Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dumfries and Galloway > LA/DG/894

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/DG/894 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Councillor Alistair Geddes of Dumfries and Galloway Council

1. Complaint number LA/DG/894 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Alistair Geddes (“the respondent”).

2. The complainant alleged that at a meeting of the Wigtown Area Committee, the respondent showed disrespect and abuse of position by making unfounded and insulting accusations against him and his Company.  He alleged that, in so doing, the respondent breached the provisions of paragraphs 1.5 and 3.14 of the Councillors Code of Conduct.

3. The complaint concerned the condition of the Grapes Hotel, Whithorn.  At the meeting of the Whithorn Area Committee in October 2008, the Committee discussed whether to serve a section 179 Notice (UNDER THE Town and Country Planning Act 1997) on the complainant's company who were the owners of the building. In the course of the debate, Councillor Geddes made the comments to which the complainant and his company took exception. 

4. The complaint is set against a background of concern among local councillors about the condition of dilapidated properties in their area.  There is no reason to question that the condition of the Grapes Hotel was also a matter of concern to the public, as stated by Councillor Geddes, and that local residents' focussed their attention on councillors looking for answers.  The exterior of the building had continued to look dilapidated five years after the complainant's company had bought it.  However, in this case, the history of the Grapes Hotel while it was in Council ownership equally cannot be said to reflect much in the way of good maintenance or any remedial action regarding the building.  Councillor Geddes has said that comments which he made at the Area Committee meeting in October 2008 were justified and should be seen in context;   but the reality is that the context is wider than the condition of the property in 2008 or even the previous five years.  The complainant can also justifiably point to the period between 1992 and 2003 and the dangerously deteriorating condition of the building when it was in local authority ownership.

5. I had to consider, however, whether the complaint as made fell within the terms of the Code.  Section 1.5 is part of the introduction to the Code and states that councillors must observe the rules of conduct stemming from the law and the Code.  It is not, therefore, a stand-alone provision but is contingent on there being an allegation of breach of law or of the Code.  There is no allegation by the complainant of a breach of law, rather he has said that the crux of the complaint was the needlessly derisive and insulting way in which Councillor Geddes referred to him and his company in public at the committee meeting.  The complainant was not present at that meeting, nor was anyone from his company, therefore the specific terms of section 3.14 of the Code of Conduct did not apply.  It may well beg the question why it is right or fair that an individual or a body can be referred to in a disrespectful manner at a public meeting, so long as they are not present.  Nonetheless, section 3.14 of the Code only seeks to regulate the conduct of councillors towards the chair, their colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present at meetings.  It is not a catch-all which covers the whole range of councillors' behaviour or the circumstances in which that behaviour occurs.  Some might agree it would be appropriate if councillors adopted a more business-like and less contentious attitude when dealing with matters on a Council agenda, but that is not what the Code requires.

6. I should record that it is beyond question that the members of the Area Committee were entitled to decide to serve the section 179 Notice as and when they did.  While I recognised the reasons which led to the complainant feeling aggrieved by the comments made by Councillor Geddes during the decision-making process, and which were publicised in the press, the investigation has not established any breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.  The comments made by the respondent were inappropriate and – particularly given the context of the long period of local authority ownership – unduly critical of the current owners but they could not reasonably be taken, in all circumstances, to amount to a contravention of the Code.

7. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Alistair Geddes had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

19 January 2010