DCLG amends guidance on personal interests to include trade union dealings

The Department for Communities and Local Government has revised its guidance on openness and transparency of councillors’ personal interests to include the registration of union memberships.

The revised guidance states that any payment or financial benefit from a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is a disclosable pecuniary interest.

The DCLG added that a council’s own code of conduct should now specify a requirement to register personal trade union interests.

The Department said the changes had been designed to avoid conflicts of interest when councils considered issues directly affecting trade unions, “such as reviews of taxpayer-funded subsidies given to trade unions”.

Local Government Minister Brandon Lewis said: “For too long residents have been kept in the dark about what union affiliations their councillors hold. All councillors should disclose all their personal and financial interests on a public register, including registering union interests.

“Given the public debate about ‘facility time’ and ‘pilgrims’ in local government, it’s vital that conflicts of interest are avoided. These transparency reforms will give local people the confidence that their councillors are putting residents’ interests before their own.”

Anja Beriro, local government lawyer at Browne Jacobson, said: "This has unleashed a torrent of criticism against DCLG by trade unions and other local government spokespersons who claim that, firstly, the old standards regime, which the current government scrapped, had required such declarations and, secondly, a lot of local authorities have retained such a requirement. Both of these points do not do anything to help a Coalition policy that is already beleaguered.

"The new standards regime was meant to remove the burden of what was seen by some as a very cumbersome and time consuming complaints system. Before it was implemented Whitehall had already conceded by including the requirement for a written code of conduct. This will probably be seen as another backtracking step."

A copy of the revised guidance can be viewed here.