Agenda item

To receive a report, from the Monitoring Officer, setting out a possible change to the code of conduct, on the disclosure of member interests. 

The Committee received a report from Asmat Hussain, the Monitoring Officer on the declaration and registration of disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. 

1.               Presentation of the Report

Keiley Broadhead presented the report to the Committee highlighting the following: 

·       There has been some confusion about what is meant by the words in the Councillor Code of Conduct “close personal relationship” in relation to the declaration of disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests. 

·       It is a statutory requirement, as set out in the Localism Act 2011 that members should declare interests of themselves as well as their spouses, civil partners, a person with whom the members is living as if they were civil partners.

·       Enfield’s code of conduct goes further than this stating that interests should extend to “your spouse, partner, civil partner, family members, or persons with whom you have a close personal relationship”.

·       Members have two options: they can recommend that the code stays as it is or to amend the code to reflect the need to only declare those interests that are set out in the act. 

·       Not amending the code will maintain the increased level of transparency with regard to interests that we have at present.  Amending the code will reduce confusion as to what is meant by “close personal association” but could be seen as reducing transparency and as such could be a reputational risk to the Council, perhaps suggesting that members have something to hide.  

2.               Questions/Comments

2.1           This was being looked at now because it had been raised by several members because it is difficult to define exactly what is meant by “close personal relationship”. 

2.2           Enfield’s current code was based on the previous code produced under the old standards regime.  At the time the committee had agreed that the requirement for the enhanced level of disclosure should be continued. 

2.3           Most other local authorities had restricted the need for disclosure to the narrow definition in the Localism Act 2011. 

2.4           The wording “would a member of the public, with the knowledge of the relevant facts, reasonably regard your interest as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest” helps members to make a decision on whether or not interests should be declared.

2.5           Officers generally advise to err on the side of declaring any interests likely to affect decision making due to the criminal sanctions. 

2.6           The advice of one independent person was that she felt that there could be a risk in paring back the definition at this point. 

2.7           The other independent person felt that having a broader definition encourages members to be as transparent as possible.

2.8           There have been very few cases where members have failed to declare interests that should have been declared, which suggests that the current wording is effective. 

2.9           It was suggested that the issue of kinship should be also be addressed.  Some ethnic groups have a very strong sense of kinship which could influence decision making and it was felt that this should be declared. Kinship was an issue that could fall within the definition of close personal relationship and which ought to be covered in any code of conduct training. 

2.10       More information on the numbers of declarations made was requested. 

AGREED that the committee members would take the issue back to the political groups for discussion with their members and that it should be discussed again at the next meeting of the committee.