Embarrassing scene at council meeting as three councillors belatedly declare an interest

Martin Shipton

A row has broken out after three members of a council’s cabinet “forgot” to declare a personal interest when discussing changes to traffic arrangements in a town centre.

The embarrassing series of faux pas occurred at a meeting of Bridgend County Borough Council’s cabinet.

Members had been considering a report which recommended relaxing some restrictions on traffic access to Bridgend town centre, which has been largely pedestrianised since 2004.

A consultation with residents and traders showed support for proposals that would give vehicles greater access to some streets.

Immediately after discussion of the item had concluded with the acceptance of a recommendation that an experimental traffic order should be introduced for 18 months, Labour councillor Neelo Farr, the cabinet member for regeneration, economic development and housing, said: “I’ve just realised that I need to declare an interest in that report because my husband is a taxi driver.”

Interest

Council leader Cllr John Spanswick then said: “I need to declare an interest that my brother is a taxi driver.”

Then Cllr Paul Davies, the cabinet member for climate change and environment, chipped in, saying: “I don’t know if it’s relevant, but I’ve held a taxi licence for about 20 years. I don’t use it – I haven’t used it for about 10 years.”

After the meeting, Cllr Amanda Williams, who leads the Bridgend County Independents opposition group on the council, said: “It is deeply concerning that three cabinet members failed to declare relevant interests, with two having relatives who are taxi drivers and one personally holding a taxi licence, while making a decision that directly benefits the taxi trade.

“Transparency and accountability are fundamental to public trust, and the public deserves full confidence that decisions are being made in the community’s best interest, not influenced by undisclosed connections.”

“Collective brain fog”

Another Independent councillor, Freya Bletsoe, wrote on her Facebook page: “At yesterday’s meeting of the cabinet there was an interesting situation whereby three senior councillors suddenly awoke from their collective brain fog and all started to remember (after accepting the report and after they had closed that agenda item and moved on) that either they themselves hold current live taxi licences, or that very close family members hold licences and work as taxi drivers and earn a living that way.

“Not one member declared a retrospective (and frankly by that point it would have been useless!) prejudicial declaration despite making a fundamental change to how town access works, specifically for taxi drivers.

“This was also after taxi access was added to the report at the last gasp, by whom I’m not sure. It certainly wasn’t in the original report, it wasn’t in the recommendations from the Scrutiny call-in I signed off on, so I’m unclear as to how this was added and how not one single cabinet member with a family member with a taxi income or even themselves as a licence holder didn’t think there might be a fundamental conflict of interest.”

A council spokesman said: “The proposal to expand town centre access for taxis was not among the report’s original recommendations, but was suggested as part of the debate during the course of the meeting.

“After some members indicated that they should declare an interest, the council’s monitoring officer considered the matter.

“Based on the available evidence, the monitoring officer determined that the decision on the report’s recommendations could be upheld as the declarations would at most amount to a personal interest rather than a prejudicial one.”

In the context of local government, a personal interest is any matter that affects your, your family’s, or a close associate’s well-being or finances more than it does for the general public.

A prejudicial interest is a type of personal interest that is so significant that a member of the public would reasonably think it is likely to prejudice your judgment on a matter, often involving financial or regulatory decisions.

The key difference is the significance and likely impact on your decision-making—a prejudicial interest implies a strong likelihood of bias, whereas a personal interest is a broader category that doesn’t necessarily mean you must withdraw from a decision.