Decision of the Hearing Panel of the Commission following the Hearing held at the Menzies Belford Hotel, Edinburgh, on 15th November 2005

• Panel Members
• The Complaint
• Joint Statement of Facts
• The Decision
• Sanction
• Reasons for Decision and Sanction
• Conclusion

Panel Members:

Mr Okain McLennan, Chairman
Mr Peter Donaldson
Mr John Dowson

In respect of a Report by D Stuart Allan, Chief Investigating Officer ("the CIO") further to Complaint No. LA/E/177 ("the Complaint") concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Maureen Child of City of Edinburgh Council ("the Respondent").

The Respondent attended the Hearing and was represented by Gordon Dalyell of Digby Brown Solicitors. The CIO was represented by Mr Jonathan Lake.

The Complaint

The Complainant was Councillor Ian Berry, City of Edinburgh Council. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent had contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, and, in particular, the provisions relating to the Use of Council Facilities set out in paragraph 3.17 which states:

"The Council will normally provide facilities to assist councillors in carrying out their duties as councillors or as holders of a particular office within the Council. This may involve access to secretarial assistance, stationery and equipment such as telephones, fax machines and computers. Such facilities must only be used in carrying out Council duties and must never be used for party political or campaigning activities. Where the Council recognises party political groups, assistance to such groups is appropriate in relation to Council matters but must not extend to political parties more generally and you should be aware of and ensure the Council complies with the statutory rules governing local authority publicity".

The CIO's Report ("the Report") was submitted to the Commission in accordance with Section 14(2) of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ( "the Act"). The Code came into effect on 01 May 2003 and the Commission accordingly had jurisdiction to hear the Complaint, as the alleged breach of the Code occurred after the Code came into operation.

The CIO's findings that Councillor Child contravened the provisions of the Code relate to the allegation that, Councillor Child procured the use of Council facilities to print copies of a leaflet on Edinburgh's transport strategy referendum which was of a party political nature and intended for public distribution, and therefore Councillor Child misused Council facilities and was in breach of paragraph 3.17 of the Code.

Joint Statement of Facts

A joint statement of facts was agreed between the CIO and the Respondent.

The Decision

The Hearing Panel considered all the evidence, submissions given in writing and orally at the hearing, and found as follows:

1. The Councillors' Code of Conduct applied to the Respondent.

2. The Respondent did use Council facilities for the production of a newsletter which was of a party political and campaigning nature.

3. The Respondent failed to ensure that the Council would comply with the statutory rules governing local authority publicity.

4. The Respondent did contravene the Councillors' Code of Conduct in relation to Use of Council Facilities as set out in paragraph 3.17.

Sanction

The Panel decided to censure Councillor Child but otherwise take no action. This sanction is made under the terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 Section 19 (1) (a) .

Reasons for Decision and Sanctions

In reaching their decision, the Panel had taken into account:

1. The Councillors' Code of Conduct in relation to the Use of Council Facilities is clear. "Such facilities must only be used in carrying out Council duties and must never be used for party political or campaigning activities."

2. There were alternative means of production and distribution of the Newsletter which could have been arranged outwith the Council.

3. Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1986 states clearly that a local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to a person for the publication of material which the authority are prohibited by this section from publishing themselves. The Newsletter that was produced was of a party political and campaigning nature and as such could not have been lawfully published by the Council. By asking the Council to print the Newsletter, the Respondent failed to ensure that the Council complied with the statutory rules governing local authority publicity.

4. That the actions of the Respondent constituted a breach of the Code.

5. The importance of high standards of conduct as outlined in the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000. The Panel concluded that the breach of the Code reduced public confidence in the City of Edinburgh Council and local government generally.

6. The report submitted by the CIO was fully corroborated by the supporting evidence submitted to the Panel

7. The submissions by the CIO's Representative that there was no deliberate attempt or intention by the Respondent to deceive or breach the Code and that there was no dishonesty involved.

Conclusion

The Respondent will be notified in writing of Section 22 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 which details the Right of Appeal in respect of this Decision.

The Panel determined that there be no award of expenses under Rule 13(1) of the Commission's Hearing Rules.