header
Standards Commission
About Us
Acts, Codes and Regulations
Guidance and Dispensations
Investigations
Hearings
Cases No Action
Frequently Asked Questions
Press Information
Contact Us
Links
Vacancies
Home

Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeen City > LA/AC/430

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/AC/430 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillors Scott Cassie, Katharine Dean, Alan Gowers, Leonard Ironside, June Lamond, Sandra Macdonald, Ramsay Milne, John Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart and Ronald Webster of Aberdeen City Council

1. Complaint number LA/AC/430 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillors Scott Cassie, Katharine Dean, Alan Gowers, Leonard Ironside, June Lamond, Sandra Macdonald, Ramsay Milne, John Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart and Ronald Webster ("the respondents").

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraphs 3.9 (Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality), 3.14 (Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee), 5.18 (Effect of Declaration of Interest) and 7.8 (Dealing with Planning Applications).

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that, in relation to a planning application from First Group PLC and GSS Developments (Aberdeen) Ltd ("First Group/GSS") which was considered at a meeting of the Council on 26 October 2005, Councillor Scott Cassie contravened paragraph 7.8 of the Code by advocating voting in a certain way. He also alleged that 10 other Councillors contravened paragraph 5.18 of the Code by virtue of remaining in the meeting and taking part in the vote on the application despite having declared an interest, namely Councillor Ramsay Milne (who declared an interest in Scottish Enterprise, Grampian) Councillors Alan Gowers and Sandra Macdonald (who declared an interest in Aberdeen Lads Club) and Councillors Katharine Dean, Leonard Ironside, June Lamond, John Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart and Ronald Webster (who declared an interest arising from hospitality they had received from First Group).

4. The complainant alleged that some of the hospitality received by Councillors Dean and Webster from First Group did not appear to have any connection with Council business and was accepted while First Group (in association with GSS) was awaiting a decision on a planning application from the Council. He questioned whether, by accepting this hospitality, Councillors Dean and Webster acted properly in relation to paragraph 3.9 of the Code. The First Group/GSS planning application was submitted to the Council on 7 October 2004 and was considered by the Council on 26 October 2005.

5. The complainant also alleged that, at the start of the Council meeting on 26 October 2005, a Councillor who he was unable to identify exhorted fellow Councillors to support the First Group planning application and that this action was a breach of paragraph 3.14 of the Code. He also alleged that, during the meeting, many Councillors were using their I-pod/Blackberry machines and paying no attention to any issues being raised in opposition to the application; he regarded their conduct as disrespectful. I considered the latter allegation to be not sufficiently precise to warrant investigation and, in any event, in the absence of clear identification of the Councillors involved I was unable to investigate either of these issues.

6. The complainant was acting on behalf of Hutcheon Low Action Group. The Group had been actively opposing a planning application from First Group PLC and GSS Developments (Aberdeen) Ltd ("First Group/GSS") for the construction of a bus depot, office complex and associated buildings to serve as the world headquarters for First Group PLC ("First Group"). It is relevant to point out that First Group recently announced that it had now decided to withdraw its planning application.

7. Councillors Scott Cassie, Katharine Dean, John Reynolds and John Stewart are Liberal Democratic members of the Council. Councillor Reynolds is the Lord Provost, Councillor Dean is the Leader of the Council and Councillor Cassie is the Convener of the Planning Committee. Councillors Leonard Ironside, June Lamond, Sandra Macdonald, Ramsay Milne and Ronald Webster are Labour members of the Council; Councillor Ironside is the Leader of the Labour Group. Councillors Alan Gowers and Kevin Stewart are SNP members of the Council; Councillor Kevin Stewart is leader of the SNP Group. Councillors Gowers and Macdonald have been appointed by the Council as representatives on Aberdeen Lads Club and Councillor Milne has been appointed as the Council's representative on Scottish Enterprise, Grampian.

8. First Group and First Aberdeen have historic links with the Council arising from changes brought about by the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989. This Act required local authorities to incorporate their municipal bus operations as arms length companies. This led to a management/employee buy-out of the former Grampian Regional Transport operation and, subsequently, the merger of the company which resulted with an English based operation to form First Bus, which is now part of First Group. As well as the usual school transport and local bus service contracts Aberdeen City Council currently has arrangements with First Group for concessionary travel schemes, fare cards for the Council's green travel plan and discounts for season tickets for staff.

