The Ombudsman received a complaint that a member (“the Member”) of Bridgend County Borough Council (“the County Council”) and Porthcawl Town Council (“the Town Council”) had breached the Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by failing to declare an interest. It was alleged that the Member had failed to declare a personal and / or prejudicial interest at 3 full Town Council meetings where actions were agreed in relation to an approval, consent, licence, permission or registration.
The Code, at paragraph 11(1), requires members to declare personal interests. At paragraph 12, the Code requires members to consider whether a personal interest might also be a prejudicial interest. A member must consider whether a member of the public, who knew all the relevant facts, would think the personal interest was so significant that it would likely prejudice the member’s judgement.
Paragraph 12(2)(a)(i) says there is an exemption from declaring a prejudicial interest in any business where it relates to another relevant authority of which they are a member. However, paragraph 12(3) says the exemption ceases to apply where the business relates to the determination of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration.
Information was obtained from the County Council and the Town Council, including emails, minutes of meetings and documents related to Griffin Park. The Member and Complainant provided information by email and also spoke to the Investigating Officer by telephone.
The Ombudsman noted the agenda and minutes of the 3 meetings showed there were agenda items related to an approval to go ahead with a transfer, the termination of a lease and the renewal of a lease. This suggested that an exemption under paragraph 12(2)(a)(i) did not apply for these items and that the Member should have declared a prejudicial interest. The Member did not do so. The Member also did not declare a personal interest for 1 of these items.
The meeting minutes recorded that the Member remained in the room for the items and that he also voted on 1 of them and abstained on another. This was suggestive of breaches of paragraph 14(1)(a) that says a member should withdraw from the room where they have a prejudicial interest and paragraph 14(1)(c) that says a member with a prejudicial interest should not seek to influence a decision.
The Ombudsman noted that the other agenda items did not suggest a breach of the Code. The evidence suggested the business under discussion either was not captured by the intention behind paragraph 12(3) or the subject under discussion did not relate to an approval, consent, licence, permission or registration. This suggested that the exemption under paragraph 12(2)(a)(i) therefore applied.
The Ombudsman considers that the Member’s actions are suggestive of a breach of paragraphs 11(1), 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(c). However, the Ombudsman also has to consider whether a referral is required in the public interest.
The Ombudsman recognised that the actions and events complained about caused concern to the Complainant and that, overall, the incident had potential to impact on the reputation of the Council. However, the issues were not straightforward to understand, including whether an exemption might apply.
The Ombudsman also noted that the Member had only been in his County Council role a short time when the first meeting took place and was still relatively new to holding dual roles at the time of the other 2 meetings. The Member voted on 1 item and abstained on another. The minutes indicated that the voting numbers meant the Member voting did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the vote.
The Member has acknowledged he had a personal interest in each of the agenda items that were considered as part of this investigation. The Member also seemed to understand the need to declare an interest and did so for all but 1 of the items. The Member accepts he should have declared an interest for that item. He explained that personal matters may also have impacted his judgement on that occasion.
The Member’s knowledge in this area seemed to be limited to declaring a personal interest. There seemed to be a lack of awareness that there might also be a prejudicial interest. The Member said he would amend his actions in future if this was found to be incorrect.
Given the limited impact of the Member’s actions on the matters in question, that he has reflected on this and there are no obvious aggravating factors, the Ombudsman does not consider it is in the public interest for any further action to be taken. However, the Ombudsman recommends that the County Council and the Town Council arrange training for the Member on the Code, particularly in relation to personal and prejudicial interests as soon as possible.