A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.
A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.
Minutes:
The Committee were handed a letter by a representative of the NUT, Tony Brockman, in reference to agenda item 6, Trade Union Facilities, Duties, Activities and Time off Arrangements. The letter claimed that there was a financial benefit to schools as a result of the proposed reduction in the Council funding of time off facilities for union branch officers. Julie Davies, representative of the NUT, advised the meeting that she was currently seconded to the union branch officer post and following proposals to reduce the time off facilities for union work she would return to her teaching post. This would mean that her school would have an additional funded teacher and would mean that other schools that have a teacher seconded to branch officer posts would be in similar beneficial position. Tony Brockman along with Julie Davies claimed that this constituted a prejudicial interest for some members of the Committee who were also governors at schools in the borough which they believed should be declared together with withdrawal from the meeting. The Chair asked the legal representative at the meeting to provide advice on the assertions made in the letter and Committee member’s positions in relation to agenda item 6 as school governors. The Committee were informed, by the legal representative, that there was not a requisite degree of financial impact on schools or a financial gain to members personally to deem this a prejudicial interest. Further, the decision recommended from the Committee involved only an allocation of paid time to the NUT, which would then be the subject of further decisions by the NUT before its implementation at the level of any school. The legal representative advised that these were therefore personal interests as opposed to prejudicial interests. In response, to a query on legal advice provided at Planning Committees on personal and prejudicial interests when considering planning applications, the Committee were advised that in the consideration of some planning applications there could be circumstances where there was a direct impact on the financial position of the members involved or organisations that they, or close family members, were affiliated with which would need declaration and non participation in the meeting. In this case the direct financial effect on schools was not sufficient to warrant members of the Committee to declare a prejudicial interest. In response to the advice provided, Cllr Wilson declared a personal interest by virtue of his position as a school governor at Western Park Primary School. Cllr Rice declared a personal interest as a School Governor at John Loughborough School and Northumberland Park Secondary School and Cllr Waters declared a personal interest as a school governor at Risley Primary School. Cllr Browne declared a personal interest by virtue of his membership of National Union of Journalists, Equity (the performers union) and sought advice from the legal representative on whether his honorary lifelong membership of the GMB, which was not active, would constitute a prejudicial interest. In answer to the latter declaration, the legal representative advised that this was a personal interest and not a prejudicial interest as this was not an active membership and not employment connected.