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 > Dumfries and Galloway > LA/DG/184

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/DG/184 Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor William Scobie, Councillor Grahame Forster and Councillor Thomas Sloan of Dumfries and Galloway Council

1. Complaint number LA/DG/184 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillors William Scobie, Grahame Forster and Thomas Sloan ("the respondents").

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular provisions of key principles contained in section 2 relating to Duty, Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability and Stewardship, and Leadership; also rules of good conduct relating to Confidentiality Requirements contained in paragraph 3.15 of the Code.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant) alleged that the councillors publicly intervened in the disposal of a pier which was sold by the MOD to a charitable trust of which the complainant was a director. The charitable trust had bought the pier from the MOD under a private sale and in newspaper articles the councillors questioned the way in which the matter was conducted. The complainant alleged that the councillors used the matter as a political football; they attacked the integrity of the complainant and others. In doing so, they breached key principles of the Code of Conduct. Separately, he alleged that Councillors Scobie and Sloan breached confidentiality requirements laid down in section 3.15 of the Code.

4. It was clear from the evidence that all three councillors had a formal and active interest in the way in which MOD assets were to be disposed of, in particular the fact that the councillors had all been part of a steering group set up to consider the future disposal of MOD property in the area. Any sale which lacked transparency and appeared to have an air of secrecy surrounding it, was inevitably going to attract comment and speculation.

5. For a period in late 2004, public comment was made on all sides. For the most part, the councillors questioned the actions of the MOD in concluding the sale without bringing the disposal of the pier to the attention of local groups or agencies with a valid interest in such a facility. I did not consider that the councillors intervened to attack the integrity of the complainant; rather, it appeared they were trying to clarify the background to the sale and the actions of the MOD. I did not find that there was any breach of key principles of the Code of Conduct in their involvement in the matter.

6. The complainant had said that the purchase of the pier was used as a political football. The pier was located in the constituency of a sitting Conservative MP; however Councillors, Scobie, Forster and Sloan acted with a Labour MP from their own political party in commenting on and dealing with the matter. In February 2005, Councillor Scobie also made a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about the sitting MP which was not upheld. I commented that, in the months running up to a General Election, when both MPs were standing for the same constituency, the introduction of an element of party politics in aspects of the matter was less edifying. However, it did not amount to a breach of the Code of Conduct.

7. I did not uphold a separate complaint that Councillor Scobie and Councillor Sloan breached confidentiality in relation to proceedings of Dumfries & Galloway Housing Partnership. It was not relevant to the substantive complaint, nor did it relate to proceedings or documents pertaining to Dumfries & Galloway Council. I saw no locus for pursuing that matter and consequently I made no finding on it.

8. In relation to complaint number LA/DG/184, which alleged a breach of key principles in section 2 of the Code and a breach of paragraph 3.15, I came to the conclusion that Councillors Scobie, Forster and Sloan had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
16 September 2005

* *
*
© Standards Commission for Scotland 2002-08