Complaint numbers LA/SL/132 and LA/SL/417 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Daniel Meikle of South Lanarkshire Council

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

Introduction

1.1 Complaint numbers LA/SL/132 and LA/SL/417 allege 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 Complaint number LA/SL/132 has been lodged by Mr Tecwyn Thomas and complaint number LA/SL/417 has been lodged by Mr James Henderson ("the complainants") who allege a contravention of the Code by Councillor Daniel Meikle ("the respondent"). The respondent is an elected member of South Lanarkshire Council ("the Council").

SECTION 2: KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT
Duty
"You have a duty to uphold the law and act in accordance with the law and the public trust placed in you. You have a duty to act in the interests of the Council as a whole and all the communities served by it and a duty to be accessible to all the people of the area for which you have been elected to serve, and to represent their interests conscientiously."
Integrity
"You must not place yourself under any financial or other obligation to any individual or organisation that might reasonably be thought to influence you in the performance of your duties."
Accountability and Stewardship
"You are accountable for your decisions and actions to the public. You have a duty to consider issues on their merits, taking account of the views of others, and you must ensure that the Council uses its resources prudently and in accordance with the law."
Openness
"You have a duty to be as open as possible about your decisions and actions, giving reasons for your decisions and restricting information only when the wider public interest clearly demands."
Honesty
"You have a duty to act honestly. You must declare any private interests relating to your public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest."
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."

"2.2 You should apply the principles of this Code to your informal dealings with the Council's employees, party political groups and others no less scrupulously than at formal meetings of the Council and its committees and sub-committees."

1.4 Other parts of the Code which are relevant to the complaint are:

SECTION 4: REGISTRATION OF INTERESTS
"4.1 The following paragraphs set out the categories of interests, financial and otherwise, which you have to register. These are "Registerable Interests", and you must ensure that they are registered, when you are elected and whenever your circumstances change."

Category One: Remuneration

"4.3 You have a registerable interest where you receive remuneration by virtue of being:

• employed;
• self-employed;
• the holder of an office;
• a director of an undertaking;
• a partner in a firm; or
• undertaking a trade, profession or vocation, or any other work."

Category Three: Contracts

"4.15 You have a registerable interest where you (or a firm in which you are a partner, or an undertaking in which you are a director or in which you have shares of a value as described in paragraph 4.20 below) have made a contract with the Council of which you are a member:
(i) under which goods or services are to be provided, or works are to be executed; and
(ii) which has not been fully discharged.
4.16 You must register a description of the contract, including its duration, but excluding the consideration."

Category Seven: Non-Financial Interests

"4.21 Councillors may also have significant non-financial interests and it is equally important that relevant interests such as membership or holding office in public bodies, companies, clubs, societies and organisations such as trades unions and voluntary organisations, are registered and described. In this context, non-financial interests are those which members of the public might reasonably think could influence your actions, speeches or votes in the Council."

SECTION 6: LOBBYING AND ACCESS TO COUNCILLORS

"6.1 In order for the Council to fulfil its commitment to being open, accessible, and responsive to the needs of the public, it needs to encourage appropriate participation by organisations and individuals in the decision-making process. Clearly however, the desire to involve the public and other interest groups in the decision-making process must take account of the need to ensure transparency and probity in the way in which the Council conducts its business."
"6.2 You will need to be able to consider evidence and arguments advanced by a wide range of organisations and individuals in order to perform your duties effectively. Some of these organisations and individuals will make their views known directly to individual councillors or Council committees. The rules and standards in this Code set out how you should conduct yourself in your contacts with those who seek to influence you."
"6.3 You may be lobbied by a wide range of people including individuals, organisations, companies and developers. As a general rule, it is an essential element of the democratic system that any individual should be able to lobby the Council or a councillor. However, particular considerations apply when you are dealing with applications under regulatory powers such as planning and with matters of a quasi-judicial nature such as the determination of certain licence applications."

SECTION 7: TAKING DECISIONS ON INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS

"7.1 On questions which councillors have to decide on individual applications you may have to take account of different points of view. However, the legal responsibility for decisions will always be your own."

