Manorbier.com
See Pembrokeshire News, March 4th 2002, Section: Self Interest
|
March 4 2002 Self interest As part of the recent shake-up in local government administrative arrangements, County Councillors are now subject to a shiny new statutory Code of Conduct. The requirement that members must declare their pecuniary interest in any matter under discussion is a feature of both the old and new codes, the only difference being that failure to do so was a criminal offence under the previous code, whereas now it is a matter for the Standards Committee (of which Cllr Bill Hitchings is a member). At last Thursday's County Council meeting members debated a resolution of the Policy and Resources Committee that criticised the National Park Authority's proposals to introduce a local need restriction on new housing development in the Park's area. Clearly, any such restriction could have a significant effect on property values in the National Park. About five minutes into the debate Cllr Pat Griffiths bobbed up in the back row to tell members that, as she owned "development land" in the National Park, she wished to declare a pecuniary interest. She then sat down again. A minute or so later the authority's Monitoring Officer, Huw James was seen circling the back of the chamber in the direction of Cllr Griffiths. He whispered something in her ear and in a trice she was gone. We can only speculate about what Mr James had said but my guess is that he drew her attention to the requirement in the code (S16(3)) that members in her situation should "withdraw [from the chamber] during consideration of the matter". He may also have pointed out that she should have declared her interest "at the commencement of that discussion" and not halfway through the debate. Old Grumpy also notices that Cllr Griffiths is recorded as being present at Policy and Resources when this matter was discussed at some length, though there is no indication in the minutes that she declared her interest on that occasion. So, it would appear that she has committed two breaches of the code. If that is the case, it leaves her colleagues in something of a quandary, because the code also provides at 6(1)(c) that members "must" report to the Ombudsman and the Monitoring Officer "any conduct by another member which they believe involves or is likely to involve a failure to comply with this code of conduct." Presumably, any member who fails to report such a breach will themselves be guilty of a breach of the code, as will anyone who neglects to report a member who has breached the code by failing to report the original breach, and so ad infinitum. |