Complaint no. LA/G/471 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor John Mason of Glasgow City Council

• Introduction
• Outline of the Complaint and the Response
• The Investigation
• Consideration of the Evidence
• Findings and Conclusion

Introduction

1.1 Complaint number LA/G/471 alleges a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code"). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

1.2 The complaint has been lodged by Councillor Irene Graham ("the complainant"), (Labour), who alleges a contravention of the Code by Councillor John Mason ("the respondent") (SNP). The complainant and the respondent are elected members of Glasgow City Council ("the Council").

1.3 Section 2 of the Code sets out the key principles upon which it is based which include:

Leadership
You have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example, and to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its councillors in conducting public business.

Respect
You must respect all other councillors and all Council employees and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.

With regard to Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee, paragraph 3.14 of the Code further provides:

You must respect the chair, your colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present within the Chamber during Council or Committee meetings or other formal proceedings of the Council. You must comply with rulings from the chair in the conduct of the business of the Council.

1.4 The respondent has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which the respondent has undertaken to meet the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

1.5 For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Iain A McLeod, Investigating Officer.

1.6 This report has been prepared for submission to the Standards Commission for Scotland in terms of section 14(2) of the 2000 Act. The report was submitted in draft form to the respondent for any representations.

Outline of the Complaints and Response

The Complaint

2.1 The complaint is set out in a letter from the complainant. The complainant alleges that:

"At a recent Full Council meeting of Glasgow City Council, councillors were surprised to see Councillor Mason sitting in the Lord Provost's chair shortly before the meeting was due to begin.

Council officers approached Councillor Mason to enquire what he was doing and were informed that he was engaging in a protest so would not be moving from the seat, preventing the meeting from going ahead. The specific complaint he had related to changes to Glasgow City Council's decision-making structures.

This action caused extreme disruption to Council business. Councillor Mason continually refused to move, even after the time the Council meeting was due to begin. When informed by Council officers that the police could become involved he refused to move. He indicated that if any police officer was to lay a hand on him then he would move. This of course suggests that he was only looking for publicity for his disruptive actions. Ultimately the meeting could only take place once an alternative venue was set up in the City Chambers.

This action, as well as blatantly disregarding the Code of Conduct, was a gross act of disrespect to the Lord Provost who chairs the meetings."

The complainant further alleges that it was entirely inappropriate that, on the day the Council was honouring Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden for his contribution to the city, including the Kelvingrove Art Gallery restoration, such an act should take place. She also alleges that, if it had been impossible for the meeting to take place due to the respondent's actions, this could have had serious implications for the asylum seekers housed in Glasgow, as it was necessary for the Council at that meeting to make a decision on the renewal of a contract in relation to Glasgow's current participation in the United Kingdom government's asylum seeker dispersal programme.

The Response

2.2 The response is set out in a letter from the respondent. The respondent agrees that the complainant's account of his actions on 29 June 2006 is broadly correct, but disagrees of her interpretation of them. He writes:

"The situation in Glasgow City Council has been that for a number of years the main committee of the council has been the Policy and Resources Committee which consisted of 29 members, 4 of whom represented the opposition. This meant that the opposition would always be defeated in votes but did always have the right to speak, question and force divisions. The Council's proposed new system is to replace the Policy and Resources Committee with an Executive Committee consisting of 16 Labour councillors and no opposition. It is the abolition of the four opposition voices and votes which is so undemocratic and which was the subject of my protest.

On a number of occasions we have debated and voted on the Council's new structures. However, I consider that these changes strike so much at the heart of democratic local government that I had to consider taking more action then just losing another vote.

I felt I was faced with the choice of defending democratic principles or following the Councillors' Code of Conduct. Whereas my preference would always be to support both, I felt that when it came to a contest between the two I was duty bound to do what I could to defend democracy in Glasgow. It was for this reason that I chose to breach the Councillors' Code of Conduct and occupy the Lord Provost's Chair."

The Investigation

3.1 To establish the background to the complaint, my Investigating Officer sought and received information from the Council.

3.2 Having considered the documentary evidence, my Investigating Officer proceeded individually to interview the complainant, the respondent and relevant witnesses. The interviews took place on 12 September 2006.

