Agenda item

Deputy Catherine McGuinness declared a potential pecuniary interest in respect of Item 12 by virtue of her ownership of a property at Bryer Court, Barbican, advising that she would withdraw from the meeting and the Deputy Chairman would take the Chair for consideration of this item. Deputy Joyce Nash and Deputy John Tomlinson declared similar but non-pecuniary interests as residents of the Barbican Estate.

The following Members declared an interest in respect of Item 4, noting whether they had received dispensations to speak as follows:

·         Randall Anderson

·         Vivienne Littlechild

·         Alderman Ian Luder

·         Deputy Catherine McGuinness

·         Deputy John Tomlinson

The Comptroller & City Solicitor spoke at length to provide clear guidance on the matter of dispensations and the requirements of the Localism Act, drawing reference to the case of Councillor Flower of Dorset County Council, who had been prosecuted for a breach of the Act. His firm advice to Members in doubt was that they should err on the side of caution, but, ultimately, the decision was one for Members. The Chairman asked that the advice provided be circulated to the Committee following the meeting.

Several Members spoke to express their concerns about the City’s application of the requirements and the difficulties of some Members in effectively representing their constituents, suggesting that the approach was not consistent with that taken by other local authorities. The Comptroller observed that other local authorities were not always good comparators for the City Corporation as they often operated under executive arrangements; equally, the Barbican Estate was not a local authority housing estate and thus comparisons made might not have been like-for-like. With reference to the particular concerns relating to the Barbican Residential Committee, he advised that this specialised Committee had an element of conflict by its very nature, due to the way it was composed and the requirements of the Act. This was not a problem in and of itself, provided that Members sought and obtained dispensations pursuant to the Act. Advice from leading Counsel had been sought and it was clear that a conflict would exist in this case; therefore, Members were advised to seek dispensations.

It was agreed that the Standards Committee should be asked to look at the question of dispensations and the processes by which they were granted, taking external advice to ensure a fully informed position was reached. Following this, it would be important to hold a workshop session for affected Members to provide full clarity on the issue in order to mitigate against future difficulties. It was noted that Members of the Standards Committee had informally discussed the establishment of a Working Party to consider this issue and would be progressing the matter in the coming months.