Dealing with Planning Applications

"7.2 As a councillor you may have to deal with planning applications. You may become involved in local cases as a ward representative, or you may be more actively involved in decision making as a member of a committee or at meetings of the Council which deal with planning applications. If so, it is your duty to ensure that development decisions are properly taken and that parties involved in the development process are dealt with fairly."
"7.3 To reduce the risk of planning decisions being legally challenged, in your dealings with planning applications you must not only avoid impropriety, but must at all times avoid any occasion for suspicion and any appearance of improper conduct."
"7.7 You must never seek to pressure planning officers to provide a particular recommendation on any planning application, planning agreement or taking enforcement action."
"7.8 You should not organise support or opposition, lobby other councillors or act as an advocate to promote a particular recommendation on a planning application, on a planning agreement or on taking enforcement action."
"7.9 It is possible that you may receive representations from interested parties in relation to planning applications. If you are a member of the committee which deals with planning applications, or if you are to attend a meeting of the Council to consider planning applications, and you wish to respond to lobbying by constituents or others by openly advocating a particular course of action prior to the meeting, you must declare an interest and not take part in any consideration of the application in question and you must leave the meeting room until consideration of the matter is concluded."
"7.10 If you propose to take part in the consideration of planning applications at a meeting of a committee or of the Council, you must not give grounds to doubt your impartiality. You must not make public statements about a pending application, to ensure that you are not seen to be prejudging a decision which will be made at the meeting where all the information required to take a decision will be available. You must not indicate or imply your support or opposition to a proposal, or declare your voting intention, before the meeting. Anyone who may be seeking to influence you must be advised that you will not formulate an opinion on a particular proposal until all available information is to hand and has been duly considered at the relevant meeting."
"7.11 If you have an interest, whether financial, non financial, or personal, in the outcome of a decision on a planning application, or a planning agreement, or on taking enforcement action, you must declare that interest and refrain from taking part in the consideration of the application."

1.5 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.

1.6 For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Mrs Anne Mahoney, Investigating Officer.

Outline of the Complaints and Response

The Complaint

2.1 The complaints are set out in letters and a complaint form from the complainants. The first complainant, Mr Tecwyn Thomas (complaint number LA/SL/132), alleges that when he and a companion went to consult Councillor Daniel Meikle at his surgery in regard to opencast mining plans for the Douglas Valley, Councillor Meikle adopted an antagonistic and ignorant stance. Mr Thomas alleges that in years of dealing with politicians, he had never been spoken to in the manner in which he was addressed on that occasion. He alleges that every comment by Councillor Meikle contained 'fuck' (the f--- word) at some point. When Mr Thomas was departing, Councillor Meikle shoved his head towards him and said, "You don't f---ing worry me Boyo, and you don't f---ing frighten me Boyo". In this context, the complainant considered the use of the word 'boyo' amounted to incitement to racial hatred. He complained that Councillor Meikle breached key principles of the Code of Conduct as enumerated in paragraph 1.3 of this report.

2.2.1 The second complainant, Mr James Henderson (complaint number LA/SL/417), said that he had seen reports in the media that Councillor Meikle had been convicted of acting in a racially aggravated manner towards Welshman, Mr Tecwyn Thomas, and that he had been fined in Lanark Sheriff Court for the offence. Mr Henderson complained that, as Councillor Meikle has a criminal conviction for racism against one of his constituents, this had placed him in the position of violating the Code of Conduct by failing to uphold, and act in accordance with the law and contravening other elements of the key principle of Duty contained in the Code of Conduct.

The Response

2.3 The responses are set out in letters from the respondent and his solicitor. The respondent alleges that Mr Tecwyn Thomas and his companion were members of a campaign of abuse and intimidation against him. They were members of a political protest group who had adopted harassment of the councillor as a tactic to further their own political agenda. Councillor Meikle said that Mr Tecwyn Thomas and Mr Thomas Cronin visited his surgery as representatives of Upper Ward Against Pollution seeking a declaration from him as their councillor to vote against a planning application that was before the Council. He advised them that their demands were out of order and he told them firmly in no uncertain terms to leave his surgery. Ignoring his instruction, Mr Thomas rose to his feet and said, "You don't frighten me", to which the respondent said, "and you don't frighten me boyo". Councillor Meikle said that the complainant had complained to the police of racial harassment. He stated that there was not a racist bone in his body and to infer so was a despicable act of malice. His solicitor, Mr Hugh Neilson of Harper Macleod, provided information contradicting the allegation that Councillor Meikle had a conflict of interest in his role as a self employed consultant.