Consideration of the Evidence

4.1 Councillor John Mason has been a councillor for eight years and has been the Leader of the Opposition in Glasgow since 1999. Along with one other opposition councillor he now serves on the Executive Committee of the Council.

4.2 The political make up of Glasgow City Council is Labour 69, SNP 4, Liberal Democrat 3, Conservative 1, Scottish Socialist Party 1 and Independent 1. The complainant is a member of the Labour Party and the respondent a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP).

4.3 The background to the respondent's protest is that on 27 March 2006 the Policy and Resources Committee of the Council decided to introduce a new decision- making structure for the Council based on an Executive Committee with Policy Development and Scrutiny Committees. This decision was approved at the meeting of the full Council on 6 April 2006. The Chief Executive then prepared a report for the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee to be held on 30 May 2006, the purpose of which was to seek approval for:

1. amendments to the Scheme of Delegated Functions, Standing Orders and other procedural documents, and
2. changes to committees and working groups;
   to enable new decision-making structures to be established.

4.4 In his report the Chief Executive wrote:

"The main feature of the new decision-making process will be the reduction in the number of decision-making bodies. Apart from what might be broadly described as "quasi judicial" committees the decision making body will be the Executive Committee, which will meet fortnightly. In order to avoid the agenda for the Executive Committee being overloaded it is necessary to delegate more routine matters to officers and the proposed amendments to the Scheme of Delegated Functions seek to achieve this. In addition, it is proposed to increase the levels at which tenders may be accepted by officers.

The Standing Orders also require to be amended to accommodate the Executive system and, in particular, the call-in process."

4.5 These amendments to the Council's procedural documents and changes to committees and working groups were approved by the Policy and Resources Committee on 30 May 2006, and subsequently, on 29 June 2006, by the full Council.

4.6 As the proposed composition of the Executive Committee was sixteen Labour councillors and no opposition councillors, the respondent formed the view that this would lead to the opposition having no voices and no votes. He considers that the arrangements to "call-in" decisions are weak, since even if a decision is called-in by a Scrutiny Committee the Executive Committee can only be asked to reconsider its decision. (At the end of the summer recess, the respondent and Bailie Dr Christopher Mason, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, were both invited to join the Executive Committee.)

4.7 The plan to change the decision-making arrangements of the Council apparently arose from a desire by the Administration for more scrutiny of Council decisions. After considering a number of cabinet-style models the introduction of this new decision-making structure was decided upon. The respondent considers that this change is a way of strengthening the position of the Labour administration in the event of Labour having a greatly reduced majority after the next election.

4.8 All parties are broadly in agreement about the action taken by the respondent. In the words of the Monitoring Officer:

"My recollection of the events on 29 June 2006, this being the last meeting of the Council prior to the summer recess, is as follows:

The procedure for Council meetings in Glasgow is that members are asked to enter the Council Chamber prior to the start of the meeting, the Provost (as Chair) accompanied by the Deputy Lord Provost and the Solicitor to the Council (Clerk) then enter. All members rise, the Provost takes the Chair and the meeting proceeds.

Prior to entering the Chamber I was advised by my assistant clerk Mr Scott that Councillor John Mason (Leader of the Opposition) had occupied the Provost Chair and appeared to wish to remain seated as a form of protest. I asked Mr Scott to return and ask Councillor Mason to take his seat. Councillor Mason was not so inclined. I then went to speak to Councillor Mason. I pointed out that he was delaying and therefore disrupting the meeting and I asked him whether he intended to remain in the Provost's seat for a few minutes to make a point or for a longer period of time. He declined to answer my question. I pointed out to Councillor Mason that disrupting Council proceedings may give rise to a complaint to the Standards Commission. I then advised Councillor Mason that he would be asked to take his seat by a Council officer and if he declined then a Police Officer. In the meantime a decision was taken by the Lord Provost in discussion with the Leader of the Council to clear the Chamber. I then had a discussion with the Council Officer and the 2 Police Officers who provide Police cover within the Chambers complex. I advised them to accompany me when I spoke to Councillor Mason. I then returned to Councillor Mason, the Council Officer asked him to take his seat and he declined, the Police Officers repeated the request, he declined but said if one of the Police Officers touched him he would move. The Police Officer did not respond to that request.

