Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Edinburgh Council > LA/E/61&62

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/E/61&62 Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Ian Perry and Councillor Jack O'Donnell of Edinburgh City Council

1. Complaint number LA/E/61&62 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code"). The Code was issued by the Scottish ministers in terms of Section 1 of The Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

2. The complaint has been lodged by "A" ("the complainant") who alleged a contravention of the Code by councillors Ian Perry and Jack O'Donnell ("the respondents"). The respondents are elected members of Edinburgh City Council ('the council").

3. It was alleged that the respondents had acted improperly and or illegally in relation to their involvement in a decision to withdraw funding from Craigmiller Community Information Service ("CCIS").

4. The complainant did not allege a breach or breaches of a section or sections of the Code. He expressed the view that the law had been broken by the passing of a motion which abused human rights. Accordingly the matter was investigated against the background of the first key principle of the Code, namely duty. That key principle is set out in Section 2 of the Code in the following terms:

"you have a duty to uphold the law and act in accordance with the law and the public trust placed in you. You have a duty to act in the interests of the Council as a whole and all the communities served by it and a duty to be accessible to all the people of the area for which you have been elected to serve, and to represent their interest conscientiously."

5. The respondents have signed declarations of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which they have undertaken to meet the requirements of the Code.

6. The respondents were nominated by Edinburgh City Council as members of the Craigmiller Social Inclusion Partnership ("SIP") and inspect of Councillor Perry as a member of the Capital City Partnership ("CCP").

7. CCIS was a technical project which made an initial impact with regard to profiling of services. A difficulty arose including the raising of a Court of Session action by CCIS against Edinburgh City Council. Following a review of services it was decided that there was insufficient evidence that CCIS was continuing to make an impact in the relevant areas and the decision was made not to continue its funding. The Community Council chose to disaffiliate CCIS from their membership and this lead to a motion to the Craigmiller SIP Board on 10 December 2003 that CCIS funding be withdrawn. The respondents were present at that meeting as members of the SIP board but both abstained from voting on this motion on the view that this was a community matter. The motion to withdraw the funding was carried unanimously.

8. Edinburgh City Council is the accountable body in relation Craigmiller SIP and the Council Executive subsequently reviewed the SIP's decision and on 27 January 2004 held that all proper procedures had been followed. This view was in turn confirmed by a finding of the scrutiny panel on 17 February 2004.

9. The complainant also alleged that Councillor Perry blocked an application for funding made by CCIS to CCP in his capacity as Chairman of that company. CCP is a company limited by guarantee, it seeks to coordinate the efforts of various agencies involved in the social inclusion agenda. An application for funds was received from CCIS and was approved but never delivered. The grant was held available for a year but was never made because of uncertainty that CCIS could deliver the services in respect of which the application for funds had been made. The decision not to award the funding was made by the CCP board following the submission of various reports. The concerns of the Directors including Councillor Perry that CCIS would be unable to deliver the relevant services appear to have been justified and all proper procedures were followed in the making of the decision by CCP.

10. Having investigated the complaint, the complainant was advised that the matters raised by him did not amount to a possible breach of the Code and he was invited to submit any additional information, which he considered to be relevant. That additional information did not merit further investigation as a possible breach of the Code.

11. It was accordingly concluded that there was no evidence that any of the respondents actings amounted to or could have amounted to a breach or breaches of the Code in relation to this complaint and a finding to that effect was made.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
05 October 2004