualify those receiving a conviction for certain limited drink
or drug-driving offences or controlled drug offences are really
not the purpose of the Bill. The Bill specifically seeks to
update disqualification criteria in line with modern sentencing
measures available for registered sex offenders. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central () said, these amendments would permanently bar, for
example, an individual from standing for local office if,
perhaps, at 18 they had had a glass of wine too many and were
convicted of being slightly over the limit. Forty years later,
they would still be unable to stand, which is a bit
draconian.
The Bill is appropriately comprehensive, as it catches all those
individuals subject to notification requirements for sexual
offences but not subject to custodial sentences. The core purpose
of this legislation is to prevent those convicted of sexual
offences from having a role as a local elected official that
could include access to children and vulnerable adults, and the
length of their disqualification would be the length of time that
they are subject to the notification requirement.
We also resist new clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for
Christchurch has identified that we did consult on disqualifying
individuals who had been issued with antisocial behaviour
injunctions in 2017, and the original consultation was focused in
scope. This Bill does not include civil injunctions, on the basis
that they represent only a partial selection of the injunctions
and behaviour orders available to the courts. The Government
support this Bill because, as I said earlier, we are legislating
comprehensively to disqualify individuals convicted of sexual
offences from local office. This Bill responds to calls for
changes to the law to disqualify sex offenders who are not given
a custodial sentence but refuse to stand down, so we want to
bring the disqualification criteria for councillors in line with
the modern sentencing practice. The current criteria require
updating to reflect changes to the law: the courts have tools
that they did not have previously, and the disqualification
criteria must reflect that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned my right
hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. New clause 3 may
have been supported by the Chancellor in his foreword when he was
serving in this role, but he is not the Bill Minister—I am—and I
believe that Bills such as this should be specific, targeted and
focused. This private Member’s Bill focuses on addressing those
concerns raised by specific cases where councillors made subject
to the notification requirements for registered sex offenders did
not resign. Those cases highlighted the fact that those
registered sex offenders pose great concern to our
communities.
I will now move on to amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, which all amend
clause 1, and which we resist for the following reasons.
Amendments 1 and 4 would selectively remove parish councils from
the list of local authorities subject to the new disqualification
criteria. This would be a significant and troubling reduction of
the purpose, intent, and comprehensiveness of the Bill. Parish
councils are already subject to the existing disqualification
criteria, and rightly so, as there are 10,000 parish councils and
approximately 100,000 parish councillors in England. It is vital
that the large number of individuals who hold this important
position—the grassroots of our democracy—are also subject to the
new disqualification criteria introduced by the Bill. People must
be given confidence that the individuals they elect to represent
them at all tiers of local government are of good character and
beyond reproach.
Amendments 2 and 3 would exclude sexual risk orders from the
updated disqualification criteria for members of local
authorities in England. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Christchurch has helpfully pointed out, the Government did
consult on the inclusion of sexual risk orders in 2017, and we
committed to legislate to disqualify persons subject to such
orders from holding local office. Individuals are subject to
sexual risk orders because they are found by a court to pose a
serious risk of harm to the public in the UK and/or children and
vulnerable adults abroad. When issuing a sexual risk order, the
court needs to be satisfied that the order is necessary to
protect the public, or children and vulnerable adults, from
sexual harm, and the Government believe it is right that anyone
subject to a sexual risk order should be barred from standing for
election or holding office as a member of a local authority.
My hon. Friend asked why we changed our mind—why this Bill covers
more than the sex offenders register. I should clarify that the
2017 consultation responses regarding the matter of sexual risk
orders were mixed: some 39% of respondents were in favour of
prohibition, and 45% were against. However, my hon. Friend is not
correct to say that the Government have changed their mind
regarding the inclusion of sexual risk orders in this Bill. In
our response to the consultation, we stated that having
considered the responses we received, the Government believe that
where an individual is subject to a sexual risk order, they
should be prohibited from standing for election. This Bill
delivers on that commitment.