Category 1 - alleged breach of paragraph 7.8 (Dealing with Planning Applications) (Councillor Scott Cassie)

9. That part of the complaint which related to Councillor Cassie alleged that he was seen and heard to be advocating voting in a certain way before or at the meeting of the Council on 26 October 2005 and that, as a result, he contravened paragraph 7.8 of the Code. Councillor Cassie denied the allegation and the only information which the complainant produced to support his allegation was a typed, unsigned note which he claimed had been sent to the Hutcheon Low Action Group by a councillor. The complainant was unable to identify the author of the note and no information came to light during the course of my inquiries which enabled me to do so. I was unable to accept information based on an anonymous note as evidence of Councillor Cassie's misconduct and no information which would support the allegation came to light during the course of my investigations. Accordingly, based on the information available to me, I found that Councillor Cassie did not advocate voting in a certain way before or at the Council meeting on 26 October 2005. In any event, it should be pointed out that a councillor is entitled to put forward his or her own position on an application at the time when the matter is being decided upon.

Category 2 - alleged breach of paragraph 5.18 (Effect of Declaration of Interest) arising from membership of outside bodies (Councillors Ramsay Milne, Sandra Macdonald and Alan Gowers)

10. The second part of the complaint alleged that Councillors Milne, Macdonald and Gowers contravened paragraph 5.18 of the Code by virtue of remaining in the Council meeting on 26 October 2005 and taking part in the vote on the planning application from First Group/GSS, despite having declared an interest arising from their appointment by the Council as representatives on Scottish Enterprise, Grampian (Councillor Milne) and Aberdeen Lads Club (Councillors Macdonald and Gowers).

11. At the date of the Council meeting on 26 October 2005, Councillors Gowers and Macdonald were aware that, if the planning application was approved and the proposed development took place, ALC stood to gain financially from the disposal of the land at the Sportsfield and that this would greatly assist the longer term financial viability of the Club. Councillor Milne was aware that the First Group/GSS planning application might be referred to the full Council and when Scottish Enterprise, Grampian, discussed the matter of a grant to the developer at their meeting on 1 August 2005, he declared an interest and took no part in the discussion. The planning application from First Group/GSS which was before the Council on 26 October 2005 was not a matter which related directly to Scottish Enterprise, Grampian and, in any event, the Standards Commission has issued a general dispensation to Councillors who are appointed by their Council as members of certain bodies, including Scottish Enterprise Grampian, to enable them to take part in the consideration and vote when matters relating to the bodies come before the Council.

12. All three Councillors sought legal advice on their position from the Head of Democratic Services ("the HoDS") prior to the Council meeting on 26 October 2005. They were agreed that the thrust of the legal advice was that they should declare an interest and that, in terms of paragraph 5.18 of the Code, it was a matter for the each councillor to decide whether to participate in the discussion and vote. They were not advised against participating in consideration of the planning application.

13. The Councillors' recollection of the legal advice given to them, including the fact that the HoDS had not cautioned them against taking part in the consideration and vote on the planning application, was consistent with the views which she expressed in her response. In relation to her advice in respect of membership of ALC she stated that, at the time, she had very little knowledge about the nature of the ALC's involvement with First Group/GSS. She was aware that ALC had an interest in land which was the subject of the planning application but she was not aware of the nature of their interest. In her view the main consideration had been the potential major development for the City, in terms of the economy and environment, against the relatively small matter of any benefit to ALC.

14. Paragraph 5.17 of the Code states that the declaration of a non-financial interest involves a further exercise of judgement on a member's part. Paragraph 5.18 indicates that the conclusive test to make this judgement is whether, in the particular circumstances of the item of business and knowing all the relevant facts, a member of the public acting reasonably would consider that the member might be influenced by the interest. If the member 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 particular item is concluded. If, in conscience, a member believes that his or her continued presence would not fall foul of this objective test, then declaring an interest will not preclude their involvement in discussion or voting.

