Agenda item

Questions on matter relating to the work of the Committee

Minutes:

The Sub Committee noted that there are a number of disclosable pecuniary interests that prevent a Member from participating in any discussion or vote on a connected item of business.  The disclosable pecuniary interest that is engaged in these cases is:

 

(a)         any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the relevant authority.

 

Members also noted that the Localism Act 2011 does not provide any additional guidance on judging whether a disclosable pecuniary interest is engaged or not and  states that the prohibition on speaking or voting on a matter is engaged where a Member:

 

(a)         is present at a meeting;

 

(b)         has a disclosable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered, or being considered, at the meeting; and

 

(c)          is aware that the condition in paragraph (b) is met.

 

A relevant authority may, on a written request made to the proper officer of the authority by a Member of the authority, grant a dispensation relieving the Member from either or both of the restrictions on speaking or voting in cases described in the dispensation.  A dispensation must specify the period for which it has effect, which may not exceed four years.  The relevant criteria for a City of London dispensation are:-

 

(a)       that without the dispensation the number of persons prohibited from participating in any particular business would be so great a proportion of the body transacting the business as to impede the transaction of the business;

 

(b)       that granting the dispensation is in the interests of persons living in the authority’s area;

 

(c)        that it is otherwise appropriate to grant a dispensation.

 

It was further noted that subject to the specific statutory grounds for granting a dispensation, Members may also wish to take into account the following (non-exhaustive) additional factors:

      

(i)            whether the nature of the Member’s interest is such that to allow them to participate would risk damage to public confidence in the conduct of the City Corporation’s business;

 

(ii)          whether the interest is common to the Member and a significant proportion of the general public;

 

(iii)         whether the Member was elected on a platform that they would specifically address the item or items of business for which the dispensation is sought;

 

(iv)         whether the participation of the Member in the business that the interest relates to is justified by their particular role or expertise;

 

(v)          whether the request is for a dispensation to (a) speak at the meeting with the same rights as a member of the public; (b) participate fully in the debate as a Member of the decision-making body in question; or (c) participate fully in the debate as a Member of the decision-making body in question and vote on the business.

 

During discussion, a Co-opted Member again put forward the view expressed at the recent Standards Committee that some additional relevant information would be of assistance for committee members when assessing dispensation requests, such as committee composition, quorum, number of conflicted members, the situation regarding other ward members, etc if that information was known. He asked that these details be added to the usual dispensations report ‘template’ going forward. The Town Clerk apologised for the absence of this requested information.