Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dundee City > LA/D/647

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/D/647 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Lord Provost John Letford of Dundee City Council

1. Complaint number LA/D/647 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Lord Provost John Letford (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 1 (Introduction), section 2 (Key Principles), paragraphs 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4 (General Conduct), paragraph 3.20 (Dealings with the Council) and paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3 (Lobbying and Access to Councillors).

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) alleged that the respondent failed to reply to two emails sent to him, that he sent the police to the complainant's home threatening him not to send any more emails and that he contacted the Chairman of the Scots Guards Association by letter and put him in a position of alarm by threatening the biannual gathering of the Scots Guards.

4. The respondent stated that the first two parts of the complaint related to his activities as Lord Lieutenant of the City. He accepted that, in relation to the third element of the complaint which alleged that he put the Chairman of the Scots Guards in a position of alarm, he was acting in his capacity as Lord Provost and, therefore, as a Councillor but refuted the allegation that his letter caused alarm.

5. Having regard to the nature of the event and the evidence of the Monitoring Officer, I considered that the initial incident (the respondent's invitation to her Majesty the Queen to re-open Baxter Park) which prompted the complainant to send the emails to the respondent, occurred while the respondent was acting principally in his capacity as Lord Lieutenant of the City and not while he was carrying out his duties as a councillor. (In terms of section 1 of the Lieutenancies Act 1997, the Lord Provosts of the cities of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow are ex officio Lord Lieutenants of their respective cities). I also considered that the respondent's conduct in not replying to the complainant's emails and his referral of the emails to the police were matters which were consequential to his conduct while acting as Lord Lieutenant. As such both the respondent's initial conduct and his consequential conduct were, to the extent he was acting as Lord Lieutenant, not subject to the provisions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct and could not be investigated under the Code.

6. It was appropriate to point out that, whilst the Lord Provost's duties that day were principally in relation to his responsibilities as Lord Lieutenant, he would also have been acting – and would have been perceived to be acting – albeit to a lesser extent, as Chairman of the Council, who are the owners of Baxter Park . Had these first two aspects of the complaint fallen under the provisions of the Code I would not have regarded the fact that the respondent did not reply to the complainant's emails to be a breach of the Code. The first email was not in the nature of an enquiry from a constituent seeking information or assistance, to which one could reasonably expect a response. Rather it was a comment, in critical and somewhat offensive terms, based on the complainant's perception of the inadequate manner in which the respondent had introduced Her Majesty the Queen at the re-opening ceremony for Baxter Park . I considered that, given the nature of the email, the respondent was entitled to regard it as not requiring or meriting a reply. In this context it was relevant to point out that in a further email to the respondent dated 6 August 2007 the complainant stated that his first email was sent “purely as an observation,” suggesting that there was, in fact, no expectation of a reply on the part of the complainant.

7. The second email from the complainant consisted solely of a quotation from Robert Burns' poem “A Man's a Man for A'That”. As such it was not in the nature of an enquiry from a constituent. I considered that the respondent did not require to reply to this email and that, had the matter come under the Code, he would not have breached the Code by not doing so.

8. With regard to the visit of officers from Tayside Police to the complainant's home it was the case that the respondent drew the police's attention to the two emails from the complainant. The respondent stated that this was in accordance with long standing arrangements which he had, under which he refers threatening emails to the police. He stated that the procedure which he followed on this occasion was no different to other occasions. He claimed that the decision to visit the complainant's home was taken by the police and that he had only wanted the emails to stop.

9. Having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, to the fact that decisions about operational action ultimately rest with the police, had this aspect of the complaint come within the terms of the Code, I would not have found the respondent's conduct to have constituted a breach.

10. The final aspect of the complaint, which alleged that the respondent caused alarm to the Chairman of the Scots Guards Association as a result of a letter which he wrote to him advising him that he would not be attending the regimental gathering of the Scots Guards at Glamis on 8 September 2007 if the complainant was going to be present, related to conduct undertaken while the respondent was acting as a councillor and, therefore, fell to be considered under the Code. I examined the content of the respondent's letter carefully and I did not consider that, on any reasonable view, the content or tone of the letter could be regarded as likely to cause alarm. Accordingly, I found that the respondent's conduct in relation to this matter did not constitute a breach of the Code.

11. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation I concluded that Lord Provost John Letford had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

18 January 2008