The Investigation

3.1 To establish the background to the complaint, in November and December 2004 the Investigating Officer sought and received information from the Council. Investigation interviews were arranged in early 2005. While these initial enquiries were under way, it emerged that police enquiries into the matter were also being carried out which resulted in charges being laid against the respondent. It became necessary to suspend the investigation while court proceedings took place.

Consideration of the Complaints and the Response

Complaint LA/SL/132

4.1 Complainant 1, Mr Tecwyn Thomas, has explained that he is secretary of Upper Ward Against Pollution (UWAP), a group which was formed in October 2003 to object to Scottish Coal's proposal to deposit sewage sludge on sites in the Douglas area of South Lanarkshire. Subsequently, several planning applications were made by Scottish Coal to South Lanarkshire Council for opencast mining in the Douglas area. UWAP held a public meeting and, as secretary, Mr Thomas corresponded with elected representatives, including councillors, MPs and MSP's. In September 2004, UWAP was preparing objections to one of the opencast mining planning applications.

4.2 On 6 September 2004, Mr Thomas visited Councillor Daniel Meikle's surgery to discuss with him Scottish Coal's opencast mining proposals. Mr Thomas says he wanted to know where Councillor Meikle stood on the matter. He had previously written to and emailed the councillor but had received no reply. Mr Thomas was accompanied by Mr Thomas Cronin, who is secretary of Douglas Community Council and a member of UWAP. They went to Councillor Meikle's surgery, which was held at Douglas Primary School, at around 7.00 pm. Mr Cronin had a separate matter which he wanted to raise with Councillor Meikle. They were the first people there and, on going in, Mr Thomas asked Councillor Meikle why he had not answered letters or emails on the subject of the opencast mining, or attended Community Council meetings. In reply, Councillor Meikle leaned across the table and said he would "not answer any f---ing emails or letters" from Mr Thomas and that he was not allowed to pass comment on planning applications made to the planning authority. The meeting continued in similar fashion and barely lasted 10 minutes. Mr Cronin raised his topic and then Councillor Meikle told them to f--- off. As they left, Councillor Meikle came up to Mr Thomas and put his nose in his face and said, "You don't f---ing frighten me, boyo, and you don't f---ing worry me, boyo". Mr Thomas says he, in turn, replied that Councillor Meikle did not frighten him either.

4.3 Mr Thomas says he was flabbergasted and dumbfounded. He had never experienced anything like it in his life. As far as he was concerned, there was nothing between himself and Councillor Meikle to warrant this treatment. Although Councillor Meikle had stated that he was not allowed to pass comments on planning applications, Mr Thomas questioned whether this applied to Councillor Meikle because he is not a member of the Planning Committee.

4.4 When interviewed, Mr Cronin spoke about the general background to the matter and said that two public meetings had been held in regard to an earlier proposal to deposit sewage sludge on the site of former opencast mine workings. There had been a great deal of ill-feeling at both meetings, but no personal exchanges. Speaking about the background in regard to the new opencast mining applications, Mr Cronin said that views in the area were to some degree polarised. There were four villages affected, and how people felt about opencast mining would depend on whether they worked in or were associated with mining, or whether their village benefited. He explained that there was a Rural Communities Trust Fund which received funding by way of a levy on the amount of coal extracted in the area. Monies were disbursed to the villages, although not on an equal basis. Mr Cronin said that both he and Councillor Meikle sit as trustees on the Rural Communities Trust Fund.

4.5 Mr Cronin was unaware of any history of personal antagonism between Mr Thomas and Councillor Meikle. In regard to the opencast mining proposals, Mr Thomas had written to the Community Council and was visiting the Councillor's surgery at the suggestion of the Community Council. They had gone together, although Mr Cronin was intending to speak to Councillor Meikle on another subject. Mr Thomas had brought copies of his emails and letters and spoke first. When he asked Councillor Meikle why he had not replied, Councillor Meikle's response was aggressive and took Mr Thomas by surprise, such that he literally sat back in his chair. After he had gathered his thoughts, Mr Thomas spoke again to Councillor Meikle and they were both leaning in, almost nose to nose across the table. Mr Thomas asked Councillor Meikle, "Why won't you answer" and commented "It's your job" to which Councillor Meikle indicated, "I'll not be answering you". Mr Cronin said the councillor's language got worse and he felt that Councillor Meikle knew what he was doing and was using it to antagonise Mr Thomas. Mr Cronin then spoke to Councillor Meikle about the issue of unemployment that he wanted to discuss with the councillor. He said this was also cut short; he got a forthright reply and saw no point in continuing. The meeting lasted less than ten minutes. Mr Cronin does not recall Councillor Meikle asking them to leave, but does recall the Councillor saying "f--- off" several times. As they were leaving the room, Mr Thomas went first followed by Councillor Meikle and Mr Cronin last. There was an element of physical contact, just a bump, and Mr Thomas turned to face Councillor Meikle who said, "You don't frighten me" and Mr Thomas gave a similar reply.

