Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Falkirk > LA/Fa/408

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/Fa/408 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor David Alexander of Falkirk Council

1. Complaint number LA/Fa/408 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor David Alexander ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular paragraph 3.14 which governs Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee.

3. The person complaining, Councillor Dennis Goldie ("the complainant") alleged that during the full Council meeting held on 8 February 2006 the respondent spoke in a manner which was disrespectful towards him as an individual.

4. The respondent is the Leader of the Administration and Leader of the SNP Group within the Council. The complainant is the Depute Leader of the Labour Group.

5. On 8 February 2006 a special meeting of the Council was convened to consider the budget for the succeeding financial year and the capital spending programme to 2009. The majority of councillors were present, together with senior Council officers, representatives of the press, and members of the public. The meeting was held within the Council Chambers at the Municipal Buildings, Falkirk.

6. Agenda Item 2 related to the Council's capital spending over the next three financial years, including the construction of two non-denominational primary schools and a new Roman Catholic primary school. The capital spending plan proposed that the non-denominational schools should be completed in 2006/07, with the Roman Catholic primary school being completed in 2008/09.

7. The complainant - who is of the Roman Catholic faith and known by the respondent to be so - then stated that this was at variance with his previous understanding gained from a Policy & Resources Committee meeting when the respondent had indicated that the three schools would be built simultaneously. The respondent rose and stated that although the schools would be progressed together it would be untrue to state that their development would take place simultaneously.

8. The complainant then asked why the Roman Catholic school had been deferred to 2008/09. The precise terms of this question were not been recorded but council officers noted a reference to the Roman Catholic population having been put to the back of the queue.  It was alleged that in his reply the respondent used the term sectarian or sectarianism in relation to the complainant's questions.

9. At this point the Provost stood and called an end to the discussion, stating that religious sectarianism should not be introduced to the debate. The complainant and respondent both complied with this direction, and the respondent withdrew his comment. He made no direct apology to the complainant.

10. The accounts of the parties were at variance in regard to the specific words employed, and the degree to which the respondent's remarks were directed personally at the complainant. That the respondent spoke in reply to the complainant's question was not in doubt, and the content, as recorded by the two senior Council officers, was such as to introduce a reference to sectarianism. Clearly too the Provost recognized that an emotionally charged atmosphere had developed which could divert attention from the business of the meeting. Accordingly he intervened and gave an appropriate and effective direction with which both parties complied. It remained open to the Provost to use provisions in Standing Orders and I noted that he did not feel it necessary to do so.

11. The remark made by the respondent could not be divorced from the question posed by the complainant, and was therefore in part directed at him personally. The complainant was quite specific in his recollection that the respondent used the words "your sectarian rant", and emphasised his words by pointing at him. This was corroborated by Councillor Gow, who was sitting next to the complainant, but not recalled in such precise terms by the other witnesses. Using the officers' notes as my reference I noted that a) the respondent did not in fact answer the complainant's question; and b) that the words 'sectarian' or 'sectarianism' were used by the respondent. The evidence was thus - to some extent - conflicting on the language used although I considered the respondent did use the term "sectarian" when referring to the complainant's position in the debate.

12. The term is not in itself disrespectful but if used within a context which suggests that the other party is taking a sectarian, in the sense of bigoted or unreasonably intolerant, position that may be a different matter. In this case, it could be advanced that the respondent was simply voicing his own view as to the implication behind the complainant's question.

13. It is also appropriate to mention that the principle of freedom of expression - as set out in the Human Rights Act 1998 which applies the European Convention on Human Rights within the UK - is of fundamental importance in matters of public business and any restrictions must be narrowly interpreted and applied only where it is necessary to do so.

14. It is also worth pointing out that the Standards Commission - in November 2005 - issued statutory guidance on Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee which advocated the application of Standing Orders to deal with debates in the Council Chamber and advised that issues regarding disruptive behaviour should, so far as practical, be dealt with within the authority concerned.  In this instance, the Provost dealt with the situation in what I regarded as a reasonable and proportionate manner, and the respondent withdrew his comment.

15. In this case I considered that the language used by the respondent at the Council meeting, whilst intemperate, could not, having regard to the whole circumstances, including the political contention surrounding the debate, the limited language used, the freedom of expression, the Standard Commission's guidance and the Provost's handling of the business, reasonably be taken to amount to disrespect such as to be a contravention of the Code.

16. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor David Alexander had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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