A MOTION to ask Sandwell councillors to undergo a basic DBS check was approved this week.

The motion also called for Kerrie Carmichael, the leader of Sandwell Council, to write to minister for safeguarding, Sarah Dines MP, to consider the role of a local councillor as an “automatic qualification” for enhanced checks as part of a government review into Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

The government’s DBS is part of the Home Office, which aims to help employers and organisations make safer recruitment decisions.

A DBS check will reveal whether an individual has a criminal record.

In November 2022, a consultation into DBS checks by Sandwell Council revealed three councillors would not agree to a voluntary DBS check. Councillors were split almost evenly on whether the council or they themselves should fund it.

The annual cost for enhanced DBS checks would be approximately £1,216, according to the council, while basic checks – based on 72 members – would be £1,296.

The council suggests it could also go up to approximately £1,936 for a combination of both styles of checks.

The motion comes after the council’s ethical standards committee agreed to all councillors providing a basic DBS check following May’s local elections.

Each councillor is responsible for making the application and must comply within three months of being elected and thereafter every 12 months whilst they hold onto their council seat.

The recommendation for members to obtain basic DBS checks came about as most councillors do not meet the criteria for an enhanced DBS check under the current eligibility rules.

Labour councillor Keith Allcock, the chair of the ethical standards committee, said he had been in conversation with Rotherham MP Sarah Champion about DBS checks.

He told the chambers he discovered a legal loophole in enhanced DBS checks, whereby a person with a criminal history could change their name by deed poll and subsequently obtain a clean DBS check.

He said: “Sarah Champion did some Freedom of Information requests and found out of 18 police forces that replied, they admitted that in the last 12 to 18 months they’ve lost track of 729 sex offenders. They just don’t know where they are.

“If an individual in question does decide to change their name, they can potentially disappear from the system and apply for DBS check and get a job working with vulnerable people or children.

“Truthfully when we did the survey, most of us didn’t meet the criteria for an enhanced DBS check. So we’d like to again lobby the government to put that forward,” he added.

Labour councillor Maria Crompton said: “If we got invited into someone’s home as a stranger, well, we’re all strangers. We’re invited into people’s homes because they believe we are there to offer them assistance. And I’m sure that we all do that.

“I’ve got no doubt that all the people in this room will go into someone’s home and you are in there to offer them help and assistance. But you don’t know whether there are some unscrupulous people. So I think that when you become a councillor, you should have an enhanced DBS check.

“We’re doing the standard ones as of now – which is some way towards giving people reassurance for other people to be totally reassured – that if they invite me into their home that they’re safe, so I will quite happily second this motion.”

Councillor David Fisher, the leader of the opposition for Sandwell Conservatives, said he was “very pleased” with the motion being accepted.

Labour councillor Peter Hughes, the cabinet member for regeneration and growth, said DBS checks for councillors were discussed three or four years ago.

He said: “Whilst councillor Fisher may have put a motion forward to the council 12 months ago, I’d like to point out that the sitting councillors that were in place, possibly three or four years ago in the early part of the review of the governance arrangements, this was being discussed then. I myself was pushing for enhanced DBS checks.

“This isn’t something new, you’ve thrown into the melting pot, councillors were discussing this within the standards committee three or four years ago. If I had been on that committee, I’ve been pushing to this day,  because it’s something I believe it or it’s not something that suddenly appeared in the last 12 months.”

Labour councillor Charn Singh Padda said: “We’re talking about our children and our vulnerable people […] yes, there will be a loophole in the system as is in any system, but this will weed out 95 per cent of the problems. If anyone has an issue subjecting themselves to these tests, then maybe they shall be forced to question themselves whether they are suitable for this role. So I support this motion.

Labour councillor Luke Giles however criticised the motion.

He said: “What’s the point in having a DBS check once you become an elected member, because once you’re an elected member, you’re already in the chamber. To me DBS check should be done before people go for election. So the general public know who they’re voting for. I support the motion, but it needs to be done before people get hurt.”