Prejudicial Interest

Question

May I ask, should a Councillor  declare a Prejudicial Interest on an item if you have raised issues that have not been  dealt with or investigated?
Essentially is an ethical dilemma enough to declare the above?

 It's certainly not a personal interest and would I need to disclose the reason why bearing in mind it's quite 'sensitive' and if pushed to do so, what would I do?

Answer 1

This of course the perennial question of ethics by councillors and other than the signed declaration of interests that a councillor completes(plus updates) it is left as a matter of decision by a councillor to declare interest at a meeting on agenda items.

There is a train of argument that you cannot have a prejudicial interest without having first, a personal interest. Once a personal interest is declared then that interest has to be examined further to ascertain if any prejudicial interest exists (or completely declared) and appropriate action taken with reference the code of conduct (and standing orders).
Whether a matter has been declared or discussed, ethically a councillor should make their interests widely known.

It is all in the interest in openness and transparency.Unfortunately too many consider that they are exempt from the "rules"

Answer 2

Morning,

Are you able to be more specific?

On the basis of what you have already said though I’d say no it doesn’t need to be declared if no action around your issues has taken place.

Answer 3

I thought the term 'Prejudicial Interest' had been removed / replaced in 2012 by the Localism act. Now known as "Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPIs)". 

Codes of conduct should have been updated to reflect the new regime if I understand the requirements correctly.

In any case what do your current Standing Orders say?

You could ask your Monitoring Officer for an opinion too. 

Ultimately it's up to you as to what you declare.  You could just say that due to the sensitive nature of the business you declare an interest and will leave the room. 

Answer 4

Thank you. It's linked to concerns around monies, and more broadly safety. It's a very difficult area.
I suppose as it's based around concerns I've raised it could be viewed as personal - I could see the logic there. But prejudicial regarding my concerns and being asked to take a decision when they haven't been responded to seems a very difficult situation to be placed in. Essentially I would have to abstain unless I leave the meeting, if it were prejudicial and if they let  me back in.
If I were to cite the concerns  in public it would look very bad for the Council, but at this time I've recieved no response about those concerns however the Council is in a delicate state at this time so I can understand why.
It's just a very difficult ethical dilemma I suppose. I have no idea what to do.

Answer 5

The definition of a disclosable interest is included in the schedule to "The Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012"  Google it and go the legislation.gov.uk page. If the issue you have raised is not covered by any of the definitions in the schedule (which, from your description, it sounds like it isn't) it's not a disclosable interest.

Comments

Yes agreed. It transpires it's also not a personal interest. I suppose I'll use my judgement and broach the matters carefully.

---

Are there not two (slightly overlapping) specific interests here? Whilst all councillors must make a written declaration of disclosable pecuniary interest (and changes updated when they occur) which is published by the senior authority and accessible to the public there is also the matter of interest in agenda (either council or committee) items where a councillor is expected (ethically) to declare an interest in the item at hand should it exist. If the councillors interest can be taken as prejudicial to their carrying out their unbiased duties then ethically they should withdraw from the debate and the vote.

---

It's a good point. I have asked to speak to the clerk to seek advice.
There's no gain or loss to me regarding the matter but it's an ehical conflict. I think you may be right though.