My hon. Friend also asked about enforcement—how local authorities
will know that a councillor is on the register or has received an
order for a sexual offence. A candidate must declare anything
that might disqualify them from standing for, or holding, local
office. Not doing so is a criminal offence, and this Bill will
update those disqualification criteria and therefore ensure they
are captured by this requirement.
Does that provision apply to people who stand as police and crime
commissioners but already have a conviction that should have
disqualified them? Does it mean that the gentleman who was
elected in Wiltshire as a police and crime commissioner is now
the subject of criminal proceedings?
This is not retrospective, so it will apply from now onwards. I
hope that is helpful.
I hope I have been able to convince my hon. Friend not to press
his amendments. They are not trivial, but this Bill is not the
right place for them.
This has been a useful debate. When we hear from the Minister
that the Bill will apply to 100,000 councillors, one can see that
this is an issue of significance. As always, she delivered a
charming and, dare I say, almost seductive response. She referred
to the importance of having people in local government who are of
good character and beyond reproach. All three of my new clauses
are designed to build on that.
As has happened over many years, the Government have managed to
find a technical defect in my new clauses that does not alter
their substance but makes the Government able to say that they do
not agree with them. My new clauses, if they were accepted, would
be subject to the transitional provisions set out in clause 5.
For drafting purposes, I did not go into a lot of detail, but the
essence is that there should be transitional arrangements so that
the new clauses would not disqualify people who were convicted
before the Bill became law.
The intention of these new clauses is that they should fit into a
Bill that already ensures there is no retrospective provision.
That technically affects all the new clauses, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Mole Valley ( ) said, but the substance is
whether the Government believe that somebody who has committed an
offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act should or should not be
disqualified from serving as a councillor, bearing in mind the
importance given to the “From harm to hope” White Paper and
bearing in mind recreational drug use.
We are even told that recreational drug use may be taking place
within the Palace of Westminster. What a bad example that would
be, as it would be if recreational drugs were being used in our
town halls up and down the country, when the Government and, I
think, the people are committed to trying to eliminate the
scourge of illegal drug use and all the harm that comes from it.
If we are serious about cutting crime and saving lives through
the “From harm to hope” White Paper, do the Government intend to
include consequences in legislation for those who are
convicted?
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I am not a Home
Office Minister, so I cannot speak to that Department’s policy.
He might find it interesting that the Government have an
outstanding response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life
on the very things he is talking about in relation to local
government and local councillors, and that might be a better
place for us to address these points. We are thinking about these
issues, but perhaps not in the fora he expects.
That was a helpful and constructive contribution. I look forward
to seeing the Government’s response in due course, but I am
delighted to hear that they are working on the issue.
I do not know whether I should disclose this, but I recall
sitting in the Members’ Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for
Mole Valley and discussing whether or not I would go on to the
Committee, because he was desperate for someone to do so. I said
that I would be happy to go on to the Committee, but in the end I
was not selected to do so. That is an issue between us, but as it
seems to be the subject of a point, I thought I should correct
the record.
12.30pm
Let me return to your initial remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I
think it important for people outside this place, when we are
bringing forward legislation, to know that it has been looked at
by right hon. and hon. Members. This Bill’s Second Reading went
through on the nod with no debate, and I think the Committee
spent about five minutes discussing it. If it had not been for
the tabling of the amendments and new clauses, it would not have
been discussed at all. I think we know from the Minister’s
response that some useful material has come out as a result of
this discussion and scrutiny. I hope that when the Report stages
of more private Members’ Bills come along on Fridays, some of my
hon. Friends will feel free to table new clauses and amendments
so that they can participate. Of course, if they are lucky enough
to secure the lead new clause or amendment, they will be able to
initiate the debate and also finish it, which is a great
privilege.
Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new
clause.
New clause, by leave, withdrawn.
ThirdReading
12.31pm
I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.
I will be very succinct, because having looked at the rest of the
day’s agenda, I am aware that there is a taxi behind me tooting
its horn.
