Background Screening in Local Councils

Background screening is essential as local councils hold the critical responsibility of fostering safe and thriving communities, a role that demands the utmost diligence in their hiring and vetting processes.

In light of the recent incident involving an ex-councillor’s shocking crimes, the need for thorough background screening has never been clearer. Effective screening practices are vital to safeguarding public trust, mitigating risks, and ensuring that those in positions of authority uphold the highest standards of integrity.

In this blog, we delve into why robust background screening is essential for local councils and how it helps create safer, more accountable governance.

Addressing the Gaps in Current Background Screening Practices to Prevent Scandal and Misconduct

Recent scandals, such as the conviction of former mayor and Litherland councillor Paul Tweed for possessing extreme pornographic images of children and bestiality, have highlighted the urgent need for thorough background screening for elected officials.

Sefton Council in Merseyside has now mandated that all councillors undergo basic Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, with enhanced checks for those involved in children’s and adult social care services. But are basic DBS checks really the answer?

This article explores the limitations of basic DBS checks and argues for the implementation of comprehensive background screening to maintain public trust and ensure the integrity of local governance.

The Current State of Background Screening for Councillors

A 2022 review by former Chief Constable Simon Bailey for the National Safeguarding Practice Review highlighted stark inconsistencies in the application of DBS checks across local authorities. Currently, there is no statutory requirement for councils to conduct background screening on potential councillors.

Local councils in the UK are not even legally required to enforce Baseline Personnel Security Standard (BPSS) vetting for employees. Instead, any background screening are considered “best practice” rather than mandatory. Each council can decide whether to implement these checks and what level of scrutiny to apply.

However, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has recommended that unitary and upper-tier authorities adopt enhanced DBS checks for councillors involved in education or social services functions. This means that ultimately, each individual local council has the sole discretion to decide whether to implement background screening for their councillors.

The Limitations of Basic DBS Checks in Background Screening

Many people in the UK are simply unaware that new filtering rules introduced in October 2023 have significantly impacted the effectiveness of Basic DBS checks. These rules specify that certain convictions and cautions are automatically removed from DBS checks after a set period. Here are some alarming examples:

• Multiple Convictions: Even if an individual has multiple convictions, as long as they are non-specified offences and did not result in a custodial sentence, they can be filtered out after the relevant time period.
• Youth Cautions: Reprimands, final warnings, and youth cautions are no longer disclosed on any DBS check, regardless of the offence.

These filtering rules mean that certain serious offences might not appear on a Basic DBS check after the specified period, potentially leading to employers being unaware of an individual’s full criminal history. This lack of visibility can be particularly concerning for roles involving vulnerable groups or sensitive information.

The difference between spent convictions and filtered convictions:

• Spent Convictions: These are convictions that, after a certain period, are considered “spent” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. For example:
• Prison Sentences: A sentence of less than 12 months becomes spent 12 months after the sentence ends. Even relatively severe sentences of up to 4 years become spent just 4 years after the sentence ends.
• Community Service: Community service sentences become spent on the date they end.
• Filtered Convictions: These are specific convictions and cautions that are removed from DBS checks after a set period, as per the filtering rules. This means they will not appear on a basic DBS check, even if they are not technically “spent.”

Despite understandable demands from Tweed’s victims’ families for DBS checks on councillors, the limitations of basic DBS checks make their ineffectiveness as standalone background screening very evident.

Basic DBS checks do not provide a comprehensive view of an individual’s history, especially with the new filtering rules in place. This underscores the need for organisations to adopt a wide range of background screening in their screening and vetting programmes to ensure a thorough assessment of a candidate’s suitability for roles that require high levels of trust and integrity.

The Impact of the Prison Crisis on Sentencing

The prison population in England and Wales has doubled over the last 30 years, leading to severe overcrowding. As of Summer 2024, men’s prisons in the UK are operating at above 99% capacity, bringing the prison system close to collapse.

In response to the overcrowding crisis, the government introduced emergency measures in Summer 2024, including reducing the custodial term of some standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40% of the sentence. This reduction aimed to free up capacity in the short term but does not provide a long-term solution.

The Independent Sentencing Review 2024 to 2025, led by former Justice Secretary David Gauke, is examining the sentencing framework to address the overcrowding crisis. The review is considering alternatives to short prison terms, such as community punishments and electronic monitoring, as more effective rehabilitation methods.

These findings suggest that the prison crisis has led to measures that reduce the severity of sentences in the short term, which can only further impact the dependability of criminal record checks in background screening programmes.

Public Expectations and Trust in Councillors

A survey was conducted by the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) in 2021. It found that public trust in councils and councillors is relatively high compared to trust in the government and ministers. Key findings include:

• Trust in Local Councils: 51% of respondents trust their local council to make decisions about how services are delivered in their area, compared to only 15% who trust the government.
• Trust in Councillors: 51% of respondents trust local councillors to make decisions about their local area, compared to only 7% who trust government ministers.
• Satisfaction with Services: Satisfaction levels with council services vary, with high satisfaction for services like school meals and parks.

The survey also highlighted that the public expects councillors to act with integrity and transparency. They want assurance that councillors are not involved in criminal activities, corruption, or discriminatory behaviour.

This aligns with our argument that basic DBS checks on their own are simply insufficient and that a range of background screening is necessary to provide a comprehensive assessment of a candidate’s suitability.