4.6 Councillor Meikle sits as a member of the Labour Party who are the ruling group on South Lanarkshire Council. The day after the visit to Councillor Meikle's surgery, Mr Thomas wrote complaining about the councillor's behaviour to the Leader of the Council. In the letter, dated 7 September 2004, he said he had attended Councillor Meikle's surgery to discuss Scottish Coal's proposals for the Douglas Valley and to enquire why, as an ex-officio member of Douglas Community Council, the Councillor had not attended any of their meetings and given his opinion on the proposals. He had supported Labour all his life and there were many occasions when he had to deal with local councillors. In all his years of dealing with local politicians, he could honestly say that he had never been spoken to in such a manner. Every comment by Councillor Meikle had contained the f--- word. He had hoped to have a serious response to a serious proposition for the Douglas Valley; unfortunately, that was not to be the case and Councillor Meikle adopted an antagonistic and ignorant stance to both the complainant and his companion who witnessed the event. As they departed, Councillor Meikle had shoved his head towards the complainant and said "You don't f---ing frighten me, and you don't f---ing worry me". The Council Leader passed the complainant's letter to Councillor Jim Docherty, the Labour Group Business Manager, for a response. Before any reply to the letter was received, the complainant wrote again on 9 October 2004 saying he had omitted to state that what Councillor Meikle actually said was, "You don't f---ing worry me boyo" and "you don't f---ing frighten me boyo". The complainant said he had been advised that this constituted incitement to racial hatred.

4.7 Councillor Docherty replied to the complainant on 5 November 2004, indicating that, at the end of a particularly stressful day, Councillor Meikle had used language which may have been inappropriate. As far as the term 'boyo' was concerned, in the context described, Councillor Docherty said he did not think its use constituted incitement to racial hatred. However, he said Councillor Meikle was now aware of the distress caused and would refrain from its use. Councillor Docherty himself apologised if the complainant found the Councillor's behaviour inappropriate and said he was sure Councillor Meikle would be less inappropriate in future conversations. Mr Thomas said he regarded this as a sort of apology, but on behalf of the Council, not from Councillor Meikle himself. Had such an apology been forthcoming, this might have influenced his decision whether to take the matter further. Commenting on the fact that Councillor Meikle had kept referring to him as 'boyo', Mr Thomas said that words can be used in a way that is OK or not OK. He believed the main reason Councillor Meikle used the word was to provoke him into doing something that would have put him in the dock.

4.8 The complainant sent a complaint to me on 28 October 2004 and initial enquiries were carried out in November and December 2004. The investigation was sisted pending the outcome of the criminal investigation which had been commenced. In November 2004, the complainant had placed the matter in the hands of Strathclyde Police who confirmed on 12 January 2005 that Councillor Meikle had been charged with contravening section 50A(1)(b)&(5) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 alleging that he had acted in a racially aggravated manner intended to cause alarm and distress to Mr Thomas in that he swore and repeatedly referred to Mr Thomas as 'boyo'. The case was reported to the Procurator Fiscal at Lanark for a decision on whether to initiate criminal proceedings. Summary proceedings were commenced against Councillor Meikle who pled not guilty and trial was initially set for 3 May 2005 at Lanark Sheriff Court. The trial was then postponed until 24 August 2005 when Councillor Meikle was found guilty and fined £750.

