Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Aberdeenshire >LA/As/909

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/As/909 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillors Jim Gifford and Moira Ingleby of Aberdeenshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/As/909/JM alleged contraventions of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillors Jim Gifford and Moira Ingleby (“the respondents”).

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions on Use of Council Facilities set out in paragraph 3.17.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that the respondents breached the restriction on the use of Council facilities for party political or campaigning purposes by arranging and participating in joint surgeries with a prospective parliamentary candidate.

4. Paragraph 3.17 of the Code is specific in its terms in that it restricts the use of Council facilities to the carrying out of Council duties and prohibits their use for party political or campaigning activities.  In addition there are statutory rules which govern local authority publicity. 

5. The Standards Commission’s guidance reiterates the terms of paragraph 3.17 and reminds Councils and elected members of the relevant provisions of section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibit the publication of material designed to affect public support for a political party.  The onus is placed on Councils to ensure that assistance given to councillors to communicate with their constituents does not extend to campaigning activities.

6. This complaint centred on the use of two Council halls for constituency surgeries run by the respondents at which they were accompanied by a prospective parliamentary candidate.  The question I was required to address was whether the presence of the candidate was a material change amounting to party political or campaigning activity.

7. On the basis of the information available to me, including the written responses from Councillors Gifford and Ingleby, their expanded verbal statements at interview, the account given by the parliamentary candidate, and the advice (albeit erroneous) given by the Council itself to the respondents, I was satisfied that the surgeries in question were not prompted by any intention to overcome the restrictions of the Code.

8. In particular I noted that Councillor Ingleby sought advice and was clearly concerned that she acted in accordance with the Code.  Likewise Councillor Gifford had reservations about the attendance of the parliamentary candidate and was reassured by the advice given to Councillor Ingleby as to its propriety.  The respondents were not themselves legally qualified and I considered that they were entitled to place considerable reliance on the legal advice provided to them by a senior Council solicitor.  This did not completely absolve the respondents from exercising their own judgement however, and as paragraph 3.17 is clear in its terms, a more cautious approach would have been to exclude the parliamentary candidate from their surgeries and thus avoid any suggestion of party political activity.

9. Neither the respondents nor the parliamentary candidate appeared to regard the surgeries as being of a party political character.  I was informed that no political material was available at either surgery and that the candidate took no part in the interviews held by Councillor Ingleby (no members of the public attended the surgery held by Councillor Gifford).  The text of the press notices advertising the candidate’s attendance with the respondents contained no material which could be considered as being supportive of his candidacy or political party although it mentioned that he was the Scottish Conservative Westminster candidate.  I did not consider that these notices were overtly political in their content or could reasonably be construed, as suggested by another Councillor, as indicating the Council’s support or lack of support for the candidate or his party. The notices should not however have contained any reference to the candidate or his political party. 

10.  Given the passive role taken by the parliamentary candidate, the absence of any activity which might reasonably be regarded as having an overtly political or campaigning character, and the fact the respondents were influenced in their decision by, and relied upon, the legal advice provided by the Council which raised no objection to the candidate’s attendance,  I considered that the conduct of the respondents could not reasonably be taken to amount to a breach of the terms of paragraph 3.17 of the Code. 

11. I noted that the respondents had met the costs of the surgeries from their personal resources and this appeared an appropriate response to the concerns raised in Council and by the complainant.  The flawed legal advice had been brought to the attention of the Council’s legal officers and the consideration of the matter as a result of press publicity and the Council meeting, had ensured that the restriction on the use of Council facilities was widely known to elected members.    

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillors Jim Gifford and Moira Ingleby had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

22 December 2009