Agenda item

1.         Mr Cook introduced the report and explained that it presented potential changes to the eligibility and verification process of petitions, following a further comparative exercise into other local authorities. This had found that KCC was in line with other comparable local authorities in using a risk-based approach when verifying petitions. Although a more detailed verification process could be used this could be expensive for the Council due to GDPR and data protection issues, as well as officer time, and would provide a limited return on investment due to the limited evidence of petition fraud in Kent. The Committee was also asked to comment on the threshold for County Council and Cabinet Committee petitions, which could be progressed to County Council for final decision.

2.         Members engaged in discussion regarding reducing the threshold for County Council and Cabinet Committee petitions. Some Members felt that reducing these thresholds would increase engagement from the public. Other Members disagreed and felt that reducing the threshold would mean a labour-intensive process for officers and a busier County Council agenda, during a time when Council Members needed to focus on financial issues. Members felt that the threshold could be lowered at a later date if necessary.

3.         Members discussed the need to have a minimum age limit on petitions, as some school children may want to sign a petition. The age for criminal punishment in the UK was 11, and Members discussed making this the minimum age to be able to sign a petition. It was confirmed that there was currently no age limit on petitions, and putting this in place would be difficult due to the need to verify signatures and ages.

4.         Members questioned how e-petitions and paper petitions were dealt with, and felt that both formats should be checked and verified in the same way and checked to ensure signatures were not duplicated. Mr Cook confirmed that the same guidance for paper and e-petitions was provided by officers when a member of the public came to the team with a request.

5.         A Member raised a concern with the verification process and asked if dip sampling could be undertaken to ensure that people who signed lived, worked, or studied in the borough. Mr Cook stated that any petition verification would lead to resources being stretched within the Democratic Services team and other directorates and could have data protection implications.

6.         Mr Rayner proposed option 1 within the report, which stated “no changes be made to the petition scheme”. This was not seconded and therefore was not agreed. 

7.         Mr Jeffrey proposed the following option: a 3000-signature threshold for County Council petition; a 1500-signature threshold for a Cabinet Committee petition; a petition could not be submitted if one similar had been presented in the previous 6 months; and the scheme would be reviewed 12 months after adoption. This proposal was seconded by Mr Lehmann. A vote was held: 2 in favour; 3 against; 2 abstentions. Therefore, the proposal was not agreed.

8.         After further discussion, it was agreed that a further report on the petition scheme would be presented to the Committee at its next meeting. 

RESOLVED that the Selection and Member Services Committee:

Agreed to defer the report to the next Committee meeting.