15. It was clear that, in declaring an interest at the Council meeting on 26 October 2005, Councillors Milne, Macdonald and Gowers did so in the light of the specific advice from the HoDS and came to the conclusion that they could participate in the discussion and voting. It is important to emphasise that, in the terms in which paragraph 5.18 of the Code is drafted, it is for individual Councillors to apply and reach a decision on whether they satisfy this test.

16. Having considered carefully the information arising from my investigations I found that Councillors Ramsay Milne, Sandra Macdonald and Alan Gowers:

- declared a non-financial interest at the Council meeting on 26 October 2005;

- sought legal advice on their position from the HoDS on the terms of paragraph 5.18 of the Code;

- considered their position in the light of that advice;

- were entitled to apply the conscience test in paragraph 5.18 of the Code and form a view as to whether to participate in the consideration and vote on the planning application; and

- having considered their position concluded that they could participate in the consideration and vote on the planning application from First Group/GSS.

I also found that no information came to light during the course of my investigations which would cause me to challenge the judgement exercised by these Councillors in the application and determination of the conscience test in paragraph 5.18 of the Code.

Category 3 - alleged breach of paragraph 5.18 (Effect of Declaration of Interest) arising from acceptance of hospitality generally from First Group (Councillors Katharine Dean, Leonard Ironside, June Lamond, John Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart and Ronald Webster)

17. The third part of the complaint alleged that these seven Councillors contravened paragraph 5.18 of the Code by virtue of remaining in the Council meeting on 26 October 2005 and taking part in the vote on the planning application from First Group/GSS despite having declared an interest arising from their acceptance of hospitality from First Group. Five of the Councillors sought advice from the HoDS and the remaining two Councillors (Councillor June Lamond and Councillor John Stewart) were in close proximity to their colleagues and overheard the advice which was given to them. All seven Councillors were generally agreed that the thrust of the advice from the HoDS was that they should declare an interest and that, in terms of paragraph 5.18 of the Code, it was a matter for each Councillor to decide whether to participate in the discussion and vote. They were all agreed that they were not advised against participating in consideration of the planning application and some stated that they were advised that they could take part in the discussion and vote.

18. The HoDs concurred with the Councillors' recollection of the legal advice which she gave to them, including the fact that she had not cautioned them against taking part in the consideration and vote on the planning application. In relation to the acceptance of hospitality she stated that the Council expects to be represented at social and sporting events in the city and that she would expect councillors comfortably to accept hospitality from other organisations to the level provided by the Council at functions which it hosts.

19. As explained in paragraph 14 above, where a non-financial interest has been declared a councillor has to exercise a further judgement as provided in paragraph 5.18 of the Code to decide whether, in the particular circumstances of the item of business and knowing all the relevant facts, a member of the public acting reasonably would consider that the member might be influenced by the interest. If the member 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 particular item is concluded. If, in conscience, a member believes that his or her continued presence would not fall foul of this test, then declaring an interest will not preclude their involvement in discussion or voting.

20. It was clear from their responses that attendance at social and other events throughout the City and the acceptance of associated hospitality is regarded by Aberdeen City Councillors generally as part of their civic duty and is in accordance with the culture and practice of the Council. It was also clear that, at the Council meeting on 26 October 2005, the seven Councillors who declared an interest arising from their acceptance of hospitality from First Group did so in the light of the specific advice from the HoDS and came to the conclusion that they could participate in the discussion and voting. As explained above, it is for individual Councillors to apply and reach a decision on whether they satisfy the conscience test in paragraph 5.18 of the Code.

21. Having considered carefully the information arising from my investigations I found that Councillors Katharine Dean, Leonard Ironside, June Lamond, John Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart and Ronald Webster:

- declared a non-financial interest at the Council meeting on 26 October 2005;

- sought legal advice on their position from the HoDS, or were aware of the nature of the legal advice given by the HoDS to fellow Councillors, on the terms of paragraph 5.18 of the Code;

- considered their position in the light of that advice;

- were entitled to apply the conscience test in paragraph 5.18 of the Code and form a view as to whether to participate in the consideration and vote on the planning application; and

- having considered their position concluded that they could participate in the consideration and vote on the planning application from First Group/GSS.

I also found that no information came to light during the course of my investigations which caused me to challenge the judgement exercised by these Councillors in the application and determination of the conscience test in paragraph 5.18 of the Code.