4.9 Councillor Meikle decided to appeal and on 7 December 2005 his solicitor, Mr Hugh Neilson of Harper Macleod (being a new solicitor (and firm) from the solicitor who represented him at trial) confirmed that he had been given leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard in February 2006. Councillor Meikle's solicitor has advised that the decision of the Appeal Court appeared to be that the use of the word 'boyo' was not ex facie racist; but whether Councillor Meikle's conduct was racially aggravated was a matter for judgement by the Sheriff who had heard the evidence. After hearing representations from the solicitor that Councillor Meikle had committed no previous offence and that the level of fine imposed by the Sheriff appeared to reflect a more serious charge, the Appeal Court decided that Councillor Meikle's conviction should stand but his fine was reduced to £400. Following the decision on Councillor Meikle's appeal, the investigation was resumed. Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin provided information as set out in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.7 above.

4.10 Councillor Meikle responded to the complaint when it was first received. On 26 January 2005 he wrote saying that the complainant and his witness were, and continued to be, key members of an orchestrated campaign of abuse and intimidation against him. Both these individuals were members of a political protest group who had adopted harassment of the councillor as a tactic to further their own political agenda. Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin attended his surgery as representatives of Upper Ward Against Pollution seeking a declaration from him as their councillor to vote against a planning application that was before the Planning Committee for consideration. He advised them that their demands were out of order and against planning law and that he would consider their representations when the council considered all aspects of the application. Mr Thomas became agitated and verbally aggressive, saying for example "you are our representative and do as we say". Councillor Meikle said that he told Mr Thomas firmly and in no uncertain terms to leave the surgery as he had other constituents to see. Ignoring his instruction, Mr Thomas rose to his feet and said, "You don't frighten me", to which Councillor Meikle said, "and you don't frighten me boyo". Mr Thomas had complained to the police that use of the word 'boyo' was racial harassment. Councillor Meikle said there was not a racist bone in his body and to infer so was a despicable act of malice. He would defend any such charge.

4.11 Speaking during interview on 10 March 2006, Councillor Meikle said he accepted that his use of the f--- word during the meeting with Complainant 1 at his surgery was wrong. It was against a background that there was a cabal against him in his ward led by a former councillor. There had been plans for infilling an opencast site with sewage sludge and at a public meeting they had tried to discredit him. After the meeting, his jacket was spat on and had to be destroyed (there was no suggestion Mr Thomas was involved in this). Mr Thomas was at the meeting in Douglas and went 'high profile' after that. Mr Thomas chaired the next meeting at Coalburn and it was an 'anti Danny Meikle' meeting. Scottish Coal withdrew the sewage sludge application. Councillor Meikle said he did not attend the meetings on opencast mining and indicated to people that he did not want to pre-empt the planning application. Councillor Meikle does not sit on the Planning Committee. However, the Head of Administration said that a local councillor is often invited to speak to the Planning Committee about applications in their ward. In the event, Councillor Meikle did not attend the Planning Committee in respect of the opencast mining applications. He said that, in recent times, there have been threats made against him which have been reported in the papers and to the police who are conducting enquiries.

4.12 Councillor Meikle said that when Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin visited his surgery at Douglas Primary School on 6 September 2004, there were other constituents waiting. Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin came in with scoping documents about windfarms and Councillor Meikle told them he did not read these documents, he read officers' reports on such matters. When asked about his views on the opencast mining applications, Councillor Meikle said he could not express his personal views. He is Chair of the Rural Communities Trust Fund which gets money from coal, and he considered there might be a conflict of interest. After about ten minutes, he said he had other people to see and asked them to go. Mr Thomas said "You'll do as we say". They would not leave and he said 'f--- off boyo'. He then said, "What did you not understand, f---, or off boyo?". He opened the door and Mr Thomas came up to his face and said, "I am not frightened of you", to which Councillor Meikle said, "I am not frightened of you either". Councillor Meikle said there were people outside the surgery but none of them had mentioned overhearing anything of the interview. In the course of the police enquiries, he said that no-one who had been in the area had been interviewed, but he thought it unlikely that people in the vicinity would have heard very much. He did not highlight the presence of witnesses to the police at the time of their enquiries because he did not think the matter would be pursued as far as it was. He said that, at his trial he was only able to hear about half the proceedings, but neither the court nor his former solicitor called for witnesses who were there. In regard to his trial, he did not demean either the Sheriff or the lawyers, and he accepted the decision in relation to his use of the f--- word; but he could not accept the racist part of which he was accused.