The Banqueting Hall was prepared as an alternative venue and the meeting took place in that venue. The action by Councillor Mason having caused a delay of some thirty minutes.

Councillor Mason was always calm and polite during this incident and courteous with all the staff."

4.9 It appears that, as the respondent began his protest, he and one of his SNP colleagues distributed a short note setting out the background into his protest.

4.10 The respondent admits that he decided some days or weeks in advance of the meeting on 29 June 2006 that he would carry out his protest and that he did so in the belief that by so doing he would be contravening the Councillors' Code of Conduct. It appears that he remained in the Lord Provost's chair until about 3.15 pm at which time he became aware that the Council meeting in the Banqueting Hall was coming to a conclusion. He states that he did not expect the meeting to have to be convened elsewhere than in the Council Chamber, because he expected to be ejected from the Chamber. The respondent states that he did not make contact with the press in advance of carrying out his protest but that he was aware that representatives of the two newspapers which are usually represented at Council meetings were present. The respondent's protest was subsequently reported in The Herald and the Evening Times. I have established that there were no members of the public (other than the press) present at this meeting, but the respondent would not have known in advance whether or not members of the public were going to be present. The respondent has stated that faced with the same choice in future which he describes as "defending democratic principles or following the Councillors' Code of Conduct" he would breach the Councillors' Code of Conduct. With reference to the principle of Leadership, the respondent says he was duty bound to protest against what the Labour Administration were doing which was undemocratic and not maintaining and strengthening the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council. With reference to the principle of Respect, the respondent considers this is largely an internal attribute which is extremely difficult to measure from the outside. He also maintains he has shown respect to all individuals and their positions throughout the process.

Findings and Conclusion

5.1 The complainant alleges that Councillor John Mason contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of this Report, to the effect by attempting to prevent or disrupt an official full meeting of Glasgow City Council on 29 June 2006.

5.2 The respondent is an elected member of Glasgow City Council. He has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which he has undertaken to meet the requirements of the Code.

5.3 The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 and came into effect on 1 May 2003. The general principles set out in section 2 of the Code include the following

Leadership
You have a duty to promote and support these principles by leadership and example, and to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its councillors in conducting public business.

Respect
You must respect all other councillors and all Council employees and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times.

Paragraph 3.14 of the Code provides:

Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee
You must respect the chair, your colleagues, Council employees and any member of the public within the Chamber during Council or Committee meetings or other formal proceedings of the Council. You must comply with rulings from the chair in the conduct of the business of the Council.

5.4 Following the local government elections in May 2003 the constitution of the Council was made up of 69 Labour members (including the complainant), 4 SNP members (including the respondent), 3 Liberal Democrat members, 1 Conservative member, 1 Scottish Socialist Party member and 1 Independent. The Labour members have formed the Administration of the Council.

5.5 Following a recommendation of their Policy and Resources Committee on 27 March 2006, the Council - on 6 April 2006 - approved a new decision-making structure based on an Executive Committee with Policy Development and Scrutiny Committees.

5.6 The Chief Executive then prepared a report for the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee on 30 May 2006 seeking approval for amendments to the Scheme of Delegated Functions, Standing Orders and other procedural documents and changes to committees and working groups to enable the new decision-making structure to be established. The Committee recommended approval of the Chief Executive's report to the Council and this recommendation was due to be considered at the meeting on 29 June 2006.

5.7 The respondent was opposed to the new structure, particularly regarding the allocation of seats on the new Executive Committee (see Appendix G). He argued that since 2003 the Policy and Resources Committee had had twenty nine members of whom twenty five were Labour and four were Opposition; this he had considered unfair but it had been accepted. The new proposal was that the Executive Committee would consist of sixteen members all of whom would be Labour with no Opposition members; this was not acceptable to him.

5.8 In Scotland, the position in law is that local authorities have discretion (other than in certain specific areas) as to how they allocate seats on committees and outside bodies and they are not required to allocate such seats in the same proportion that reflects the political balance of the Council as a whole. There are statutory provisions that deal with the allocation of seats on committees and outside bodies - namely sections 15 to 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 - but those sections have not been brought into force in Scotland.