This Bill is a tiny, specific response to heavy demand from a
number of Members and a number of councillors. It is intended to
deal with circumstances in which an individual has been able to
stand or remain as a councillor despite being on the sex
offenders list, because they have not been put in jail. Today we
will pass the Bill on to another place, where, my hon. Friend the
Member for Christchurch ( ) will be intrigued to
know, the third former leader of Wandsworth Council to serve in
this building will pick it up and take it forward.
I think the Bill is important. It is short, but it meets a need
in ensuring that what applies to councillors who are on the sex
offenders list and go to jail also applies to those who, as a
result of some quirk, do not go to jail but remain outside, and
are therefore able to remain as elected members.
12.33pm
(Loughborough) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests. I am still a councillor in Charnwood Borough Council,
and I am also the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group
for district councils.
Essentially, I am going to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
for Mole Valley ( ), and essentially I am going
to say that I agree with him. I will take a little more time than
that to do so, but not much more.
Sexual offences are some of the most heinous crimes that a person
can commit, particularly when they involve children. It
absolutely cannot be right that an elected representative who has
been convicted of such an offence can remain in office and—as my
hon. Friend said—have influence over policy for vulnerable people
and contact with them. Those convicted of such offences are
harmful to the people they represent, are not acting in
accordance with the Nolan principles, and have no place in a
position of influence. That is the crux of the matter.
The issues at stake are safeguarding, trust, and —this was
mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch ( )—a leading role in
society. Those three elements together back up this Bill, and
although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley ( ) said, it is small and
technical, it is also important, and I support it today.
12.34pm
When my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley () spoke about the Bill in
Committee, she said she was going to be briefer than she had
“ever been in Parliament”. I do not doubt that was the case, and
I hope I will not take much longer because Labour fully endorses
the Bill. I pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Mole Valley
( ) for promoting this
important Bill. As has already been said, it is very specific and
very small, but it will have a huge impact.
As it currently stands, sex offenders who avoid a custodial
sentence are not disqualified from running for local government
positions in England and Wales. We know that people often seek
out elected representatives when they are at their most
vulnerable and in deepest crisis, and for thousands of people,
councillors are a vital backstop day in, day out. It is only
right that the people elected to carry out those important roles
are fit and proper to do so. It is unacceptable that a small
loophole in existing legislation means that people who should be
looking out for the vulnerable, especially children, are in a
position where we might doubt that that is the case. It is
important that the change to disqualification criteria is made in
relation to all representations, with this special focus on those
who ac as corporate parents. That is why Labour supports the
Bill.
12.36pm
(Orpington) (Con)
I join colleagues in what I think is unanimous support for the
Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole
Valley ( ) on his admirable work in
progressing it to this stage. I spent 23 years in local
government, initially as a councillor, and latterly as a member
of the London Assembly, and I feel that the action being taken to
address this anomaly is long overdue. I pay a sincere tribute to
the aims of the Bill, and I do not believe that a great deal can
be said against the proposals.
The Bill will apply to individuals subject to notification
requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, known as the sex
offenders register, as well as the sexual risk order that my hon.
Friend the Member for Mole Valley mentioned. It will apply to
local authorities and the Greater London Authority. Councillors
are champions of their local communities, and they have so much
contact with a variety of groups, not least the vulnerable and
children. It is therefore completely right that this change is
made, even if for no other reasons that those of safeguarding.
The Bill is necessary because, as my hon. Friend set out in
Committee, there is a loophole whereby a councillor who is
convicted of a sexual offence but avoids a custodial sentence is
not automatically disqualified, despite being placed on the sex
offenders register. That is clearly not right.
Let me mention a few potential criticisms of the Bill, although
they are few and far between. The Local Government Association
has indicated that it is supportive of the Bill, but pointed out
that it applies only to councillors, Assembly members and mayors.