Category 4 - alleged breach of paragraph 3.9 (Acceptance of Gifts and Hospitality) arising from acceptance of hospitality from First Group while it was awaiting a decision from the Council (Councillors Katharine Dean and Ronald Webster)

22. This aspect of the complaint questioned whether Councillors Katharine Dean and Ronald Webster contravened paragraph 3.9 of the Code by accepting hospitality from First Group which, at the time, was an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council. Councillor John Stewart also accepted hospitality from First Group during this time and while his conduct was not specifically complained of in relation to paragraph 3.9, in the interests of completeness, it was considered as part of the investigation.

23. The key objective of the provisions of the Code relating to gifts and hospitality is to avoid damaging confidence in individual councils and in local government generally. To achieve this requires adherence to the principles that gifts or hospitality should not be accepted where this would amount to (a) real or substantive gain to the recipient or (b) a reasonable suspicion of influence on the part of the councillor to show favour or disadvantage to any individual or organisation. Gifts of modest value and reasonable hospitality associated with Councillors' duties would not fall foul of these principles.

24. Where the individual or organisation offering the gift or hospitality is an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council or is seeking to do - or continue to do - business with the Council, then a councillor may - in accepting the gift or hospitality - fall foul of the principles, in terms of paragraph 3.9 of the Code. Where the nature of the hospitality does not strike at the two principles referred to in paragraph 5.18 then, as a general rule, the acceptance of hospitality from an applicant who is awaiting a decision from the Council or is seeking to do- or continue to do - business with the Council would not give rise to a breach of the Code.

25. It is also relevant to refer to paragraph 3.10 of the Code which specifies that a councillor must only accept offers to attend social or sporting events where these are clearly part of the life of the community or where the Council would expect to be represented. Where these conditions are met there is no prohibition on Councillors attending social or sporting events even if the invitation is from an organisation who is an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council or who is seeking to do - or continue to do - business with the Council.

26. All three respondents acknowledged that they accepted hospitality from First Group between the date on which First Group (in association with GSS) submitted a planning application to the Council (7 October 2004) and the date on which the application was approved by the Council (26 October 2005). The respondents did not seek legal advice on their position under paragraph 3.9 of the Code at any point and appeared either to be unaware of its provisions or not to have considered them.

27. In commenting on the provisions of paragraph 3.9, the HoDS pointed out that First Group has ongoing contracts with the Council to subsidise bus services or to provide specific services and, in a city where which has very little competition, if the provisions of paragraph 3.9 were to apply this would effectively rule out elected members from taking any part in the civic life of the city at which First Group were providing any level of hospitality. She conceded that the situation is different when one part of the company has submitted a planning application but said that she interprets paragraph 3.9 as meaning something more than attending civic receptions of a small monetary value where most, if not all, political groups are present representing the Council and where there would be a clear expectation that the Council would be represented. She feels that the prohibition in paragraph 3.9 would require hospitality of a higher monetary value or something much more in the way of an intimate reception where, arguably, "deals could be done."

28. Invitations to Councillor Deans to attend functions are generally addressed to her in her capacity as a Councillor and sent to the Town House. When she accepts invitations and receives hospitality she does so in her capacity as the Council Leader and not in a personal capacity. As Leader of the Council she receives and accepts many invitations to functions such as dinners, receptions and presentation ceremonies. Councillor Dean's view is that her attendance, and the attendance generally of Councillors, at charitable and social events is part of the social life of the City and it is expected that Councillors will accept invitations to such events. Councillors' attendance affords opportunities for informal networking with a wide range of business people beyond those providing the hospitality. She regarded her attendance at First Group's Safe Driving Awards Dinner on 3 November 2004, at which she presented awards, as much a duty as acceptance of straightforward hospitality. Having regard to the nature of this function and, in particular, to her position as Leader of the Council I considered Councillor Dean's acceptance of hospitality at this function as representing normal hospitality associated with her duties, as Leader, in terms of paragraph 3.7 (b) of the Code.

