Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Glasgow > LA/G/751, LA/G/760

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos. LA/G/751 and LA/G/760 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillors Shaukat Butt, James Coleman, Aileen Colleran, Stephen Curran, Stephen Dornan, Archie Graham, Steven Purcell, George Ryan, Ruth Simpson and Bailies Hanzala Malik and Gordon Matheson of Glasgow City Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/G/751 And LA/G/760 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillors Shaukat Butt, James Coleman, Aileen Colleran, Stephen Curran, Stephen Dornan, Archie Graham, Steven Purcell, George Ryan, Ruth Simpson and Bailies Hanzala Malik and Gordon Matheson (“the respondents”).

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular, the provisions set out in section 2 on Duty, Integrity, Accountability and Stewardship, Openness and Honesty, paragraph 3.3 and Annex C relating to Relationship with Council Employees, paragraph 3.17 relating to Use of Council Facilities, section 5 relating to Declaration of Interests, paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 relating to Non-Financial Interests and paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 relating to Lobbying and Access to Councillors.

3. The (2) persons complaining (“the complainants”) alleged that, in relation to the Council’s proposals for acquiring the lease of properties at Shipbank Lane (commonly known as Paddy’s Market), Bailie Gordon Matheson failed to correct information which he knew to be inaccurate in a report to the Executive Committee on 20 March 2008, made inaccurate statements, publicly vilified tenants of the Market, failed to involve them in discussions about the future of the Market, did not have regard to alternative proposals by the tenants for the future of the Market and, by acting as the lead councillor in matters relating to the future of the Market, denied the tenants their democratic right to lobby other councillors. The complainants also alleged that Councillor George Ryan misled the public and may have attempted to put pressure on the Executive Committee by presenting a report to the Committee which was factually incorrect and by making inaccurate statements in the press. More generally the complainants alleged that all 11 councillors failed to declare an interest when a report on the future of Paddy’s Market was considered by the Executive Committee on 20 March 2008. The second complainant alleged, in addition, that Bailie Matheson and Councillor Ryan used Council facilities inappropriately, for party political purposes.

4. The substantive parts of the complaints contained numerous individual allegations against Bailie Matheson. The allegations that he made inaccurate statements about the Market were considered collectively for the purpose of assessing them under the Code. One of the key allegations was that he was aware of inaccuracies in the report on the Market which was submitted to the Executive Committee on 20 March 2008. The alleged inaccuracies related to two points. Firstly, that the purpose of the report was to obtain the Committee’s approval for officers to commence formal negotiations with Network Rail for the acquisition of the lease of the Market when, in fact, negotiations with Network Rail had been on-going for some time.  Secondly, that the view expressed in the report that discussions with Network Rail had indicated that it should be possible for the Council to secure the lease of the Market at a rental considerably below that charged to existing tenants, was not based in fact.

5. There were several points to be made regarding these allegations. Firstly, the report to the Executive Committee was prepared by the Director of Development. Consequently, responsibility for the accuracy of the content of the report rested with the Director and not with any councillor. Secondly, while Bailie Matheson was involved in discussions with Network Rail prior to the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Council on 20 March 2008 about the possibility of the Council taking over the lease of the Market he was not involved in the negotiations on the terms of the lease, which were undertaken subsequently by officers of the Council.

6. Thirdly, Bailie Matheson’s statement about the rental value of the lease was based on comments in the report which were in the nature of an expression of opinion or an expectation rather than an absolute statement of fact. (The Council had made it clear from the outset that it would be expecting a significant discount and this was achieved in the final agreement with Network Rail). Lastly, the fact that Bailie Matheson was in a position to make this statement on 14 March 2008 was due to the fact that the pre-agenda meeting took place on that date and, in accordance with the Council’s practice, the associated papers for the Executive Committee meeting on 20 March 2008 were released to the press.

7. The complaints also alleged that Bailie Matheson made a number of other inaccurate statements in relation to issues such as an undertaking by Network Rail to provide the tenants with alternative accommodation, the high level of crime associated with the markets area and whether the tenants had obtained licences to trade. Some of the statements (especially those relating to the level of crime in the markets area) were alleged to have vilified the Market tenants. Bailie Matheson denied the allegations and stated that his statements were based on information contained in the report which was submitted to the Executive Committee of the Council on 20 March 2008 or on information obtained from meetings which had taken place with various agencies regarding the future of the Market. He claimed that his statements relating to the level of crime in the markets area were based on statistics from Strathclyde Police, Glasgow Community and Safety Services Limited (“GCSS”), Trading Standards officers and other sources and that other statements made by him were based on information obtained from meetings which had taken place with various agencies regarding the future of the Market. The Assistant Solicitor to the Council confirmed that Strathclyde Police and GCSS were the main sources for crime statistics and information on anti-social behaviour.

