Today, he has resigned! The relevant council page has been updated, and my own website has also now been updated.
The reason for the resignation is given in a statement from Mr Craggs in YourMedway, which has just appeared while I was writing this post:
"People will know that I have served as a volunteer special constable on behalf of the people of Kent for the past 17 years, a role that I have held with pride. In the hope that I could expand my community service I stood as a councillor for Medway.Hmm... I am surprised that
I did not believe there was any conflict between these roles and was unaware that police regulations prevent anyone from holding political office whilst also serving the police.
After the election I was made aware, by Kent Police, that the law prevents me serving both as a special constable and as a local councillor.
This is a unique situation, one that I believe has not happened before in Kent or Medway. Therefore, over the past two weeks I have been working alongside Kent Police and Medway Council to clarify the legal situation and see if an alternative remedy was available.
Unfortunately, it is now apparent that the legal situation is such that I cannot continue to serve the community both as a local councillor and also as a Special Constable and therefore I have resigned as a councillor at Medway."
For example, I was considering applying to join the Kent Police Authority a while back, and went to their briefing on this at the Bridgewood Manor Hôtel; but before submitting my application I checked and discovered that I would need to have been off the Council for a few years before I'd become eligible.
Then again, why should being a Special Constable be considered by some element of bureaucracy to be incompatible with being a local councillor? One is only another aspect of the other: they are both public service occupations and there is no automatic clash. Indeed, the reality is probably the direct opposite, and public perception would almost certainly agree with that assessment. Well over six hundred of them voted for him in the full knowledge of his other activities, so they obviously weren't all that concerned, if at all. There is something inherently wrong with "the system" here...
David Craggs's resignation means, of course, that there will be another by-election during the next five weeks, presumably at further public expense. I am not impressed, or at all pleased!
Will I help in this second by-election campaign? It's a good question! I believe, in the interests of democracy and for the people of River ward, that I shall do so. It is hardly a secret that I have become quite fond of the area during the last few years, and want the best for it.
A second Conservative councillor is still the best option for River ward, provided a good (and eligible!!) candidate is chosen; though at least that isn't the only good option available, it is however the best for River, especially as the ward is now evolving and growing, from St Mary's Island to Rochester Riverside.
UPDATES on 27 August: since this story broke on Conservative Home, it has become clear that other councillors and even MPs have been allowed to be Special Constables at the same time, as HERE and HERE. I suspect the reason the Kent Police Authority's policy has been left unclear is to allow for politically-motivated manipulation. I could be wrong; but I do wonder whether the same would have happened if (say) a Labour or Green candidate had been in exactly the same situation...
I have also now (at 1240 hrs) received the following Press Release about this, which tends to back-up my earlier thoughts, as above. Here it is, in full:
RIVER WARD
PRESS RELEASE
27th August 2010 - midday
David Craggs resignation as River Ward Councillor :-
Kent Police must answer for their interference in the democratic process
The actions of Kent Police after the election of David Craggs have led to the need for a possible further election to be held in River Ward. Having confirmed to David that a serving special constable could stand for election, and could become a local councillor, Kent Police force then put pressure on David to resign, telling him that a special constable could not serve as an elected councillor.
Before the election they had confirmed that there were no rules to preclude a volunteer special constable from being a local councillor, indeed there are two Conservative MPs and one Labour MP who serve as special constables, whilst being at the heart of the law making process at Westminster. Philip Hollobone, Conservative MP for Kettering is also a SITTING COUNCILLOR on Kettering Borough Council. Magistrates are similarly allowed to become local councillors and vice versa, there are no restrictions.
Such was the intense pressure put on David that he felt he had to resign from the post of a paid councillor in order to carry on as an unpaid and volunteer police officer, a position he has held for 17 years. That letter of resignation was delivered to the Acting Chief Executive of Medway Council yesterday at 11.00am. Acting upon the resignation letter, an appropriate �Notice of vacancy‘ in River Ward was issued by Medway Council, in accordance with electoral law. Within hours, and subsequent to legal advice already obtained by Rochester and Strood Conservative Association, the Kent Police Authority confirmed that there is no restriction in a special constable being a councillor.
Kent Police were incorrect, and arguably unlawful. They had even threatened disciplinary action against David Craggs. Because the statutory �Notice of vacancy‘ has now been issued, acting upon David Craggs resignation letter, the electoral cycle is started and cannot be retracted, despite the resignation now clearly being unnecessary, based on wrong advice and arguably extracted under duress.
This means that another election may need to be held, because Kent Police got the law wrong. The situation is virtually unbelievable. Kent Police must bear full responsibility for this situation, and for the extra costs to be borne by the council, candidates and political parties. No explanation or apology has been forthcoming.
Cllr Craig Mackinay, the Conservative councillor for River Ward now asks "with the aim of redressing a clear wrong, for the other political parties to allow an uncontested election in River, which would cost nothing to administer and would reflect the clear will of the electorate given just a few days ago. Alternatively, there need not be another election at all; I have been the sole councillor in River, effectively so since Bill Esterson‘s adoption as a parliamentary candidate in March, and absolutely so since his election as an MP in May and subsequent resignation as the second ward councillor."
