Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > East Renfrewshire > LA/ER/480

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/ER/480 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Mary Montague of East Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/ER/480 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Mary Montague ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, paragraph 2.1 Integrity and Leadership, paragraphs 3.9 and 3.10 Gifts and Hospitality and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.8 Dealing with Planning Applications.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that the respondent should not have acted as master of ceremonies and accepted hospitality at the opening of new licensed premises in her ward.

4. The substance of the complaint was that, by accepting hospitality and playing a prominent part in the official opening of licensed premises known as Racasse and by making comments to the press about the premises being suitable for use by young families for morning coffee and operating as a restaurant in the evening, the respondent could be construed as having influenced opinion in favour of the application by Racasse for an extension of their regular licensing hours. The complainant alleged that, by her conduct, the respondent compromised her position as a councillor and as Chair of the Licensing Board. It is relevant to record, as a matter of fact, that at the date of the official opening, 28 April 2006, and at the date of receipt of the applications from Racasse, 3 May 2006, the respondent was a member of the Licensing Board but she was not Chair of the Board. She was elected as Chair at the meeting of the Board on 9 June 2006.

5. The respondent pointed out that the complainant was not present at the official opening of the Racasse premises and that she had rarely agreed with his version of events in the past, even in circumstances when he had been present. She claimed that he displayed a lack of knowledge of her expressed opposition to licensed premises at that location and said that, along with other residents, she is part of a small working group to action various anti-social behaviour problems, which include problems emanating from Racasse.

6. The respondent stated that she had not been invited to open the new premises or to act as master of ceremonies but that, along with other councillors, she had been invited to attend the official opening event. She had no interest in the company which owns the premises, Trinity Leisure Limited, and she attempted to attend events of every kind in her ward and throughout the Council area to help to build up good relationships with the Administration, or which fall within her portfolio of Council responsibilities. She did not comment in her response on the remarks which she was quoted in the press as having made about the premises but, by acting on the advice of the Depute Clerk to the Board (that her comments may be perceived as her having openly advocated a particular view on the applications in advance of the hearing) and withdrawing and taking no part in the consideration and vote on the licence applications by Trinity Leisure Limited at the meeting of the Licensing Board on 9 June 2006, it was reasonable to conclude that she accepted that she had been quoted accurately.

7. I did not consider it unusual for the respondent to have received an invitation to attend the official opening of new commercial premises in her ward. Invitations had been extended to and accepted by a number of community councillors and, according to the Monitoring Officer, the event had been attended by one other councillor. It was reasonable to assume that all of those present would have accepted the type of hospitality that, typically, would be associated with an event of this type. I found that the respondent accepted an invitation to attend the official opening of the Racasse premises in her capacity as a councillor and that it was reasonable for her to have done so, particularly in view of her ongoing interest in the premises and of the nature of her portfolio responsibilities. I also found that the respondent made the comments attributed to her in the 11 May 2006 edition of The Extra and, while I considered that it was incautious of her to have commented in the terms in which she did, I found that her attendance at the event and her general conduct did not amount to a breach of the key principles of integrity or leadership.

8. The licence applications by Trinity Leisure Limited were dated 2 May 2006 and were received by the Council on 3 May 2006. The official opening of the Racasse premises took place on 28 April 2006. In other words, at the date on which the respondent accepted the offer of hospitality (28 April 2006) Racasse was not an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council. Consequently, in relation to paragraph 3.9 of the Code, I found that the respondent did not accept an offer of hospitality from an organisation which was, at the time, an applicant awaiting a decision from the Council.

9. In considering the respondent's conduct in relation to paragraph 3.10 of the Code the view could reasonably be taken that the official opening was more in the nature of a "commercial" event than a "social" event. What I considered to be of more relevance was the fact that the respondent had an ongoing interest in the operation of the premises arising from the concerns of local residents and from her portfolio responsibilities and that she was the local ward councillor. In view of these factors I found that it was reasonable for the respondent to have attended the official opening and that, by doing so, she did not breach paragraph 3.10 of the Code.

10. The complainant alleged that the respondent had breached paragraphs 7.3 and 7.8 of the Code. These paragraphs relate to councillors' conduct when dealing with planning applications whereas the complaint referred to the respondent's conduct in relation to licence applications. While the respondent's conduct did not, therefore, fall to be assessed under paragraphs 7.3 and 7.8 it was reasonable to point out that, by accepting the advice of the Depute Clerk of the Licensing Board and taking no part in the consideration of the licence applications by Trinity Leisure Limited, the respondent acted properly and in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 7 of the Code.

11. In relation to complaint no. LA/ER/480, I came to the conclusion that Councillor Mary Montague had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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