The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Powys County Council (“the Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”).
It was alleged that the Member failed to declare a personal and prejudicial interest during a Council meeting in February 2023, where members voted to approve the Council’s 2023/24 budget. The Complainant believed that the Member should have declared an interest prior to the 23/24 budget vote, due to an agreement he had reached with the Council Leader prior to the budget vote, which he believed benefited the Member’s employer.
The investigation considered whether the Member had breached the Code by failing to declare a personal and prejudicial interest and when discussing and voting on the budget in meetings, including the meeting in February 2023.
Information was obtained from the Council. Witnesses, including the Complainant, were interviewed. The Member was also interviewed.
The investigation found that although the Member met with the Council Leader prior to the budget vote, to discuss his political party’s priorities, one of which was a package of financial support for a Welsh language youth festival (“the Festival”), the Member’s participation in the discussion with the Council Leader was not suggestive of a breach of the Code and there was no evidence that the Member inappropriately influenced the discussion or sought to create a benefit for himself or his employer.
It was subsequently agreed by the Council’s Senior Leadership Team and Cabinet members, that the package of financial support for the Festival would be paid to the Urdd via the Member’s employer. There was no evidence to suggest that this was proposed by the Member as part of the budget negotiations or that he played a part in proposing or in the making this decision.
On balance, it was considered that by the time of the 23/24 budget meeting, the Member was likely aware that the plan was for the money to be paid to the Urdd via his employer. The Member’s role and position within his employer’s organisation and his likely awareness that the budget contained an allocation of money to be paid to the Urdd via his employer meant that he likely had a personal and prejudicial interest in the proposed budget and that he should have declared such interests.
However, the details of the Urdd financial support were omitted from the proposed budget and incorrectly allocated to the subsequent year’s budget. This meant that no ‘business’ which ‘related to or was likely to affect the Member’s employer’ was included in the decision taken by the Council in February 23. Therefore, in these circumstances no breaches of the Code occurred.
Under Section 69(4)(a) of the Local Government Act 2000, the Ombudsman decided that there was no evidence of a breach of the Code.
However, the Ombudsman recommended that the Member receives refresher training on his duties under the Code, to ensure that he is clear when both personal and prejudicial interests arise and his obligations under the Code in such situations.