CAMPAIGN: ALL Councillors Must Have Criminal Records Checks

UPDATE (10/8/20): Mendip District Council has confirmed in writing to us that ZERO of their 48 councillors has had any DBS checks. Why?

They said that councillors did not think it was needed:

"due to the very limited exposure that elected members had to vulnerable people or groups through their role as a District Councillor"

 

Denise Wyatt, our Spokesperson for Safeguarding says:

"What a joke these councillors are, if they think they would not have 'exposure' to people. It's their job! 

If these so-called councillors were any good at representing people, which councillors are elected for and paid an allowance to do, then they would come into contact with hundreds if not thousands of people, including so-called 'vulnerable' people. 

To give two examples - if councillors helped residents with a housing enquiry or if a resident needed assisted collection for their bins.

 

In 2018 they refused to do it - their excuse is pathetic. It's their chance to save their reputations. Other councils have already done it, so Mendip must do it too.

They need to agree to all 48 Mendip councillors having the Basic DBS Check and for Cabinet Members and the Leader to have the Enhanced DBS Check.

 

And they need to do it now!"

---

 

As SomersetLive has reported, former Leader of South Somerset District Council, and former Councillor Ric Pallister, is standing trial accused of 23 counts of indecent assault. Pallister is due to be appear at Taunton Crown Court this Monday 10th August 2020.

 

It is for the court to decide on Pallister's case. Whatever happens with Pallister, Somerset Independents believes that ALL elected councillors - county councillors, district/borough councillors and parish/town councillors - should be subjected to regular checks by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).

These used to be commonly known as Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks.

Why do we think this?

There are many reasons:

1. for the protection of children
   
2. for the protection of vulnerable adults
3. so that the public can have trust in their elected representatives
4. for the protection of the councillors from specious allegations, particularly those that may emanate from party political rivalries.

The Ric Pallister trial is an example. As we have said, it is for the court to decide on Mr Pallister's case. He was a councillor. He was a member of the Cabinet, making decisions over large amounts of money and affecting thousands of people's lives. More than being a member of the Cabinet, he was THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL!

As the report says:

"Mr Pallister was the Liberal Democrat leader of the South Somerset District Council between 2011 and 2018 – before he stood down ahead of last year’s local elections."

Whatever the outcome of the trial, Somerset Independents believes that these checks should be required by law, because they are currently not required by law.

 

Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members of Parliament voted the Localism Act 2011 through. It removed a whole raft of punishments and regulation of elected councillors and made the regulation of councillors local, rather than having set laws.

 

And like this "Wild West" for Councils, it is left to local councils to decide. Worse than that, it is left to local councillors to decide whether they wish to order checks on themselves.

To give a few examples:

• councillors at Mendip District Council decided in 2018 - against officer's recommendations - to NOT implement DBS checks
  
• councillors at Somerset County Council decided in 2017 to implement DBS checks for ALL councillors
• councillors at Devon County Council decided to implement DBS checks for ALL councillors
• councillors at Bursledon Parish Council in Hampshire decided to NOT implement DBS checks
  

The case of Bursledon is very important to note. Former parish councillor and Chair of the Parish, Mark McCormick, "pleaded guilty to 14 indecent assaults between 1997 and 2011", as reported by the Southern Daily Echo. McCormick had actively avoided the checks, according to the BBC:

 

"In 2016, while council chairman, McCormick had opposed the implementation of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, which allow employers to check criminal records to see if candidates are suitable for work involving children or vulnerable adults.

Despite being warned the checks were required by Lowford Community Centre's insurers, the council refused to comply and was evicted."

As local Eastleigh News reported in 2018:

 

"people in Bursledon will be asking how it was possible for someone who had been subject to a police investigation into allegations of serious sexual assaults against children could rise to a position of trust within the community that gave him access to the both the local Children’s Library and school that was attended by several of his young victims."

 

When the local Eastleigh Conservative MP Mims Davies accused other Bursledon parish councillors, including the Leader of Eastleigh Borough Council Keith House, of making a "grave error of judgement" in not supporting the DBS checks for Bursledon Council, she was branded as "rude" and interrupted by the Chair (the Mayor)*. House even appeared to suggest that parish and borough councils should not have DBS checks, as "their roles do not include unsupervised contact with children as part of their duties".

 

Somerset Independents points out that councillors, if they are doing their jobs properly of representing thousands of people, will be dealing with children, vulnerable adults and every other kind of people. SO THEY MUST BE DBS CHECKED!

We applaud Somerset County Council and Devon County Council's decisions, but we abhor Mendip District Council's decision. But then this is Mendip District Council, who also do a lot of "odd" other things that other councils do not do. MDC do not do lots of things that are normal in other councils.

These inconsistencies are why it has to be made law. Devon County Council resolved to persuade the Government that it should be the law. We agree.

Spokesperson for Safeguarding, Denise Wyatt, says that:

"As a minimum, Somerset Independents believes that all councillors should be DBS-checked - the Basic Check** - when first elected and every time they are re-elected, which is usually four years. They should also be checked whenever they change role - for example, if they become a Cabinet member - then the Council should put them through the Enhanced Check. There may be also be a case for these checks being re-done annually, which we are prepared to discuss."

"Somerset Independents thinks DBS checks for councillors should be the law, but until it is, all councils should make it mandatory and a breach of their Council's Code of Conduct if a councillor does not have the required DBS checks done."

 

What do you think?

Contact us and tell us.

Protecting Somerset Residents

 

* Davies is no longer the Eastleigh MP, having been replaced by a careerist politician (yes, another one!) Paul Holmes. The siren calls of a safer seat beckoned for Davies in Mid-Sussex. Initially, Davies claimed that she was stepping down from Eastleigh to spend more time with her children.

 ** From the DBS:

 

"A basic check will contain details of convictions and conditional cautions considered to be ‘unspent’ under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 aims to give those with convictions or cautions the chance - in certain circumstances - to wipe the slate clean and start afresh.

Under the Act, eligible convictions or cautions become ‘spent’ after a specified period of time known as the ‘rehabilitation period’, the length of which varies depending on how the individual was dealt with.

A table of rehabilitation periods for the most common sentences and disposals can be found here, along with some example scenarios."