An apology was received from Councillor Paul Shotton.

There were no disclosures of interest.

As a requirement of the Localism Act 2011, a members’ code of conduct must include provisions relating to disclosable pecuniary interests.  The categories of disclosable pecuniary interests were prescribed by legislation, namely:

·        Employment, Office, Trade, Profession or Vocation

·        Sponsorship

·        Contracts

·        Land

·        Licences

·        Corporate Tenancies

·        Securities

The Committee was informed that any member who had a disclosable pecuniary interest in any matter to be considered or being considered at a meeting may not participate in any discussion or vote at the meeting.  Under the previous members’ code of conduct, a general dispensation was automatically given to all members in respect of specified categories of ‘prejudicial interests’, which broadly equated to the new disclosable pecuniary interests, however, these automatic dispensations, were not reproduced in the new legislation.   

A number of areas had been identified in which dispensations may be necessary, namely:  

·        Allowance, payment or indemnity given to members

·        Ceremonial honours given to members

·        Setting council tax or a precept under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended from time to time, or any superseding legislation

·        Setting a local council tax reduction scheme for the purposes of the Local Government Finance Act 2012, as amended from time to time, or any superseding legislation

·        Setting a local scheme for the payment of business rates, including eligibility for rebates and reductions, for the purposes of the Local Government Finance Act 2012, as amended from time to time, and any superseding legislation.

The Committee was also informed that dispensations could be granted for a specified period, not to exceed four years, if, having regard to all relevant circumstances, the Committee –

·        Considered that without the dispensation the number of persons prohibited from participating in any particular business would be so great a proportion of the body transacting the business as to impede the transaction of the business

·        Considered that without the dispensation the representation of different political groups on the body transacting any particular business would be so upset as to alter the likely outcome of any vote relating to the business

·        Considered that granting the dispensation was in the interests of persons living in the authority’s area

·        Considered that without the dispensation each member of the authority’s executive would be prohibited from participating in any particular business to be transacted by the authority’s executive, or

·        Considered that it was otherwise appropriate to grant a dispensation.

The Committee was informed that following his election as a member for the Baddeley, Milton and Norton Ward, Councillor Anthony Munday had formally requested a dispensation to speak and vote in the circumstances outlined above.  The Committee was requested to specifically consider the dispensation request. 

In September 2013, the Department for Communities and Local Government issued guidance entitled Openness and Transparency on Personal Interests – A Guide for Councillors.  This guide was thought to represent a useful summary and reminder of the rules of conduct for elected members.  The Committee was requested to note the guide and to approve its circulation to all Stoke on Trent City Members.