Police and crime commissioners, and indeed parliamentarians, are
not affected by the Bill, and that is a serious omission. After
all, if a sexual offence would bar someone from sitting on a
local council, it would seem odd to allow the same person to sit
as a police and crime commissioner. Perhaps my hon. Friend will
address that point when he sums up the debate. However, as we
heard from the Minister, the proposals in the current Bill have
been consulted on for several years, and the Bill should not now
be sunk into a quagmire about what it does not do. We should not
make the perfect the enemy of the good, and there is a great deal
in the Bill that is good.
As the Minister set out in Committee, there are more than 100,000
local councillors in England, virtually all of whom give up their
time and are prepared to put their heads above the parapet in the
name of public service. Unfortunately, the Bill is still needed,
not only to draw parity between the sentencing guidelines, but to
have proper rules in place for those rare instances when
something does go wrong.
The most appalling example I have seen, and a case that I suspect
contributed significantly to much of the motivation behind
introducing this Bill, is that of a parish councillor, who I
shall not name, in Saddleworth. He was convicted of 16 counts of
downloading indecent photographs of children. He avoided a prison
sentence, but was given a community order for 24 months and sent
on a programme for sex offenders. Despite that, he continued to
sit as a parish councillor on Saddleworth Council, which was
officially unable to intervene. It did not have the necessary
powers to remove him, because he had not been given the requisite
prison sentence of three or more months. As I understand the
situation, several other councillors took it upon themselves to
see whether it would be possible to call a referendum, but, to
make that passable, every member of Saddleworth council would
have to be re-elected. That would have been an excessive
administrative exercise when there should have been the much more
straightforward remedy that the Bill will provide.
I know that we are pushed for time and want to get on to other
business, but finally, as local government is a devolved matter,
I want to talk about how the Bill should be implemented across
the UK. I am unashamedly a passionate Unionist and, although the
Bill extends only to England, I noted with interest the
Minister’s comments in Committee about commitment to support
implementation in Northern Ireland. She stated:
“The Government will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to
seek to extend these measures to Northern Ireland in a
comprehensive package, addressing candidates and sitting
councillors.”––[Official Report, Local Government
(Disqualification) Public Bill Committee, 1 December 2021; c.
5-6.]
I warmly welcome that. More widely, the Bill matches rules across
the country as the Parliament in Wales recently legislated on the
matter. It would be most welcome if similar measures could be
enacted in Scotland so that we would have a shared commonality of
rules for public representatives across the whole of the United
Kingdom. I think that people across the whole United Kingdom
would welcome that. For those reasons, I will support the Bill. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley on
bringing it to the House.
12.41pm
(Hastings and Rye)
(Con)
My speech will be very short. I congratulate my hon. Friend the
Member for Mole Valley ( ) for bringing the Bill to
the House, which, following both policy debate here today and
Government consultation several years ago, is close to addressing
an important issue regarding our local democracy.
I strongly support clause 1, which will insert a new and
important section 81A into the Local Government Act 1972. I have
so much that I would like to say, but will not. However, people
who commit sexual offences should rightly be disqualified from
holding positions in local government, be that the Mayor of
London, a charter trustee or a parish councillor such as in the
numerous villages in my constituency. With the passing of the
Bill, I am confident that another small barrier will be put in
the way of those who may consider committing a sexual offence to
be acceptable. More generally, as is set out in the code of
conduct for councillors, the Bill speaks to the broader need for
those elected or co-opted to local government positions to be
held to the highest standards of conduct, consistent with the
Nolan principles, including objectivity, openness and
leadership.
As a councillor in Rother before I was elected to this House by
my constituents in Hastings and Rye, I firmly believe that, in
more ways than one, local government office holders are a
stalwart and integral part of the country’s fine democratic
tradition, which has developed over the past several centuries.
When considering those who commit sexual offences, the current
rules clearly do not go far enough in ensuring that that is
always the case, because disqualification essentially has an
expiration period of five years, and I know from constituents who
write to me that the victims of sexual offences often suffer from
these crimes for much, much longer. It can therefore only be
right that the rules surrounding disqualification are
strengthened in law. The Bill will at last do just that two
months after the House passes it, and I offer my full support for
it.
