Agenda item

The Lord Mayor invited Members to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor Sood declared an Other Disclosable Interest (ODI) in items on the agenda as a member of the Leicester Council of Faiths and a member of the Bishop’s Faith Forum.

Councillor Senior declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as her partner was a Local Government employee.

The Monitoring Officer was asked to confirm the advice he given to Members via email in advance of the meeting in relation to declarations of interests in terms of the motion at item 11.1 at the agenda.  The Monitoring Officer confirmed that he had given advice and stated that Members who have a spouse who is a City Council employee will have made that declaration on their Register of Interests and that the offence created through the Localism Act is to participate in an item of business where a pecuniary interest is triggered.  Given that this was the case in this instance it was his advice that any motion discussing pay for Council employees must trigger a DPI for such a Member but that ultimately it was a matter for the Member to decide whether the relationship between the DPI and the item of business was sufficiently proximate.  He also noted that where a Member didn’t have a spouse who was a City Council employee but did have a close associate who was, then the advice he had offered was that it was certainly an ODI and arguably prejudicial on the basis that a reasonable observer may regard the interest as so close as to prejudice a Members judgement of the public interest when that motion was discussed. 

Questions were raised whether teacher’s pay, as not set by the Council, or pay above the threshold in the motion was covered by the advice. The Monitoring Officer noted that it was a judgement for the individual Member whether there was sufficient proximity between the interest and the item to warrant a declaration and withdrawal.  He also noted that a Member who did not consider the interest sufficiently proximate to withdraw before the start of the item may also wish to take a view as to the proximity as the discussion on the motion developed.

Councillor Aqbany declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as a member of his family was a City Council employee.

Councillor Joshi declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as his wife was a City Council employee.

Councillor Newcombe declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as a member of his family was a City Council employee.

Councillor R Patel declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as a member of her family was a City Council employee.

Councillor Dawood declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as his wife was a City Council employee.

Councillor Shelton declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as his son was a City Council employee.

Councillor Clarke declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as his wife was a City Council employee.

Councillor Desai declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as his wife was a City Council employee.

Councillor Choudhury declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as his son and daughter in law were City Council employees.

Councillor Westley declared a prejudicial Declaration of Personal Interest in relation to the motion at Item 11.1 on the agenda as a member of his family was a City Council employee.