4.13 During the investigation of the complaint, enquiries were made as to the position of witnesses. The complainant and Mr Cronin confirmed that some constituents who had come to consult Councillor Meikle were present in the vicinity of the councillor's surgery at the time of the incident. One man, Mr B, had since left the area. Two women and children were also in the waiting area. Councillor Meikle provided the Investigating Officer with names of persons, including the school janitor who was thought to be on duty on 6 September 2004. After enquiries to the Council, the Investigating Officer was informed that the named janitor was not on duty on that occasion; there was only a cleaner on duty that day and she had left the Council's employ more than a year ago. Two persons whose names were provided to the Investigating Officer were contacted. Mr Peter Smith confirmed that he takes football training on Monday evenings and he was at the school that evening, arriving just after 7.00 pm. He passes in and out of the hall which is approximately 10 - 15 yards away from the surgery/office. He did not hear any raised voices that evening, but there were times when he was in the hall and might have been unaware. Mr Kevin Chapman had gone to see Councillor Meikle about funding for the Gala Day and went there about the same time as Mr Smith. Mr Chapman was unaware of any incident taking place, but said he would be hard pushed to say that he was there at the time when the incidents described were happening. However, he could say that when he saw Councillor Meikle that evening, the councillor was quite calm and gave no impression that anything untoward had happened.

4.14 During interview, Councillor Meikle said he had been in the building trade and was accustomed to using bad language. While he agreed that his use of the f--- word was wrong, he did not class the word 'boyo' as racist. It is a word he uses regularly and he has never thought of it as racist. He uses it to address anyone, not just Welsh people, and he is not, himself, racist. In general, he supports opencast mining for the economy of the area which is in accordance with Council policy. His ward is in a mining area and it is identified as such in the Local Plan. He had been lobbied by workers in the industry but had received no letters from people against opencast mining. Councillor Docherty, who accompanied Councillor Meikle at interview, described him as straight talking and said he does swear, but he is not a racist.

4.15 Councillor Meikle's position was further set out in a letter of 10 March 2006 from his solicitor, Mr Neilson, who dealt with his appeal against conviction and sentence. Mr Neilson said his client continued to deny that his conduct was in any way racially aggravated. Two character witnesses had been led at his trial who spoke of the fact that Councillor Meikle swears and uses the word 'boyo' in his everyday speech, not restricted to his addressing people of Welsh extraction. The solicitor commented that, at his client's trial, the Sheriff did not categorise either of the witnesses as untruthful, confining herself to saying that she did not find their evidence helpful. One of these witnesses, Mr Stainthorpe, wrote directly to the Investigating Officer confirming his longstanding acquaintance with Councillor Meikle. He said he had helped the councillor canvass since he went into politics. He confirmed the word 'boyo' is constantly used by Councillor Meikle; the word was everyday language to his workforce who considered it a jocular term and no more. Mr Stainthorpe said he could have understood had Councillor Meikle been charged with breach of the peace for his choice of language, but never racism. The respondent's solicitor has also explained that further procedure to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is contemplated.

Complaint LA/SL/417

4.16 The complaint by Mr James Henderson (Complainant 2) was based on reports which he had seen in a journal and newspaper. He said that, according to these reports, Councillor Meikle was convicted on 24 August 2005 of "acting in a racially aggravated manner by repeatedly calling Welshman Tecwyn Thomas, a recent immigrant to Douglas, Lanarkshire, BOYO". The offence had taken place in Councillor Meikle's surgery in Douglas Ward, where Mr Thomas was one of the councillor's constituents. He was fined £750 in Lanark Sheriff Court for the offence. Councillor Meikle appealed and on 9 February 2006, the Appeal Court upheld the Sheriff's decision; although the fine was reduced to £400, the court threw out Councillor Meikle's appeal against conviction. In making the complaint, Mr Henderson alleges that Councillor Meikle failed to uphold the law and is now a convicted criminal. He had failed to act in accordance with the law and in the interests of the Council as a whole, since he committed the offence in his office as councillor for Douglas ward in premises owned by South Lanarkshire Council. Mr Henderson also alleges that Councillor Meikle failed in his duty to be accessible to all the people of the area for which he had been elected to serve, given that the offence was committed against one of his constituents who attended his surgery to express concerns over lack of response to letters (the complainant mistakenly said these related to the issue of dumping of human sewage).