8. In assessing this aspect of the complaint it was relevant to point out that discussions between the Council and Network Rail, and with other organisations, regarding the Market had been ongoing since 2006 and that these discussions, quite reasonably, involved both councillors and Council officers. It was essential to differentiate between these discussions (which took place prior to the meeting of the Executive Committee on 20 March 2008 and were on the principle of the Council acquiring the lease of Shipman Lane) and the negotiations which officers conducted with Network Rail after that date on the detailed terms of the lease.

9. It was also essential to recognise that, in their role as public representatives, councillors make statements on a wide range of issues on a regular basis. Such statements are frequently a mixture of fact, opinion, expectation and promise.  All of this is in the nature of democratic politics and the right of individuals, and in particular of elected representatives, to freedom of expression. It is not the purpose of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct to serve as a yardstick for assessing the factual accuracy of statements made by councillors in the day-to-day discharge of their role as elected representatives. Similarly, it is not the role of the Chief Investigating Officer to adjudicate on such statements other than in exceptional circumstances such as, for example, where the comments are directed at an individual and are of a highly disparaging or injurious nature, which I did not consider applied in this case. In addition, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights everyone has the right to freedom of expression and the exercise of that right in relation to public services and expenditure, in particular, is afforded (a high level) of protection.

10. Having regard to the nature of the comments made by Bailie Matheson and the explanations offered by him, the information provided by the Monitoring Officer and the Assistant Solicitor to the Council on how the Council’s proposals for regenerating the Market were progressed between 2006 and 2008, the fact that the comments were on a situation that was evolving and, in particular, the fundamental points outlined in paragraphs 5.7 and 5.8 above,  I did not consider that the statements made by Bailie Matheson represented a breach of the Code and I found accordingly in relation to this aspect of the complaints.

11. The complainants made a number of other allegations against Bailie Matheson, including that he failed to invite tenants to meetings which he convened with various agencies to discuss long-standing concerns about the Market and that he failed to have regard to alternative proposals for the Market put forward by the tenants. These matters related to how Bailie Matheson elects to perform his role as a councillor. They represented differences of view between the complainants and Bailie Matheson about how he chose to progress his support for the Council’s proposals for the Market. The fact that he acted in a manner which does not accord with the complainants’ view of how he should have dealt with the issue of the Market does not constitute misconduct. It was the case, in any event, that decisions about the future of the Market fell to be taken by the Council as a corporate body, not by an individual councillor, and it was open to the Market tenants, or their representative, to submit their proposals for the future of the Market to the Council which, I understand, they did.

12. In a further allegation the complainants alleged that Bailie Matheson acted as the “lead” councillor for his ward in matters relating to the future of the Market, that he suggested to his Labour colleagues that they need not respond to the complainants’ correspondence as he would be responding in his capacity as the local councillor and that tenants should discuss matters relating to the Market with Network Rail rather than himself or the Council. The complainants considered that this action denied the tenants their democratic right to lobby councillors on the issue. The respondent claimed that he explicitly pointed out in an email to the first complainant on 4 March 2008 his right to approach the Council as he saw fit.

13. Since the advent of multi-member wards it is not uncommon for a single councillor to act as the “lead” on a particular issue. Even if the respondent had not pointed out to the complainant his right to approach the Council, it was always open to the first complainant and the tenants to engage with other councillors, or the Council as a body, notwithstanding the respondent’s alleged role as lead councillor. Consequently, I did not consider that the respondent denied the complainant or the tenants their democratic right to lobby other councillors and I found that, in relation to these allegations outlined in paragraphs 5.10 and 5.11, he had not breached the Code.

