Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeen City > LA/AC/446

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/AC/446 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Brenda Craig of Aberdeen City Council

1. Complaint number LA/AC/446 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Brenda Craig ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 5 of the Code of Conduct (Declarations of Interest), which provides, amongst other things, that it is the responsibility of a councillor to make decisions about whether they have to declare an interest or make a judgment as to whether a declared interest prevents the councillor from taking part in any discussions or voting. Whilst a councillor may feel able to state truthfully that an interest would not influence their role as a councillor in discussion or decision making, the test to be applied is whether or not a member of the public, acting reasonably, would think that a particular interest could influence the role of the councillor.

3. The person complaining, ("the complainant"), alleged that the respondent should not have participated in voting on several casino, (gaming), licence applications as she was a "member" of one casino involved.

4. The respondent's position was that she did not declare an interest at the meetings in question because she did not believe she had an interest to declare. She had last visited the casino in 1998 which was 6 years before she became a councillor. Following changes in gaming laws, she had subsequently been requested by the casino to provide new identification to validate her membership. She did not do so and considered her membership was no longer in force. She also confirmed that neither herself nor her family had any business dealings with any casino or other licensed premises in Aberdeen.

5. I found that the concept of "membership" being required for anyone to use gaming facilities in a casino was an historical one and was considered by many to be a somewhat archaic mechanism for gaining access to gaming facilities generally available to all adults. It was my considered assessment that such a category of "notional" membership could be clearly distinguished from individual membership of a club or society where members, in effect, have current ongoing rights and responsibilities of ownership and management. I considered it was this latter category of club "membership" which the Code was principally aimed at and which necessitated continuing consideration by councillors of the terms of section 5 of the Code of Conduct on Declarations of Interest.

6. There was no evidence before me that the respondent visited the casino after 1998 for gaming or any other social activities indicated as potentially available for all visitors to the casino, (some 6 years before she became a councillor). I also had no evidence before me that the respondent or any member of her family had any
relevant business dealings with the casino.

7. When all the circumstances were considered in context, it was my assessment that, on the evidence before me, the view taken by the respondent that she had no declarable interest, and could participate as an individual member in determining the licensing applications, was well-founded and reasonable.

8. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Brenda Craig had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
21 September 2006