Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Dundee City > LA/D/439

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/D/439 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Lord Provost John Letford and Councillors Julie Sturrock and Charles Webster of Dundee City Council

1. Complaint number LA/D/439 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Lord Provost John Letford and Councillors Julie Sturrock and Charles Webster ("the respondents").

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code in relation to Taking Decisions on Individual Applications and in relation to Declaration of Interests.

The complainant alleged that:

(1) Despite not being present for the full duration of the hearing by the Licensing Committee of the complainant's application for an HMO licence in respect of 10A Westfield Place Dundee on 2 March 2006 Lord Provost John Letford considered and voted on his application; and

(2) At the same meeting Councillors Julia Sturrock and Charles Webster considered and voted on his application, despite each having a non-financial interest by virtue of their relationship with objectors to the application, which same interest had been acknowledged and declared at previous meetings of the Licensing Committee.

3. The First Complaint

3.1 At interview the complainant confirmed that with the benefit of hindsight he realised that, while Lord Provost Letford may have missed some business preceding the consideration of his HMO application on 2 March, the Lord Provost had been in attendance for the whole of that item. Both officers interviewed who were in attendance gave a detailed account of the Lord Provost's arrival in the Chamber by reference to the timing of agenda items, all of which confirmed that he did not miss any part of the consideration of item 17. The officers were also able to confirm that guidance had been given to members reminding them that if they left during discussion of an item or missed part of the debate they would not be able to participate in the subsequent decision making process. As the Lord Provost is an experienced member they thought it likely that he would have been well aware of this requirement. They cited instances where officers had proactively intervened to remind members who had missed or part missed items that they should not thereafter vote, indicating that if the Provost had been absent he would have been marked 'out' and his attention drawn to his absence should he have attempted to participate in any decision making. In light of the evidence provided by the officers in attendance at the Licensing Committee meeting on 2 March I found that there was no contravention of section 7 of the Code by Lord Provost Letford.

4. The Second Complaint

4.1 Paragraph 5.13 of the Councillors' Code of Conduct directs councillors to take account of the interests 'both financial and non-financial of relatives and close friends' and to be aware that these may need to be declared so as to meet the standards of transparency required by the Code. Paragraphs 5.2, 5.10 and 5.18 suggest that if there is any doubt in the mind of the member a cautious approach should be taken and a declaration made. Given their inconsistent approach to making declarations in similar circumstances, it was perhaps not surprising that the complainant had cause to question the actions of Councillors Sturrock and Webster.

4.2 Councillors do not, however, inhabit a vacuum and in their everyday lives and particularly in the course of carrying out their duties, encounter many different people. As representatives of their communities they attract contact with others. These realities must temper their judgements when deciding whether a declaration of interest should be made.

4.3 On the basis of the information provided by Councillor Sturrock it would have been wrong to characterise her association with the objector as anything other than superficial. Coincidental shared circumstances brought them together more than a decade ago. They attended the same church. Their children attended the same primary school. Since then their common interests had long since diverged. As Councillor Sturrock observed, if she were required to make a declaration in respect of every similar acquaintance she had encountered over the years, she could not function effectively as a councillor.

4.4 In the circumstances I formed the view that it would not have been reasonable to expect Councillor Sturrock to declare a non-financial interest when the complainant's HMO application was heard by the Licensing Committee on 2 March 2006. Careful consideration had been given to her position by Councillor Sturrock and she had benefited from legal advice provided by the solicitor to the Committee.

4.5 Councillor Webster's reason for initially declaring an interest arose from his sharing an employer with the objector. Again, it is inevitable that relatively large scale employers will provide a link between a range of people without necessarily elevating the association into a close relationship. In this case although the two objectors are employed in the same department, they do not work closely together, are not in the same 'chain of command', have infrequent contact and their professional interests lie in different aspects of their shared discipline. Councillor Webster is involved in a broad range of extramural activities included amongst which is lay preaching. As such he also comes into contact with a wide range of people on a fairly informal basis, the wholesale declaration of which would render unworkable the current system of local government decision making.

4.6 Again, I formed the opinion that looked on objectively it would not have been reasonable to expect Councillor Webster to declare a non-financial interest in respect of the complainant's HMO application when it was considered at the Licensing Committee meeting on 2 March. It was clear that Councillor Webster had carefully reviewed the nature of this relationship with the objectors having taken account of legal advice provided to him.

4.7 Realising that his change of approach might cause confusion, and concerned over the lack of transparency should he make no comment, Councillor Webster considered whether he should make some kind of explanatory public statement at the meeting of 2 March. In the event he did not. It may be, however, that on reflection the Council would wish to consider a procedure to assist members in dealing with similar situations should they arise in the future.

5. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Lord Provost John Letford, Councillors Julia Sturrock and Charles Webster had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
06 September 2006