Agenda item

Disclosing and Barring Service Checks for Councillors

To approve which Councillors will be checked by the Disclosure and Barring Service

Decision:

That the Council should undertake DBS checks on Councillors as follows:

(a) Enhanced checks (without barred lists) of Members acting as

(a) Cabinet Members

(b) Members of the adoption and fostering panels

(b) Standards checks for

(a) Members of the Education and Youth Overview and Scrutiny Committee; and

(b) Members of the Social and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(c) That lobbying through professional networks and the WGLA for changes to the legislation to enable an enhanced level of checks in respect of all Councillors given the vulnerable nature of the people they serve

Minutes:

In presenting the report the Chief Officer (Governance) outlined the context and low level of risk of the issues being discussed. A great deal of vetting was caried out informally prior to candidates being elected, which included the formal step of the signing the Declaration prior to being able to stand for election. This would dissuade some people from standing. It was important to protect the vulnerable, the reputation of the Council and the role of Councillor.

The Chief Officer outlined the level of disclosure that Councillors would expect and the legal complexities which were included in the report. It was a balance between the right to know, the privacy of an individual and rehabilitation which was enshrined within legislation and limited the Council’s ability to obtain disclosure. Information on the three levels of checks was located at point 1.01 in the report with the enhanced level required for Cabinet, Adoption and Foster Panels because of the sensitive information which would be shared. The Chief Officer (Governance) then referred to point 1.07 of the report saying that standard checks should be obtained for those Councillors sitting the Education Youth & Culture and Social & Health Care Overview & Scrutiny Committees as they discharged functions of the Council. For the other Councillors who did not hold any of these roles then the basic checks would be sufficient.

It was explained that the results of the checks would be sent to the Chief Officer (Governance) as Monitoring Officer and he would ensure that they remained confidential. If however it was identified that a member had a conviction which would make them unsuitable for their role, then discussions would be held with the Cabinet Member or Group Leader. The Chief Officer had no mandate to decide who sat on Cabinet or the Scrutiny Committees, this would depend on the co-operation of the Leader and Group Leaders. If it was identified that a Councillor, who had been convicted and sentenced to more than three months in prison, should not have been eligible to stand in the first place, then notification of this would be given to the Chief Executive, as the Returning Officer, and to their Group Leader. This would mean that they were disqualified by reason of having a conviction, that their role became vacant and a by-election would need to be held. A report would be sent to the Ombudsman’s office and a process would be followed with independent and impartial consideration of that person’s privacy. This information would remain confidential, with access restricted following the guidance which had been set by legislation.

Councillor Bernie Attridge fully supported this very important report. He asked if the Chief Officer had taken advice from other Monitoring Officers to ascertain what other authorities were doing with regard to the enhanced DBS checks and if the WLGA could take this to the next level. He also suggested lobbying Welsh Government (WG) to enable changes in the guidance so that DBS checks were carried out for every local member every 4 years.

The Chief Officer (Governance) agreed with the point on the formality of checks saying that these were not carried out for every Councillor before they stood but that there were other levels of protection in place. Referring to the lobbying point he said the basis for conducting the enhanced checks for most people was that they had “regular and unsupervised contact with vulnerable people.” The Council’s social worker and care worker roles required regular enhanced and barred checks to made because of their regular unsupervised access to vulnerable people. He asked committee Members how often they had unsupervised contact on their own with vulnerable people. It was more likely to be with an adult than a child who would have a parent or guardian present. Having that unsupervised access to a vulnerable person would provide essential evidence for lobbying purposes and would enable this to be escalated through the Monitoring Officers Group and collectively with other authorities through to the WLGA, WG and Westminster to change the law.

Referring the point on how we compared to other authorities, the Chief Officer confirmed that he had viewed the Wrexham County Borough Council policy and said that what was being considered was more onerous than theirs as Wrexham did not consider that Scrutiny Members discharged council functions. Flintshire Members had requested the highest level of checks possible for their roles. The Disclosing and Barring Service could refuse to provide the level of checks requested within our policy but it was right that we ask rather than limit the scope of requests. He was prepared to bring this back to Committee as a policy document for approval.

Councillor Steve Copple referred to the recommendations and asked if there was a policy which included the processes for dealing with these checks and felt the 4-year period for re-checks was too long considering the time Councillors were elected. The Chief Officer (Governance) responded saying that the Council had a mix of policies and decisions but agreed to formalise them into a document which could be reviewed in the future. Referring to frequency of checks he said it was for the committee to decide and that it could be changed to 3 years in line with social services checks.

Councillor Bernie Attridge moved the recommendations within the report which was seconded by Councillor Mared Eastwood

Councillor Alasdair Ibbotson proposed an amendment to the recommendations which was to remove basic checks for all Councillors and outlined his reasons for this. He felt that basic checks should be carried out for Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Committee members but not for the remaining Councillors who did not sit on these committees. This proposition was not supported so did not stand.

The Chief Officer (Governance) agreed with the comments made by Councillor Ibbotson that there was no sanction that the Council could impose so what was the point of doing the checks. The checks would provide evidence on whether to appoint someone to Cabinet or to an Overview & Scrutiny committee in the future.

Councillor Ian Hodge commented that since becoming a Councillor many of the residents he had visited could be deemed as vulnerable and he felt that having that DBS Check as part of his role would provide reassurance to them. He felt the checks should be mandatory for all Councillors as it would not only provide that level of certification for himself but also the person he was visiting.

Councillor Antony Wren asked if the DBS Checks for Scrutiny Committees should apply to other Members who were eligible to substitute on those committees. The Chief Officer (Governance) agreed saying that a discussion with the Disclosure & Barings Service should include that any Councillor could be nominated to these Scrutiny Committees at short notice as a substitute. They might not agree and say the checks should be for the nominated or standing members and not the substitutes. It would be worth a try though. The Chair asked if this could be investigated.

Councillor Bernie Attridge understood where Councillor Ibbotson was coming from but felt an extra resolution should be included so that no-one had the opportunity to refuse these checks. He felt most Councillors had daily contact with vulnerable people and that he would pay for the checks for himself and that as a Group Leader he would question if any members of his group refused to have the basic checks. Until this was mandatory, he felt that what was being proposed was the next best thing. He moved the recommendations with the additional recommendation.

The Chief Officer (Governance) suggested the following wording for the third recommendation :-

“ That lobbying through professional networks and the WGLA for changes to the legislation to enable an enhanced level of checks in respect of all Councillors given the vulnerable nature of the people they serve.”

Councillor Roz Manzell commented that she had applied for the check two weeks before becoming a Councillor. It cost £25 and was invaluable and worth the money as it provided that security to herself and the people with whom she had contact.

The recommendations with the inclusion of the additional recommendations were moved by Councillor Bernie Attridge and seconded by Councillor Ian Hodge

RESOLVED: