Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeen City > LA/AC/1009,1008,1019

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/AC/1008, LA/AC/1009 and LA/AC/1019 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor John Stewart of Aberdeen City Council

1. Complaints number LA/AC/1008, LA/AC/1009 and LA/AC/1019 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor John Stewart (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraphs 4.21 (Registration of Non-Financial Interests), 5.3, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17 and 5.18 (Declaration of Interests).

3. The persons complaining (“the complainants”) alleged that, after declaring an interest arising from his membership of Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future (“ACSEF”), the respondent should have withdrawn from the meeting of the Council held on 19 May 2010 and taken no part in the discussion and voting on an item relating to a major project for the development of the city centre named “Aberdeen City Centre – Developing a Vision for the Future.”   

4. The first complainant considered that the respondent had breached paragraphs 5.17 and 5.18 of the Code. The second complainant considered that the respondent had breached paragraph 5.3 of the Code and the third complainant considered that paragraphs 4.21, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17 and 5.18 had been breached.   

5. Paragraph 4.21 requires members who have relevant interests arising from their membership of various organisations to register these interests in the Members’ Register of Interests. The respondent had already registered his membership of ACSEF in the Register and was not, therefore, in breach of the Code in relation to this paragraph. Paragraphs 5.3, 5.9 and 5.10 relate to the requirement to declare certain interests. As the respondent declared his interest in ACSEF at the Council meeting on 19 May 2010 he had not breached these particular paragraphs.   

6. Paragraphs 5.17 and 5.18 deal with the effect of a declaration and it is these two paragraphs under which the alleged breach of the Code fell to be assessed. Paragraph 5.17 states that a declaration of a non-financial interest involves another judgement on the part of the councillor and paragraph 5.18 indicates that the conclusive test is whether a member of the public acting reasonably would consider that the councillor might be influenced by their interest in their role as a councillor. If the councillor is not confident about the application of this objective yardstick, he or she should play no part in the discussion and should leave the meeting room until discussion of the item is concluded. 

7. The minute of the Council meeting of 19 May 2010 recorded that, in declaring his membership of ACSEF, the respondent stated that he did not consider that his interest required him to leave the meeting. In responding to my investigation he further stated that ACSEF is not a company and that he had no pecuniary interest to declare.

8. In assessing the complaint it was important to understand the significance of the type of interest declared. Had the respondent’s interest been a financial interest he would have been prohibited by paragraph 5.16 of the Code from participating in the discussion and voting on the item. As the respondent’s interest was a non-financial interest, he was required (by the terms of paragraph 5.17 of the Code) to exercise the judgement contained in paragraph 5.18 as to whether a member of the public acting reasonably would consider that he might be influenced by his membership of ACSEF in relation to the proposals before the Council. 

9. It was the respondent’s view that, as ACSEF is not a company and as he had no pecuniary interest, a member of the public acting reasonably would not consider that he might be influenced by his membership of ACSEF in considering the city centre development proposals. It was also pertinent to note that the respondent was appointed to ACSEF by the Council itself.

10. I considered that the respondent would have had strong personal views on the development proposals for the city centre especially because of their major scale, their potential impact and the fact that, as Leader of the Council, he would have wished to steer the Council in a definite direction.  I did not consider that a reasonable member of the public would consider that his views would have been influenced by his membership of ACSEF or by ACSEF’s attitude to the project. Indeed, I considered that the public would have expected the respondent, as Leader of the Council, to make a significant contribution to the debate on this issue of considerable importance to the City of Aberdeen.

11. Having carefully considered all of the circumstances I found that:

a) the respondent was entitled to exercise the judgement afforded to him under paragraph 5.18 of the Code;

b) there were no grounds which required me to challenge the manner in which the respondent exercised that judgement; and

c) by remaining in the Council meeting on 19 May 2010 and participating in the discussion and voting on the report from the Chief Executive and Corporate Management Team entitled “Aberdeen City Centre – Developing a Vision for the Future,” the respondent did not breach paragraphs 5.17 and 5.18 of the Code.

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor John Stewart had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

19 August 2010