29. The second event at which Councillor Dean accepted hospitality from First Group while it was an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council was an Aberdeen v Rangers football match which she attended on 23 January 2005. The hospitality on that occasion comprised "brunch," tea or coffee, a seat at the game and drinks afterwards. Councillor Dean considered that her acceptance of hospitality at this event was no different from any other social occasion, except that it provided an opportunity to show visible support for the local football team.

30. Examination of the Register of Gifts and Hospitality showed that, during the period 2003 to 2005 Councillor Deans attended at least six major sporting events and five other Councillors were recorded as having attended similar events. The Councillors in question were drawn from all three major political parties represented on the Council and the hospitality was provided by a wide variety of organisations. This information indicated that Councillors' attendance at sporting events is regarded by the Council as an acceptable part of Councillors' duties. It is reasonable for the Council to expect to be represented at major sporting events associated with the City, by either the Lord Provost or the Leader of the Council but before accepting hospitality to such events consideration should be given to the value of the hospitality and to any particular circumstances pertaining at the time. It was somewhat incautious of Councillor Deans to accept hospitality of this value from First Group while it was an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council but I was satisfied that she did so in her capacity as the Leader of the Council and that the hospitality could reasonably be regarded as being associated with her duties. Her attendance would have been less open to criticism if she had attended the event at the invitation of Aberdeen Football Club and the hospitality had been provided by that organisation. Where Councillors, other than the Leader of the Council or the Lord Provost, receive invitations to sporting events it is not appropriate for them to assume automatically that they can attend in a "civic" capacity and they should ensure, therefore, that before they accept an invitation they can demonstrate that the event is associated with their particular duties, in order to avoid the risk of contravening the Code.

31. I found that Councillor Deans accepted hospitality from First Group on two occasions while it was an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council. I also found that Councillor Deans attended these functions in her capacity as Leader of the Council and that the hospitality could be regarded as being associated with her duties and permitted in terms of paragraph 3.7(b) of the Code.

32. Councillor Webster attended four functions after First Group submitted its application to the Council and before it was considered by the Council on 26 October 2005. His former position as a shop steward convener with Grampian Regional Transport and the fact that he is the councillor for the ward in which First Group's office, workshops and garage are currently located, give him a particular interest in First Group and are likely to be factors in the number of invitations which he receives from First Group. One of the functions at which he received hospitality as guest of First Group was the Northern Star Business Awards Dinner on 29 September 2005. This event was organised by Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce to celebrate achievements in business in the Grampian area. As Councillor Webster is a member of the Council's Economic Development Sub Committee I was satisfied that the nature of this function was such that his attendance could reasonably be regarded as being associated with his duties as a Councillor.

33. The other three functions at which Councillor Webster accepted hospitality from First Group during the time it was an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council were in the form of dinners of different types. In addition to the factors referred to in paragraph 32 above Councillor Webster regarded these functions as presenting networking opportunities and as part of his role as a councillor.

34. I accepted that Councillor Webster has a particular interest in First Group and that he regards his attendance at functions hosted by the company as representing the Council but I was not persuaded that these factors enable his acceptance of hospitality at the company's Annual Dinner Dance on 24 February 2005, the Employee of the Year event on 9 April 2005 and a Meningitis Research Dinner on 10 June 2005 readily to be regarded as being associated with his duties. I was mindful, however, that the Council does not have a clear policy on the acceptance of hospitality and that there is a general perception among all Councillors that they are expected by the Council to represent it at major social events within the City. I was also mindful of the fact that the relationship between First Group/First Aberdeen and the former Grampian Regional Transport Department, and the ongoing close contractual co-operation with Aberdeen City Council in the provision of transport services and other initiatives, may have led Councillor Webster to regard attendance at functions hosted by First Group as being associated with his duties as a councillor. I also took account of the fact that, of all the Councillors who sought clarification of their position prior to the Council meeting on 26 October 2005, Councillor Webster was the most diligent in seeking legal advice from the HoDs, albeit not on his position in relation to paragraph 3.9 of the Code.

35. I found that Councillor Webster accepted hospitality from First Group on four occasions while it was an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council. I found that his acceptance of hospitality from First Group at the Northern Star Business Awards Dinner on 29 September 2005 was associated with his duties and in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.7(b) of the Code. In relation to the three remaining occasions on which Councillor Webster accepted hospitality from First Group, having regard to his interest in the company arising from his former employment with Grampian Regional Transport, the fact that First Group's current offices, workshops and garage are located in his ward, the absence of a clear Council policy on the acceptance of hospitality, the fact that Councillor Webster was diligent in seeking legal advice on those aspects of the Code on which he recognised he required guidance, the principles referred to in paragraph 23 above and the fact that the hospitality could not reasonably be regarded as amounting to real or substantive gain on his part, I considered that it would not be appropriate or reasonable to reach a finding that Councillor Webster had breached paragraph 3.9 of the Code.

36. Councillor John Stewart also attended the Northern Star Business Awards Dinner on 29 September 2005 and accepted hospitality as a guest of First Group while First Group was an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council. Councillor Stewart is a member of the Council's Economic Development Sub Committee and a Board member of the Enterprise North East Trust which provides support to businesses in the North East of Scotland. Councillor Stewart's position was similar to that of Councillor Webster in relation to his acceptance of hospitality at this particular function and I was satisfied that his acceptance of hospitality at this function could reasonably be regarded as being associated with his duties. For the avoidance of doubt had there been a complaint against Councillor Stewart that he had contravened paragraph 3.9 of the Code I would not have upheld it.

Conclusions

37. In relation to that part of complaint number LA/AC/430 which alleged a breach of paragraph 7.8 of the Code I came to the conclusion that Councillor Scott Cassie had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

38. In relation to that part of complaint number LA/AC/430 which alleged a breach of paragraph 5.18 of the Code arising from membership of outside bodies, I came to the conclusion that Councillors Ramsay Milne, Sandra Macdonald and Alan Gowers had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

39. In relation to that part of complaint number LA/AC/430 which alleged a breach of paragraph 5.18 of the Code arising from the acceptance of hospitality from First Group I came to the conclusion that Councillors Katharine Dean, Leonard Ironside, June Lamond, John Reynolds, John Stewart, Kevin Stewart and Ronald Webster had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

40. In relation to that part of complaint number LA/AC/430 which alleged a breach of paragraph 3.9 of the Code I came to the conclusion that Councillor Katharine Dean and Councillor Ronald Webster had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

Recommendations

41. It was apparent from my investigations that the acceptance of hospitality from a wide range of organisations is part of the culture and practice of the Council and that Councillors regard their attendance generally at functions hosted by other organisations as part of their duties as Councillors, as well as being a civic responsibility and an opportunity to play an active part in the business and social life of the City. Some invitations are received by the Economic Development Department and are allocated to individual Councillors by the Department's corporate management team but it appeared that, outwith this process, many invitations are accepted by individual Councillors without being assessed by a designated section within the Council to ensure that acceptance is not likely to contravene the provisions of the Code. In addition the Council did not appear to have any internal policy guidance for the acceptance of gifts and hospitality.

42. Accordingly, I recommended that

1. The Council should draw up and approve a policy for the acceptance of gifts and hospitality which:

a) takes account of the provisions of the Code of Conduct and Standards Commission Guidance and sets out clear criteria against which offers of gifts or hospitality should be assessed;

b) is based on the key objective of avoiding damaging confidence in the Council and ensuring adherence to the principles that gifts or hospitality should not be accepted where this would amount to real or substantive gain to the recipient councillor or a reasonable suspicion of influence on the part of the councillor to show favour or disadvantage to any individual or organisation;

c) requires a clear link between the function at which the hospitality is offered and the particular councillor's duties;

d) requires consideration to be given to the value of the gift or hospitality on offer;

e) has regard to the timing of the associated function, the organisation offering the hospitality and any relationship it has with the Council; and

f) sets out clear criteria for defining what can be considered as hospitality associated with representing the Council in a civic capacity.

2. A specific Department (such as Monitoring Officer's/Members Services') should be formally allocated responsibility for advising members and other Departments on policy and practice in relation to the acceptance of gifts and hospitality. In addition, the Council should designate suitable officers as the persons responsible for the general implementation of the policy and the assessment of difficult cases and from whom individual councillors and Departments can, if necessary, seek advice and guidance in particular circumstances.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
15 December 2006
* *
*
© Standards Commission for Scotland 2002-08