5.9 The respondent decided to make a stance against these changes at the meeting of Glasgow City Council on 29 June 2006, which meeting would be required to approve the recommendation of the Policy and Resources Committee to bring about these changes.

5.10 There is - to all intents and purposes - agreement among the parties as to what happened prior to the meeting in question. The Monitoring Officer had set out his recollection of events (see paragraph 4.8 above). I consider that this is a clear and accurate statement of what occurred and I therefore adopt his note as my findings of what took place at that time.

5.11 As indicated in the Monitoring Officer's note the Banqueting Hall was prepared as an alternative venue and the meeting took place in that venue after a delay of some thirty minutes. The respondent was not immediately aware that an alternative venue had been arranged and did not, in fact, attend the meeting of the Council in the Banqueting Hall.

5.12 The Council duly approved the amendments and changes (on a vote, by a large majority with four members against) and then approved the membership of committees (without division).

I also find that there were no members of the public other than representatives of the press present at the meeting but that the respondent would not have known in advance whether or not members of the public (other than the press whom he would have expected to be there) were going to be present. Members of the press were in fact present at the meeting and Appendix H sets out the reports that were published in the Evening Times on 29, 30 June and 28 July 2006 and The Herald on 30 June, 1 and 29 July 2006.

5.13 I also find that the respondent has admitted that he acted in the manner alleged, that his actions were premeditated, and that he would take the same action in the future if faced with the same set of circumstances. He has made no apology for his actions.

5.14 Essentially, all the decisions taken by Glasgow City Council relating to the new committee structures were openly and competently taken by the Council and the respondent could not accept these decisions notwithstanding they had been reached following a proper, legal and democratic process.

5.15 I have, therefore, found,

1. that the respondent disrupted arrangements for the holding of the scheduled meeting of Glasgow City Council on 29 June 2006 in the Council Chamber, City Chambers, Glasgow by occupying the Lord Provost's chair (the Lord Provost being the Chair of the Council) and refusing to move when invited to do so by Council officers and the police (all more fully set out in paragraph 5.10 above);
2. that as a consequence, arrangements had to be made to hold the meeting of the Council at another venue (namely the Banqueting Hall within the City Chambers) and that these involved a delay of some thirty minutes in the holding of the meeting of the Council, which was due to commence at 1.30 pm;
3. that the respondent was not entitled to occupy the Lord Provost's chair in the manner done and that there was no lawful justification for his actions in so doing;
4. that, accordingly, he did not respect the Chair, Councillors and Council employees and members of the public (being the press representatives attending) present by so acting.

As such he contravened the provisions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct set out in section 2 on Leadership and Respect and in paragraph 3.14 on Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee (see paragraph 5.3 earlier).

5.16 It is of fundamental importance that democratically elected bodies should be permitted to carry out their business in a proper and orderly way and this is reflected in the Councillors' Code of Conduct. In the case of local authorities, their committee and Council meetings are (other than in limited cases) also open to the public so that they can be informed as to the business and decisions of these authorities. The disruption of Council proceedings is an interference with the democratic process, particularly where the disruption is at the hands of persons who have themselves been elected to office and who, having signed a declaration to meet the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct, have nevertheless deliberately contravened the provisions of the Code requiring good order in the Council Chamber.

5.17 The complainant has further alleged that the respondent's breach of the Code is aggravated by the fact that it was committed on the day the Council was honouring Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden for his contribution to the city. While the complainant is entitled to take this view, I do not consider this to be a significant aggravation of the respondent's breach of the Code, as it was only the motion to confer the Freedom of the City on Lord Macfarlane which was being moved at that meeting. Similarly, the complainant alleges that if the respondent's action had prevented the meeting from taking place this could indirectly have had serious implications for asylum seekers houses in Glasgow. However, I have been advised by the Monitoring Officer that, if it had not been possible for the meeting to be convened, the Council would have entered into the relevant contract on an emergency basis or would have sought a short delay.

5.18 Accordingly, in relation to complaint number LA/G/471 alleging a failure by the respondent to respect the Chair, his colleagues, council employees and any members of the public who might have been present within the Chamber during a Council meeting I have come to the conclusion that having regard to the findings in this section of this Report Councillor John Mason has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan
Chief Investigating Officer
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
KY11 2UU
14 December 2006