Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

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 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.””—(Sir Christopher Chope.)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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—

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.

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: