Prejudicial interest

See also ad hominem and conflict of interest

This article has been edited by Anarchopedians, and to that extent represents Anarchopedia's philosophy. While it may at first seem less than subtle, what is printed elsewhere is the extreme You are welcomed to adjust your perception of Normality

AP ED

In UK local authority politics, the term prejudicial interest (PI) is used to describe the situation whereby a councillor has an interest in a topic under debate that may affect their ability to fairly and objectively consider the subject. Prejudicial interest is used in conjunction with Conflict of interest (COI) and is less widely defined with more far-reaching consequences.

The negative aspects of these precautions that follow are a reminder of what contemporary assumptions must, in a utopian society, be transformed. In the modern world, these precautions are more than balanced by their utitilty against the presence of unegalitarian distribution of power into powerful cabals. In the few cases in which 'prejudicial interest' and like concepts work against revolutionary ideals, then the arguments stand.

Left unstated, but required as a presumption, is that interest not only may have an affect but that it will. If it were, then the offense could be prosecuted, but for purely pragmatic reasons and not ones with legal basis, the crime of pursuing interest to one's advantage, which may be problematic to prove, is replaced with a standard which shifts the complications to compliance. In the case of prejudicial interest as it currently has potential to be practiced, the complications could conceivably extend to making compliance completely untenable, as every politician has an interest, and their interest, which is in fact the only reason for them being politicians, could theoretically be disallowed.

PI and COI are thoughtcrimes and worse, in that they require a presumption, however studiously ignored or obfuscated, not only that motivation to do a thing will result in it being done, but that base motivation will be in the ascendant.

The inequalities that PI and COI seek to address are systemic. In an egalitarian society, there can be no such thing as conflict of interest, so the real cure is to not have the disease in the first place. PI and COI are ad hominem arguments, which presume that motivations of their targets (in this case, assumed motivations) are relevant to their actions (in this case, potential actions). Ad hominem is rightly denounced by logic, and it is not good policy in Law (where it is used to gather Character evidence), or in politics either. It may be, in the short term at least, of strategic advantage to justice to implement these restrictions, but it is not ethical in the strictest sense, and must be considered carefully in the same way as the use of violence or other unethical means, to determine whether it can achieve ends of greater value.

The Standards Board for England (SBE) sets standards for and investigates allegations of undeclared prejudicial interests. A councillor discussing a contract application from a company in which he or she has an interest would need to declare a prejudicial interest; if the councillor themselves did not have an interest, but a family member or associate did, the councillor would need to declare a Conflict of interest instead. Councillors must declare their interest prior to discussions or votes, and in the case of prejudicial interests, must leave the room for the duration of the discussion or vote, except in the case of and discussions in which members of the public may participate, in which case the councillor may participate to the full extent that members of the public are allowed.

Any citizen can make an allegation of an undeclared prejudicial interest. The SBE investigates reactively rather than proactively. They can only investigate the offence once it has taken place, and cannot intervene to prevent the commission of the offence.

This is somewhat ironic, since the focus of both Conflict of interest and prejudicial interest is already one of assumption, if not precognition; the law requires for its basis an assumption that wrongdoing will be done because it can be and there is motivation, without any proof that it in fact will. Presumably, to collar a councillor before they stand up to speak in a way that is presumed would be illegal before they actually speak was considered a little too much.

A Code of Practice, enforced by the SBE, governs councillors and other local authority members in England. The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales carries out the equivalent function. The Standards Commission for Scotland does likewise, also regulating members of devolved bodies.