ENDS
Contacts:-
Cllr Craig Mackinlay
01634 841108 / 07973 123614
craig@riverward.co.uk
8 Manor Road
Chatham ME4 6AG
MPs who are special constables:-
David Davies, MP for Monmouth http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6647455.stm
Philip Hollobone, MP for Kettering — direct line 01536 414715 / 07979 850126 (he will take calls) http://www.kettering.gov.uk/site/scripts/councillors_info.php?councillorID=27&viewBy=name
Brian Donohoe, Labour MP for Central Ayrshire http://www.briandonohoemp.co.uk/about.html
Legislative interpretation
It is worth noting that the "regular" police are governed by The Police Regulations 2003, made under the authority of the Police Act 1996, section 50. Special Constables are not regular police.
Section 51 of the 1996 Act enables the making of (separate) regulations for specials, and for amendments thereto. Thus the basic rules for specials are still to be found in the Special Constable Regulations 1965, as amended by the Special Constable (Amendment) Regs 2002. There are no restrictions on political activity by specials. Police officers (non-specials) are undoubtedly restricted by the terms of para 1 to schedule 1 of the Police Regs 2003. Permitted "activity" is seemingly limited for them to Party membership (BNP excluded).
Of course regular and specials are then subject to rules of their local force, which are also enabled by the parent legislation. The Kent Police Handbook (as amended in August 2005) so constitutes, and specifically lists (at para 5.5.1) the employments, posts held, offices held, which prevent someone becoming/operating as a special. There is no inclusion of "councillor", except where in that capacity wanting to serve as a member of the police authority itself.
The National Police Improvement Authority (NIAS), a quango which is likely to be abolished, had begun to rewrite rules relating to special constables which would have precluded them from becoming councillors. These rules had never been finalised, far less enacted into law and are now unlikely ever to be so with this new Government‘s emphasis on 'Big Society' and volunteering. The question must be asked — why were they writing rules to prohibit specials becoming councillors in the future, if such rules were already in place? It is clearly because no such prohibition currently exists. Under any measure, it is 100% clear that there are not and have never been any restrictions on a special constable accepting the elected post as councillor.
Printed and promoted by Craig Mackinlay and the Conservative Party, all at 200 Canterbury Street, Gillingham, Kent, ME7 5XG
Yes, this seems almost certain to have been a case of political manipulation, as the timing and other details show, though no doubt there is still more to come out including the police's own formal statement (shoulkd they decide to issue one). Under the circumstances, I'd urge all potential candidates from other parties (or Independents) to go along with Councillor Mackinlay's request for an uncontested fresh by-election.
To do otherwise would taint any such party or individual with the same tar that will now surely be seen by the public as being firmly attached to Kent Police. That would have an ongoing impact, especially in the all-out local elections next May: the public won't forget who caused an expensive second by-election: the police and any such candidates/parties.
But think of the cost of a by-election.
ReplyDeleteI mentioned that...
ReplyDeleteThe Kent Police have a lot to answer for if it is proven that they gave the wrong advice on this. However the blame must ultimately lie with the candidate who should have made sure he was in the clear.
ReplyDeleteThat is essentially my own feeling, though it is interesting that it is apparently so vague a policy.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that this could perhaps be deliberate, in order to allow for political manipulation to suit the leanings of those within the police (perhaps Common Purpose or similar).
It's only a guess; but now having seen how this was handled, it does merit consideration as a possibility...
By the way, I assume you are the same "anon" as the one who commented up there ^ . It would be helpful (as Miss Snuffy suggests at such times) to adopt some sort of "Net name" to avoid accidental mis-attribution of comments. Just a suggestion!
Interesting that it is only incompatible in some constabularies and not in others. Each force will have its own position on eligibility and clearly Kent operate on a non-political basis. John has hit it on the head as usual that this should all have been clarified with Kent Police HR in advance of the nomination meeting and re-clarified.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair there is an argument to claim that if you ban BNP Councillors because of their beliefs then all Councillors of all parties should be barred. I do think the police nationally should review a national position on this.
I would personally support a move to allow special constables to be Councillors but would caveat that it had to be in an area which would not conflict with ward responsibilites. The two are not incompatible but as Police you may have to attend an event with a constituent. Say there was a domestic incident in the ward which had impacts on Council house arragements or benefits. Licensing is obviously a more formal one.
The democracy argument is obviously a strong one. Again there is a balance on senior positions being politically restricted but would not seem to relevent to specials.
I do not support elected commissioners because I do not believe a politician is better placed to understand the complexities of policing but would be very partial to the pressures of his constituent support; therefore potential for resource gerrymandering would be high. This could really harm people on the ground. The problem that high crime areas also tend to be low vote areas spring to mind. I am yet to see the legislation on this and I understand it is being watered down to stop all powerful 'sheriffs'.
One thing we can agree on though. The public will hate this. They will hate the time wasted and the money spent all over again. That is very damaging to any candidate who has to replace David.
Thank you for your considered input, Tristan. However, it really now does look to be a distinct possibility that this situation has been politically manipulated by someone in KPA.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, why is their policy unclear, why did they indicate that there would be no difficulty, and why are other councillors (and at least three MPs) also Special Constables without hindrance?
We have declarations of interest as protection against conflicts, and appointees from the council to the KPA itself, so this situation (after the event, perhaps to cause maximum embarrassment for the Conservatives?) smells strongly of having been opportunistically manufactured.
I suspect Common Purpose, who are almost certain to have placemen within every police force in the country.
The thing is, the law is very clear that who serves in the Special Constabulary of a police force is entirely a matter for the chief constable of that force. He can turn anyone down. If they don't want political activity from a special, they don't have to allow it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, MPs and councillors can only be members of the British Transport Police NOT Home Office, territorial police forces like Kent.
The fault here clearly sits with the Agent - who happens to have issued that very defensive statement perhaps unsurprisingly blaming everybody else!