4.17 Mr Henderson further claimed that Councillor Meikle is a self-employed Management Consultant and one of his clients is Scottish Coal who had brought forward the proposal to spread the sewage sludge. Mr Henderson (mistakenly) said that Mr Thomas had learned of this conflict of interest and gone to the councillor's surgery to demand a reply to his correspondence. Councillor Meikle had reacted angrily and swore at Mr Thomas repeatedly, before telling him to get out or he would throw him out. Mr Henderson considered that Councillor Meikle was not a fit person to continue representing the constituents of Douglas ward and this was his reason for making the complaint.

4.18 Responding to this complaint on Councillor Meikle's behalf, his solicitor has confirmed that the councillor acts as a Consultant only to his family business, as declared in his Register of Interests. Scottish Coal are not clients and never have been. The solicitor pointed out that in her Case (Appendix D) in regard to Councillor Meikle's appeal, the Sheriff gave a narrative of evidence given at trial by Mr Thomas (Complainant 1). She certainly did not say in evidence that there was a complaint of any conflict of interest on Councillor Meikle's part. The suggestion that Scottish Coal were a client of Councillor Meikle is a complete fiction. He has never acted as Consultant for Scottish Coal; he has never rendered them any professional services as Consultant or otherwise, and he has rendered them no invoices and received no payments from them.

Findings and Conclusion

5.1 The complainants allege that Councillor Daniel Meikle contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3, 2.1 and 2.2 of this Report. Councillor Meikle is an elected member of South Lanarkshire Council.

5.2 Complainant 1, Mr Tecwyn Thomas, alleges that Councillor Meikle - at a surgery on 6 September 2004 - adopted an antagonistic and ignorant stance towards him and that his actions breached the key principles of the Code of Conduct as enumerated in paragraph 1.3 of this Report. Complainant 2, Mr James Henderson, alleges that by behaving in a racially aggravated manner towards Complainant 1, and being subsequently convicted, Councillor Meikle contravened the key principle of Duty contained in the Code. Complainant 2 also alleges that the respondent had a conflict of interest regarding opencast coal developments in his capacity as a self-employed consultant.

5.3 The incident behind this case relates to a surgery at Douglas Primary School on 6 September 2004 held by Councillor Meikle for his constituents. In this connection I have found (i) that the surgery was arranged by and attended by the respondent in his official capacity as a councillor of South Lanarkshire Council (ii) that Complainant 1, Mr Thomas, and Mr Thomas Cronin were entitled to and did attend the surgery in order to discuss opencast mining proposals with the respondent and (iii) that the meeting between the respondent and Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin lasted from about 7pm to 7.15pm.

5.4 During the meeting itself I have found (i) that Mr Thomas had begun by asking the respondent to explain why the respondent had not replied to his letters about opencast proposals (ii) that in responding, the respondent replied "I wouldn't answer any of your f---ing letters, boyo" (iii) that repeatedly during the meeting the respondent swore at Mr Thomas using the words "f---" and "f---ing" in an offensive manner and that the respondent accepts that the use of these words was wrong; (iv) that the respondent on a number of occasions used the term "boyo" while addressing Mr Thomas, whom he knew to be Welsh, in an offensive manner (v) that the respondent's conduct towards Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin had been of an aggressive and offensive nature during the meeting and (vi) that the respondent then instructed Mr Thomas and Mr Cronin to leave, that there was a brief delay in their doing so and that finally there was a minor confrontation between the respondent and Mr Thomas where both said to the other they were not frightened of the other, or words to that effect.

5.5 After the incident, Mr Thomas wrote on 7 September 2004 complaining about the respondent's behaviour to the Leader of the Council as set out in paragraph 4.6 above, and his letter was passed to Councillor Docherty, the Labour Group Business Manager. Councillor Docherty replied on 5 November 2004 as set out in paragraph 4.7 above. No apology has been given by the respondent personally to Mr Thomas.

5.6 The incident led to criminal proceedings. In this regard I have found that the respondent was charged with a racially aggravated act, contrary to section 50A (1)(b) and (5) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, and was convicted after trial and fined £750 at Lanark Sheriff Court, as set out in paragraph 4.8 above. I have also found that the respondent appealed against conviction and sentence and that the High Court decided that the conviction should stand and that the fine - the fine imposed by the Sheriff appearing to reflect a more serious charge - should be reduced to £400, as set out in paragraph 4.9 above.

