‘Bit of a conflict of interest for Bristol’s Labour elected mayor Marvin Rees'

Once more unto the pages of Private Eye for the mayor of Bristol

In what must be a record number of appearances, the mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees, graces the pages of Private Eye again on 15 February 2023.

Thank you, Rotten Boroughs, for keeping an eye on Bristol.

‘Bit of a conflict of interest for Bristol’s Labour elected mayor Marvin Rees. He’s a former member and director of a boxing club, Empire Fighting Chance, and is currently an “ambassador” for it.

The city council has given the club a lease of 999 years at no cost for land valued at £1.35m. The club intends to develop it in partnership with a housing association. Last October Rees attended a fundraising dinner at the Savoy in London, which raised £820k for the club.

Mayor Rees chaired the cabinet meeting at which the decision was made and supported it. But he didn’t declare an interest at the meeting; nor was it on his public register of interests.

The council’s monitoring officer Tim O’Gara, has said the mayor had previously told him of the interest and it had been “disclosed” , but it didn’t need to be declared publicly because it was not a pecuniary one. Er, right.’

This is a follow-up story to mine published in October.

Why is it important?

Let’s reframe with a theoretical example.

10 charities are using council land. All 10 want to have housing associations build housing on that land and give them the excess profit.

The mayor comes along and gives one charity the council land for free.

Why them? Any bias?

This question is important because any apparent bias in decision making can lead to that decision being struck off. The council has a duty (in law) to obtain best value for its residents, and to always act impartially and not for personal gain.

Going to court is expensive and time-consuming. Councils like to avoid it.

If a member of the council has a disclosable pecuniary interest in a decision, i.e. they may stand to make money from it, they have a presumed bias and must withdraw.

But there are other types of bias that may affect a decision.

Elected representatives should not use public office to seek information or to influence in any way a matter in which they have a DPI.

“As well as vitiating the decision, you may be committing a [crime] punishable by a fine or imprisonment & which may also result in you being disqualified from office.”

“With apparent bias, some other interest you have in the matter, or your actions in relation to it, make your participation in the decision untenable.”

The question that a Court would ask itself is whether a fair minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the decision maker was biased.

The test for apparent bias was also upheld in the Good Law Project case against the government in 2021.

What’s at stake here is democracy.

Are decisions being made to benefit those in public office or to benefit all residents impartially?

And on that note, stay tuned for the next story, : how a cabinet member and deputy mayor was awarded a £58,000 contract for a project she initiated in Bristol City Council and for which the public paid. She still hasn’t declared it as a pecuniary interest.