Comprehensive Background Screening: A Better Approach

To address the limitations of Basic DBS checks and meet public expectations, councils should implement a range of comprehensive background screening. These checks provide a more thorough assessment of a candidate’s experience, qualifications, risks, and overall suitability for a role. Here are some recommended checks:

• Social Media Checks: The highly effective checks are now widely mandated or recommended by many industry regulators, search the internet to identify an individual’s social media profiles and highlight any negative activity, such as extreme views, aggressive behaviour, discriminatory language, illegal activities, and inappropriate content. These checks provide comprehensive coverage of major platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, and report adverse findings in any language, covering text, images, and videos.
• Directorship Checks: These checks help employers identify any directorships held (or bans being served) by candidates, assessing potential conflicts of interest and understanding a candidate’s business interests.
• Credit Checks: Financial checks ensure that candidates are financially responsible and trustworthy and not under severe pressures which could lead to seeking or accepting opportunities for additional income streams.
• Instant HMRC Employment Verifications: This method allows for instant verification of a candidate’s official employment history, significantly reducing the time to hire.
• Academic and Professional Credential Verifications: These checks verify the authenticity of a candidate’s stated qualifications and professional credentials.
• Adverse Media Checks: These checks identify any negative news or media coverage related to a candidate, assessing potential reputational risks.
• PEPs and Sanctions List Checks: These checks identify politically exposed persons (PEPs) and individuals on sanctions lists. One could very easily make the case for these background screening being essential for Councillors.

Case Studies Involving Local Council Scandal

The shocking case that prompted this article involves former mayor and Litherland councillor Paul Tweed. He was convicted of possessing 160 indecent images of children, including 80 Category A images, the most serious kind. The children in these Category A images were as young as five years old.

Additionally, Tweed was found with 15 extreme pornographic files depicting bestiality. This case underscores the urgent need for comprehensive background screening for councillors to ensure the safety and integrity of public office holders.

Here are some other recent examples highlighting the need for a re-think when it comes to local authority vetting and screening:

Liverpool City Council and Operation Aloft

A significant scandal, known as Operation Aloft, has involved Liverpool City Council since 2019. This investigation by Merseyside Police focuses on allegations of fraud, bribery, and corruption linked to building contracts in Liverpool.

The probe has led to 13 arrests, including former Mayor Joe Anderson and Director of Regeneration Nick Kavanagh. Police arrested both men on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and misconduct in public office. They deny any wrongdoing and have not faced charges.

The investigation uncovered serious issues within the council. These included poor record-keeping, pressure on planning officers, and improper handling of land and building sales. The government’s intervention led to the appointment of commissioners to oversee the council’s operations and implement necessary reforms.

This ongoing investigation underscores the need for comprehensive background screening to identify potential risks. It helps maintain public trust in local authorities.
 

Essex County Council Scandal

Earlier in 2024, reports revealed that around £1.5 million, mainly distributed during the pandemic, lacked proper procurement. The funds failed to represent value for money.

Kirsty O’Callaghan, the authority’s head of strengthening communities until 2022, allegedly made verbal contracts with individuals she knew personally. She did this without declaring conflicts of interest.

This case also underscores the need for thorough background screening, including checks to help identify potential conflict of interest.
 

Glasgow Councillors and Council Tax Arrears

In October 2024, reports revealed that several Glasgow councillors had accumulated significant council tax arrears. An investigation found that four councillors owed thousands of pounds in unpaid council tax.

This scandal embarrassed the local authority and highlighted the need for financial background screening and regular monitoring. Regular checks ensure councillors meet their financial obligations. The public outcry emphasised the importance of transparency and accountability in local government.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive Background Screening

Implementing comprehensive background screening for councillors is a matter of public trust and a cost-effective strategy for councils.

The cost of a comprehensive background screening suite ranges from £100 to £200 per councillor. This is a small investment for Local Authorities, considering the potential savings in time, resources, and legal costs.

Regular re-checks are equally important. They help identify any new risks or changes in a councillor’s background that could impact their suitability for public office. By conducting background screening periodically, councils can maintain a high standard of accountability and transparency.

Practical Tips for Implementing Effective Background Screening

To implement modern and effective background screening policies, local authorities and councils should consider the following recommendations:

Develop a Comprehensive Background Screening Policy

Outline the types of checks you will conduct. These include identity, social media, directorship, credit, and criminal record checks. Additionally, include instant HMRC employment verifications, academic and professional credentials, adverse media, PEPs, and sanctions list checks. It’s important to conduct relevant international checks for any significant periods spent overseas within the vetting period.

Regular Re-Screening

Establish a schedule and programme for regular re-screening of councillors to ensure ongoing compliance and integrity.

Training

Train HR teams to conduct and interpret background screening effectively. Provide training on the latest screening techniques and tools to ensure thorough checks while respecting candidates’ privacy and rights. They should also be aware of the legal implications and best practices for each type of check.

Use Background Screening Technology to Streamline Processes

Leverage technological advancements to make your screening processes more efficient. Invest in advanced screening tools that offer instant results and comprehensive checks. Automated systems can help reduce the time to hire and improve the accuracy of background screening.

Partner with Reputable Screening Providers and Advisory Services

Work with established and reputable background screening firms who can offer comprehensive and reliable checks and advice. Experts within the background screening industry will help organisations stay informed about best practices and industry standards.

Background screening specialists offer valuable insights and guidance to help ensure accuracy and thoroughness in the screening process.

Conclusion

Effective background screening for councillors and staff is crucial to maintain public trust and ensure local government integrity.

Adopting thorough screening practices helps councils safeguard communities, prevent misconduct, and uphold public service standards.

Implementing these measures ensures elected members’ safety, preserves integrity, and maintains public confidence.