Issue - meetings

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

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5