5.7 In this instance, the principal issue is whether the respondent's conduct at the surgery, amounted to a breach of the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

5.8 The meeting at the surgery between Complainant 1, Mr Thomas, and Councillor Meikle was set against a background of differing views among local people in regard to applications for planning permission for opencast mining. Councillor Meikle has spoken of being targeted and harassed by opponents of opencast mining; however, there is no evidence of any action by Mr Thomas to suggest that he was other than one of a larger body of people protesting against the prospect of more opencast mining in the area. It is clear that, during the meeting at his surgery, Councillor Meikle did explain some of the considerations in regard to planning applications which councillors must bear in mind. Section 7 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct contains provisions which inhibit councillors who may participate in the decision on a planning application from making statements which may call into question their impartiality. Although Councillor Meikle does not sit as a member of the Planning Committee, as Local Member he may well have wished to appear before the Committee in regard to the opencast mining applications, and it was open to him to reserve his judgement and not make his views known in advance of any particular application. Constituents, however, are entitled to make their views on matters known to their local councillor and that is a fundamental part of local democracy. Councillors should be in the foreground of leadership when it comes to hearing and listening to constituents' views. By doing so, they maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the Council and its councillors in conducting public business.

5.9 This was not a chance meeting or private encounter between the complainant and Councillor Meikle. It was a regular, timetabled meeting held by Councillor Meikle on Council owned premises where members of the public are invited to come and consult him as their elected representative. In these circumstances, individuals should be able to attend, confident of being given a fair hearing and reasonable treatment by their local councillor. On this occasion, the complainant was not given a fair hearing, and there was clearly a lack of respect for, and a failure to set a good example to, Mr Thomas in the way that Councillor Meikle handled the interview.

5.10 I acknowledge that it can be difficult for councillors in situations when there is strong local feeling, particularly where a balance has to be drawn between the impact of planning proposals on communities and the interests of the local economy. However, in public life, and while serving in local politics, it is inevitable that councillors will encounter and have to deal with such difficulties. In my view, the reception which Mr Thomas got when he visited Councillor Meikle's surgery was unwarranted and inexcusable. Councillor Meikle did, on that occasion, fail in his duty to uphold the law. He was less than accessible to two residents of the area where he had been elected to serve as councillor and, therefore, failed to comply with the key principle of Duty. I also consider that there was a failure by Councillor Meikle to uphold the key principle of Leadership in that his conduct was not such as to maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in his integrity as a councillor in conducting public business. He was not prepared to give a measured hearing and reasonable treatment to someone who had contacted him and his conduct towards Mr Thomas was disrespectful and offensive. In so acting, he failed to provide leadership and example and he let himself, and the office of councillor which he held, down.

5.11 I have therefore concluded that, having regard to the findings set out in part 5, and, in particular, paragraphs 5.3 to 5.10 of this Report, the respondent's conduct towards Mr Thomas by swearing at and being offensive to him breached the key principles of Duty and Leadership (but no others) and did not accord with paragraph 2.2 of the Code and, accordingly, that the respondent contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

5.12 In complaint number LA/SL/417, Mr James Henderson, Complainant 2, has made a further complaint to the effect that the respondent had a conflict of interest as a self-employed consultant but I have found this had no foundation. The interview between Mr Thomas and Councillor Meikle did not concern an application for permission to spread sewage sludge in the area. Mr Henderson was also mistaken in his allegation that Councillor Meikle acted as a consultant for Scottish Coal. Councillor Meikle had duly entered in his Register of Interests the extent to which, and the parties or bodies in respect of which, he acts as a consultant. This does not include Scottish Coal and his solicitor has confirmed his lack of any business conducted with that company. I have therefore concluded that there was not a conflict of interest on the respondent's part.

5.13 It is appropriate to make a further comment in this case. After consideration of all the circumstances of the case, and taking into account that Councillor Meikle has already been subject to criminal proceedings and disposal in the Court for his conduct on the occasion of his meeting with Mr Thomas and that Councillor Meikle has accepted his conduct was wrong, the Standards Commission may wish to consider whether it is necessary or appropriate in the public interest to proceed with a hearing of the case.

5.14 In summary in relation to complaint nos. LA/SL/132 and LA/SL/ 417 I have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the findings in part 5 and in particular paragraphs 5.3 to 5.11 of this Report, Councillor Daniel Meikle has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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