Agenda item

(Monitoring Officer) To consider the attached report.

The Monitoring Officer reported that the Council had recently invited tenders for the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation to house homeless persons, where necessary.  Three tenders had been received and the officers were proposing that all three establishments be used with approaches being made initially to the one which had submitted the lowest rates for rooms.  However, as there would be occasions when that establishment did not have vacancies it will be necessary to use the others.

The Committee noted that the decision to use the establishments would normally be taken by the Housing Portfolio Holder but he had advised that he had a prejudicial interest by virtue of his acquaintance with the proprietor of one of the establishments, who was also a fellow District Councillor.  In such circumstances the matter would normally be submitted to the Cabinet for decision but it had been anticipated that the majority of the Cabinet would have similar prejudicial interests.

Accordingly, the Monitoring Officer had sent a letter to all members of the Cabinet seeking clarification of their position and asking, if necessary, if they wished to seek a dispensation to enable them to take part in making a decision on this matter.

The Monitoring Officer reported that only the Standards Committee could grant dispensations and it did so at its discretion.  In considering applications for dispensation it needed to balance the public interest in preventing members with a prejudicial interest from taking part in decisions, against the public interest in decisions being taken by a reasonably representative group of members of the authority.

The Committee noted the grounds on which applications could be made and advice of the Standards Board for England that if failure to grant a dispensation would result in an authority or a Committee not achieving a quorum, this might constitute grounds for granting a dispensation.

The Committee was advised that in response to the letter sent by the Monitoring Officer, five members of the Cabinet had submitted written applications for dispensation.  The Committee noted that the quorum for the Cabinet was a minimum of five of the eight members.

The Committee considered one at a time the submitted applications for dispensation. In coming to their decisions, the Committee took account of the fact that the tender submitted by the councillor had not been the lowest and therefore his establishment would not normally be the first approached by the Council for accommodation.

            RESOLVED:

(1)            That the submitted applications for dispensation be determined as follows:

(a)            Councillor A Green - dispensation agreed as his prejudicial interest is considered to be less substantial;

(b)            Councillor Mrs A Grigg - dispensation agreed as her prejudicial interest is considered to be less substantial;

(c)            Councillor Mrs M Sartin - dispensation refused as her prejudicial interest is considered to be more substantial;

(d)            Councillor D Stallan - dispensation refused as his prejudicial interest is considered to be more substantial;  and

(e)            Councillor Mrs D Collins - dispensation refused as her prejudicial interest is considered to be more substantial;

(2)            That the Monitoring Officer remind the three remaining members of the Cabinet of the need to give careful consideration to their position in relation to this matter and, if necessary, to make an application for dispensation to enable them to take part in the decision making process;  and

(3)            That, in the event of further applications being received for dispensation, the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee make arrangements for an extraordinary meeting of the Committee to determine any such applications.