Agenda item

Considered

 

A report of the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer to review the approach taken to sensitive interests under the Localism Act 2011.

 

The Assistant Director Legal and Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that under the Localism Act 2011, if a Member has an interest, the nature of which is such that the Member and the Monitoring Officer consider that disclosure of the details of the interest could lead to the Member, or a person connected with them, being subject to violence or intimidation, then the Monitoring Officer can agree that the interest is a sensitive interest.

 

If an interest is agreed to be sensitive, this means that the Member must still

disclose the existence of an interest to a meeting and in the public Register of

Members’ Interests, but the sensitive details themselves do not need to be disclosed in the public Register. These sensitive details would need to be provided to the Monitoring Officer confidentially.

 

It was reported that the Monitoring Officer currently considers applications for sensitive interests from NYC councillors and town and parish councillors on a case by case basis. Common requests relate to employment or business interests, and home addresses or property interests.

 

Some authorities take a different approach to Members’ addresses by treating them as sensitive interests by default, only publishing them where a Member specifically opts in.

 

The Assistant Director Legal and Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that the Monitoring Officer would have reservations about the Council adopting a blanket resolution that Members’ addresses are to be treated as sensitive interests unless they say otherwise on the basis that:

 

a)    not all 90 NYC councillors and almost 3000 parish councillors are necessarily likely to be subject to violence or intimidation (the legal grounds for a sensitive interest); and

 

b)    it is a statutory function of the Monitoring Officer to agree an interest as sensitive, not the authority.

 

Members were requested to provide their views on the approach to sensitive interests and raised the following points:

 

·       One Member raised concerns about publishing councillors’ home addresses due to their personal experience of threatening behaviour towards councillors and parish clerks. They felt addresses should not be publicly available to safeguard Members, particularly new councillors elected in 2027.

·       In response, the Assistant Director Legal and Deputy Monitoring Officer explained that there are currently two mechanisms for withholding a councillor’s address: on election nomination forms (where non‑publication can be requested) and within the Register of Members’ Interests (where a sensitive interests request can be made). It was highlighted that NYC applies a low threshold when considering sensitive interest applications.

·       A request was made for information on how many of the 90 NYC councillors had chosen to withhold their addresses, and officers agreed to check this.

·       Another Member supported the publication of councillors’ addresses to promote transparency and maintain accessibility for electors. They noted that sensitive interest provisions already offer protection where needed.

·       The Assistant Director Legal and Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that, if the current ‘opt‑out’ arrangements remain, newly elected Members in May 2027 could be encouraged to consider whether they wish to request sensitive interests for their addresses.

·       The Chair suggested referring the matter to the Member Liaison Group on Councillor Safety, which other Committee Members supported.

·       One Member, who did not support treating councillor addresses as sensitive interests, emphasised the importance of transparency and resilience in public office. They argued that threatening behaviour should be dealt with as a criminal matter and noted that some residents may need to make contact with their Division Member in person rather than electronically.

·       Independent Person Louise Holroyd expressed sympathy for Members who had experienced threats from members of the public. She supported withholding addresses where councillors felt at risk and suggested improving the reporting mechanisms for threats, potentially through the Member Liaison Group on Councillor Safety. She also queried whether Member allowances could support enhanced safety measures, such as doorbell cameras.

·       Another Member supported measures to protect councillors but felt that individuals intent on abuse would behave the same regardless of address publication. They preferred their own address to remain public so that residents could approach them directly with concerns.

·       The risks associated with canvassing were highlighted, though some Members viewed canvassing as an inherent responsibility of representing electors.

·       One Member noted the potential risks to family members if residents visit a councillor’s home while they are absent. They suggested that alternative engagement methods, such as in‑person surgeries, could provide safer opportunities for residents to meet councillors.

·       Another Member emphasised the distinction between voluntarily engaging with the public through canvassing or surgeries and unsolicited contact at home.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Nigel Knapton and seconded by Councillor Peter Wilkinson, and unanimously agreed, that the Member Liaison Group on Councillor Safety be asked to provide its views on the approach taken to sensitive interests under the Localism Act 2011.

 

Resolved (unanimously)

 

That Members consider the approach to sensitive interests and whether any changes in approach would be appropriate.

 

The Standards and Governance Committee requested that the Member Liaison Group on Councillor Safety be asked to provide its views on the approach taken to sensitive interests under the Localism Act 2011.