12.43pm
(Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Like colleagues, I will not speak for long—no doubt, they will be
surprised and delighted to hear that. I congratulate my hon.
Friend the Member for Mole Valley ( ) on his choice of private
Member’s Bill, the fashion in which he introduced it and the way
in which he moved the motion. As a former county councillor, I
very much welcome the loophole closure. I reflect that I am a
former county councillor from Wales, and I therefore very much
welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with the Northern
Ireland Executive in further rolling out this measure, presumably
through a legislative consent motion or engagement with the
Executive. I also welcome the work that the Welsh Government have
done to date in closing such loopholes. However, it strikes me
that there is an anomaly with the Scottish Government’s
disqualification orders.
In my contribution, which will end shortly, I want to reflect on
whether the Minister could pull together devolved administration
counterparts. Without slowing down the Bill—my hon. Friend the
Member for Mole Valley will be delighted to hear that I am not
suggesting a new clause—I wonder whether she could bring the DAs
together to look at disqualifications more broadly, whether for a
Member of Parliament, county councillor, police and crime
commissioner or Member of the Welsh Parliament, and bring a
universal element to them. That would be outside the scope of the
Bill, so I hope I am in order saying that in the Chamber.
My Montgomeryshire constituency is a cross-border part of the
world, and many walks of life, whether they are public sector,
private sector or delivering at a county council level, do not
see the border, so I would appreciate a comment from the Minister
on whether we could bring some universal element to the
disqualifications as the United Kingdom. I thank and congratulate
my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and wish the Bill
speed.
12.45pm
(Hertford and Stortford)
(Con)
I rise to support the Bill in its aims and in its practice. I
speak as a former councillor and a former magistrate. Those who
put themselves forward for elected office often do a brave thing.
It is not something that anyone is trained to do or that anyone
can practise to do, so I pay tribute to those in our communities
who do it, because they form the backbone of our elected
system.
The pandemic has shone a light on the importance of local
frontline and community responses in keeping us safe. Most often,
the response has been organised through brilliant local
government networks, including in my constituency by
Hertfordshire County Council, East Herts District Council and all
our town and parish councils. We should be grateful to them,
because we are so reliant on them.
That reliance on local government in our lives gives it the power
to infiltrate our lives for good or bad. That is particularly
true of the most vulnerable groups in our communities, including
children and young people, who rely on service provision locally
as much, if not more, than many others. We place an enormous
amount of trust in the system and in those people as a result. As
a system and a wider culture, we must ensure that we are worthy
of that trust and live up to it, because the consequences of an
abuse of power within local government can be catastrophic.
As a magistrate, I reflect on the purposes of sentencing.
Punishment, deterrence and a public observation that certain
behaviours are not acceptable in our society are part of that,
but protection of the public is too, and that is where the Bill
comes into its own. It will protect the most vulnerable in our
society and I commend it for that. I will leave it there, but it
has been a pleasure to contribute to the debate.
12.48pm
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities ()
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley ( ) on his outstanding work in
progressing the Bill. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s
support for the legislation.
The Government are backing this private Member’s Bill because it
addresses a critical issue pertaining to people’s faith in their
elected representatives and in local democracy. It is an issue
that affects communities the length and breadth of the country.
It will serve to prevent registered sex offenders from standing
or serving as councillors, mayors or London Assembly members.
I am grateful to the Opposition Front-Bench team for supporting
this important Bill. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for
Loughborough (), for Hastings and Rye () and for Hertford and
Stortford (), all councillors or former
councillors, for their thoughtful contributions. I also thank my
hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (), who was on the London
Assembly with me when I was deputy leader and he was leader. I am
pleased that he and I continue to work together in this
place.
To answer some of the questions, I am grateful for the point made
by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire () about working with the
devolved Administrations. He will know that the Secretary of
State is the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. I am sure
that if my hon. Friend wrote to the Secretary of State formally
with a request, it is something that the Department could look
at.
