Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dumfries and Galloway > LA/DG/819

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/DG/817 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillors Grahame Forster, Robert Higgins and Roberta Tuckfield of Dumfries and Galloway Council

1. Complaint number LA/DG/817 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillors Grahame Forster, Robert Higgins and Roberta Tuckfield (“the respondents”).

2. The complainant did not identify specifically the  parts of the Code which he considered had been breached but the nature of his complaint indicated that it related to the key principle of Honesty in paragraph 2.1 and paragraph 7.8 (Dealing with Planning Applications).

3. The substantive part of the complaint related to Councillor Forster. It alleged that he told lies and used deceit (about Drummore Harbour Trust and Drummore Harbour) to persuade members of the Planning Committee to vote in support of the Council promoting a Harbour Empowerment Order (“an HEO”) in respect of the harbour. It also alleged that Councillor Forster lobbied Councillors Higgins and Tuckfield for their support and that he fought to prevent the matter going to the local Area Committee for consideration.  All three Councillors were alleged to have sanctioned a public ballot that contained lies and misleading statements and Councillors Higgins and Tuckfield were alleged, generally, to have been “party to Councillor Forster’s actions.”

4. When the matter came before the Planning Committee on 11 September 2007 the Committee agreed unanimously to defer consideration of the promotion of an HEO to allow for full consultation with the community in Drummore. When the results of the consultation were considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 8 July 2008, Councillor Forster stated that he limited his comments to the results of the survey and argued that the Council should now enact an HEO. Based on the information available I considered that, while Councillor Forster was supportive of the Council promoting an HEO, there was no evidence to indicate that he resorted to lies or deceit to make his case and I found that he had not breached the key principle of Honesty in paragraph 2.1 of the Code.

5. The Code prohibits the lobbying of one councillor by another in relation to planning applications, planning agreements or enforcement action. Councillor Forster denied that he lobbied councillors for their support but, in any event, as the issues considered at the Planning Committee meetings on 11 September 2007 and 8 July 2008 did not involve dealing with planning applications the provisions of the Code in regard to lobbying did not apply. Consequently, even if Councillor Forster had lobbied other councillors in relation to issues relating to the Harbour, he would not have been in breach of the Code. I found, therefore, that Councillor Forster had not breached paragraph 7.8 of the Code.

6. An amendment, to refer the report on the results of the survey of the Drummore community to the Wigtown Area Committee, was proposed at the Planning Committee meeting on 8 July 2008 and defeated by nine votes to five in favour of a motion by Councillor Forster to promote an HEO for the Harbour. Councillor Forster opposed the referral of the matter to the Area Committee, but the actual decision not to refer to the Area Committee was a democratic decision of the Planning Committee and not a personal decision of Councillor Forster.  I found that Councillor Forster acted competently in opposing the referral of the matter to the Area Committee and that he had not breached the Code in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

7. The complaints against Councillors Higgins and Tuckfield were that they were “party to Councillor Forster’s actions.” In the absence of more specific allegations I took this to mean that they were subject to the same allegations as those levied against Councillor Forster. Councillor Higgins stated that he was not at the Planning Committee meeting on 11 September 2007, that he had not discussed the issue of Drummore Harbour with Councillors Forster or Tuckfield and that he had no knowledge of the “actions” referred to by the complainant.

8. Councillor Tuckfield too stated that neither Councillor Forster nor Councillor Higgins had spoken to her about Drummore Harbour and that she had no knowledge of the allegations made by the complainant. She also pointed out that she was not a member of the Planning Committee.

9. Councillor Higgins seconded Councillor Forster’s successful motion to promote an HEO at the Planning Committee meeting on 8 July 2008, which he was entitled to do. That matter apart, I saw no persuasive evidence to counter his assertion, and that of Councillor Tuckfield, that they were not associated with Councillor Forster’s actions. Accordingly, I found that Councillors Higgins and Tuckfield had not breached paragraphs 2.1 or 7.8 of the Code in relation to this allegation.

10. All three respondents were alleged to have sanctioned a public ballot that contained lies and misleading statements. In fact it was the Planning Committee, at its meeting on 11 September 2007, that agreed unanimously to consult with the Drummore community. In addition, the documents which accompanied the ballot paper contained factual or explanatory information about an HEO and the four options on which the community’s views were being sought. The only part of the documents which could have been regarded as the expression of a view was the statement that if no action was taken the harbour would be likely to remain in its current state without improvements.  I regarded that statement as a reasonable expression of opinion which, of itself, did not justify describing the ballot documents, as a whole, of containing lies and misleading statements. Accordingly, I found that the respondents had not breached the Code in relation to this allegation.

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillors Grahame Forster, Robert Higgins and Roberta Tuckfield had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

04 June 2009