East West Rail complaint against Bedford mayor dismissed with 'no further action'

The original complaint was based on “allegations of corruption and unethical behaviour”, before being scaled down, according to a statement from the mayor.

He was absent from Bedford Borough Council’s extraordinary East West Rail meeting in May, after declaring both a local and pecuniary interest about the project.

His statement read: “Following public allegations about my interests relating to the East West Rail scheme, a formal complaint was made to the local authority’s monitoring officer.

“The original complaint included allegations of corruption and unethical behaviour. Those allegations were later withdrawn. The remaining complaint alleged that I’d failed to correctly register or declare my disclosable pecuniary interests and local interests.

“After considering the complaint, the evidence provided and the borough council’s agreed complaints procedure, the monitoring officer, in consultation with an independent person, concluded he didn’t consider there’d been any failure around my registration, disclosure or declaration of interests on East West Rail.

“No further action will be taken as a result, and I’ve been formally notified that the complaint is now closed. As the allegations were made publicly, I’ve been given permission to publish this outcome, provided I don’t disclose any personal data or information relating to a third party.”

The mayor’s absence from the debate on May 27 provoked a mixed reaction, although councillors unanimously approved an amended BBC response to the latest East West Rail consultation.

He later said he was advised not to attend because the proposed East West Rail route crossed land connected to his family, explaining that he “didn’t want that to become a distraction” during a meeting which “should rightly focus on the homes facing demolition and the wider disruption the scheme could cause in Bedford”.

Opposition councillors questioned the mayor’s absence, noting his administration’s long-running involvement in East West Rail talks and the commissioning of a report into alternative route options.

Liberal Democrat Goldington councillor Christine McHugh told the meeting it was “a great shame” the mayor wasn’t in attendance, saying: “East West Rail was a main plank of his election campaign.

“He’s led the relationship between the council and East West Rail, throughout the last three years. Indeed, he signed off the £40,000 for a study into alternative routes.”

Councillor McHugh asked for confirmation that the mayor shaped the council’s position on EWR, and had helped with the consultation response.

Environment portfolio holder and Independent Renhold and Ravensden councillor Nicola Gribble replied: “Mayor Tom has had little input. The main contribution has been from officers and portfolio holders. So no, he hasn’t.”

Former cabinet member and Conservative Shortstown councillor Sarah Gallagher is understood to have included the issue as a key reason for her resignation from the executive, acknowledging that she knew the mayor had a local interest in East West Rail, but not a pecuniary interest.

Opposition party concerns revolved around the mayor’s previous involvement in East West Rail meetings and discussions.

The council’s Code of Conduct requires councillors to declare certain personal interests during meetings. A local interest can include matters affecting a councillor, their family or close associates more than the general public.

A disclosable pecuniary interest is a stricter category covering direct financial interests, such as land ownership, employment or certain business links. Under national rules, councillors mustn’t participate in a debate or vote in this instance and would normally leave the meeting while the item is considered.

Knowingly failing to declare or register a disclosable pecuniary interest, without reasonable excuse, can be a criminal offence.