More broadly on how the devolved nations are taking corresponding
provisions forward—this was also raised by my hon. Friend the
Member for Orpington—Wales has already implemented similar
provisions via the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act
2021, and Government officials have been in contact with Scottish
counterparts. It is entirely within the remit of the Scottish
Parliament to make corresponding provisions, but my officials
stand ready to assist in any way possible. For those who want to
know, the Northern Ireland Executive could make corresponding
provision regarding sitting councillors, but the UK Government
retain responsibility for elections in Northern Ireland. We will
work with the Northern Ireland Executive to seek to extend these
measures to Northern Ireland in a comprehensive package
addressing both candidates and sitting councillors.
There was a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington
about MPs and police and crime commissioners. The answer is that
standards and conduct for MPs and police and crime commissioners
are governed under separate regimes with their own mechanisms to
disqualify or sanction against unacceptable behaviour. As I said
to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch ( ) on Report, this Bill is
very specific and focused, and that is why we have not included
other measures; we would not necessarily even have been able to
do so.
Local councillors are part of the democratic fabric of this
country. Throughout the pandemic, we all bore witness to the
critical role of local authorities in supporting our communities
and the most vulnerable in society. It is hard to imagine a time
when local government has mattered more, or indeed when people’s
faith and trust in it has mattered as much as it does today.
People must be given confidence that the individuals they elect
to represent them are of good character, deserving of trust and
beyond reproach. Mayors and councillors are responsible for the
delivery of vital services, including for children and vulnerable
adults, and they are empowered to make decisions on a whole range
of issues that people care deeply about. Good character in the
people making these decisions should be the minimum
expectation.
It goes without saying that the vast majority of councillors and
mayors are driven by a deep sense of public duty, as we have seen
from those of them who have come to this place, and they deserve
respect and praise for the excellent job that they do. Perhaps
inevitably when there are 120,000 councillors serving all tiers
of local government in England, however, there are rare occasions
when the behaviour of individuals falls below the standards that
the public rightly expect.
Currently, anyone who is convicted and given a custodial sentence
of three months or more, suspended or not, is disqualified from
local government for five years. These rules date to the Local
Government Act 1972. While the existing law may have been
effective in addressing serious cases of criminal behaviour, it
does not take account of the non-custodial sentences that courts
now issue for sexual offences. Those concern individuals who are
on the sex offenders register and are subject to the notification
requirements to manage sex offender behaviour, because they pose
a risk to children and all vulnerable adults.
This Bill is important because it will bring the current
disqualification criteria for local authorities in line with
modern sentencing practices. Clearly, no community should have to
tolerate a convicted sex offender standing or continuing to serve
as their local representative. This update to the law governing
who can stand as a fit and proper person to represent their
community is long overdue and will serve to protect the most
vulnerable members of our society, while upholding the high
standards expected of locally elected officials.
Finally, may I take this opportunity to say that it has been a
great pleasure to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Mole
Valley in taking this much-needed step towards updating the local
government disqualification criteria. I look forward to the
Bill’s successful passage through the Lords.
12.53pm
I will be very succinct. I have mentioned the taxi cab, and I can
hear it behind me—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to ask the leave of the
House.
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. After all this time, I should
have remembered that. I ask the leave of the House to say a few
words.
I thank the Minister for her support, and I am grateful for the
support from right across the House. Even my hon. Friend the
Member for Christchurch ( ) is behind the Bill,
although he was going to add all sorts of thorns to it—much, I
think, to the dismay of local government. My hon. Friend the
Member for Orpington () and the Minister mentioned
MPs. If my hon. Friend had spent some time on the Standards
Committee, he would have heard of the ghastly accusation of
bringing the House into disrepute. That would apply to any MP in
this situation, and the door would be shown to them.
I thank everybody again, and I hope that the Bill will progress
swiftly through the other place, led by another ex-leader of
Wandsworth Council.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
|
