Agenda item

The Committee received an update on Code of Conduct issues.

The report set out details of a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) conviction in Dorset and of recent complaints made about members.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services introduced the report and made the following points:

·         Various breaches of the DPI provisions introduced under the Localism Act 2011 were now criminal offences as well as potential breaches of the Code. In what was believed to be a first, a senior councillor in Dorset had been prosecuted and found guilty of a breach of the DPI provisions.  He received a 6 month conditional discharge and had costs awarded against him.  The courts now had the power to disqualify councillors upon conviction of the DPI offences, but did not do so in this case

·         The councillor in question received an annual allowance for the work he did as a non-executive director on behalf of a housing charity and had registered this as a DPI. The housing charity had land which was affected by the Waste Core Strategy and the DPI was relevant to the item. The Monitoring Officer referred the matter to the police who decided to pursue the matter as being in the public interest. As he had a DPI in the matter, he should not have participated in the debate, but did so. As he had no reasonable excuse, he was convicted

·         Since the last report to the Committee in July 2014, the Council had received 5 formal complaints that a County Councillor had breached the Members' Code of Conduct.  No complaints had been received connected with the recent elections.  

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

·         Members did not always appreciate the importance of all aspects of the Code of Conduct in their role and it was therefore important to remind them of their duty to declare DPIs

·         Was it the member's responsibility to leave the meeting if a DPI was declared and could a declaration be made at any time during the meeting? The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that it was the member's responsibility to withdraw from the consideration of the whole of that particular item. It was good practice for a member to declare a DPI at the start of the meeting but could be later as long as the member withdrew from an item in which he or she had a DPI

·         Presumably it was not merely that the membership of an organisation that would mean that a DPI should be declared? The Head of Legal and Democratic Services agreed and stated that it was employment for profit or gain that would need to be registered and declared for that particular category of DPI

·         It was important for members who had been appointed to serve on a number of different organisations to fully understand the relevance of the Code to their activities and the possible ramifications. If in doubt, members should seek advice or declare an Other Interest for transparency

·         It was important that new members of the Council received training on the disclosure of interests. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services stated that Council had made it mandatory for all councillors to receive training on the Code of Conduct (whether by the county or district council)    

·         Members should have a full understanding of the implications of the Code. The  Head of Legal and Democratic Services  advised that the training sessions included practical scenarios to help members understand how the Code impacted on their role

·         It was clear that the councillor in the Dorset case had not considered matters fully with unfortunate consequences. All members should be made aware of this case by email and attention brought to it at a meeting of the County Council. The Head of Legal and Democratic Services stated that reference would be included in this Committee's formal report to the next meeting of the Council. In addition he reminded members that advice on the disclosure of interests was included in every agenda produced by the Council  

·         The outcome of the investigation of the complaint against a member of the Council regarding the Divisional Fund scheme that there was no Code breach in a polite refusal to fund a request was reassuring to members who were often faced with conflicting requests for funding under the scheme.

RESOLVED that:

a)    the criminal conviction (in Dorset) for member breach of the Disclosable Pecuniary Interest provisions be noted;

b)    the outcome of recent formal complaints about member conduct be noted; and

c)    the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be requested to send details of the Dorset  case electronically to all members of the Council to highlight the need for members to give prior thought to potential conflict of interests, take advice where necessary, and avoid even inadvertent breaches of the DPI provisions.