14. The complainants did not explain the specific nature of their allegation that Bailie Matheson failed to respect the different roles which councillors and employees play and that he engaged in the operational management of the Council’s services. On the assumption that it related to Bailie Matheson’s participation in the discussions which took place with Network Rail and other organisations, the Assistant Solicitor to the Council stated that although Bailie Matheson took part in such discussions he did not participate in negotiations on the terms of the lease, which function was undertaken by officers of the Council. I did not consider that there was anything improper in Bailie Matheson having been involved in discussions with these various organisations regarding the future of the Market and, based on the information provided by the Assistant Solicitor to the Council, I considered that he had not engaged in the direct operational management of the Council’s services. Accordingly, I found that he had not breached paragraph 3.3 or Annex C of the Code.

15. Both complainants alleged a breach of paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the Code. Paragraph 6.1 of the Code is an aspirational objective for the Council to achieve rather than a specific rule of conduct to be observed by individual councillors and was not, therefore, relevant to Bailie Matheson’s conduct. The requirements of paragraph 6.2 (to consider evidence from a wide range of sources) are directed at individual councillors but the information available indicated that Bailie Matheson did not fail to consider the case put forward by the tenants for the retention of the Market rather that he considered it and rejected it. Consequently, in relation to this part of the complaints I found that Bailie Matheson had not breached paragraphs 6.1 or 6.2 of the Code.

16. The final allegation common to both complaints was that Bailie Matheson had publicly stated that it was his wish to replace the current market area with an area of arts outlets and business organisations and, because he is a member of several organisations which have an interest in cultural matters or in the regeneration of the City, this constituted an interest which he should have declared when the Executive Committee considered a report by the Director of Development on the Market at its meeting on 20 March 2008.

17. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that Bailie Matheson was appointed by the Council to all of the organisations identified by the complainants, with the exception of the Royal Society of Arts, the membership of which he holds in a personal capacity. He also indicated that none of the individual bodies named by the complainants had expressed an interest in becoming a tenant of the existing Market properties once the Council becomes the lease holder. Bailie Matheson stated that none of the bodies had an interest in the Market and did not accept that their wider interest in the regeneration of the area constituted a declarable interest. It was his view that if such a proposition were to hold he would be unable to participate in any Council decisions that impacted on the social, economic, cultural, environmental or architectural regeneration of central and west Glasgow and his role as a councillor would be disempowered.

18. Under the Code the test which councillors should apply in deciding whether to declare an interest is whether a member of the public, acting reasonably, would think that a particular interest could influence their role as a councillor. The organisations identified by the complainants had expressed no specific interest in the Market and I did not consider that any general interest that they might have in the regeneration of the area created a proximity of interest which a member of the public, acting reasonably, would consider required Bailie Matheson to make a declaration at the meeting of the Executive Committee on 20 March 2008 or at other Council meetings. In this regard I concurred with his view that if such a stricture were to apply it would seriously undermine the ability of councillors to participate in a wide range of decisions which they require to take in order to fulfil their role as elected representatives. In relation to this aspect of the complaints I did not consider that Bailie Matheson had an interest which he required to declare and I found that he had not breached paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 of the Code.

19. The second complainant raised an additional issue concerning Bailie Matheson. She considered that by identifying himself as a Labour member of the Council on emails produced using Council facilities, he had breached paragraph 3.17 of the Code. It is common practice for councillors to identify their political affiliation on a range of documents produced using Council facilities. I did not consider that there was anything improper in such action; indeed there may be positive advantages in doing so, for example, as a means of assisting a member of the public who may wish to engage with a councillor of a particular political affiliation. I did not consider that the mere identification of a councillor’s political affiliation on an email or letterhead produced using Council facilities constitutes party political publicity or the promotion of a political party and I found, therefore, that Bailie Matheson had not breached paragraph 3.17 of the Code.

20. The allegations made against Councillor George Ryan by both complainants were similar in nature to those made against Bailie Matheson, namely that he publicly stated on 14 March 2008 (that is, prior to the Executive Committee meeting on 20 March 2008) that the Council was ready to conclude a deal with Network Rail when the Executive Committee did not authorise negotiations to commence with Network Rail until 20 March 2008, that he was aware that negotiations with Network Rail had already taken place when he presented a report to the Executive Committee on 20 March 2008 seeking approval for negotiations to commence, and that he indicated in a report to the Executive Committee that it should be possible for the Council to acquire the lease of the Market at a rental considerably below that charged to existing tenants when no agreement had been reached at that stage. The complainants considered that Councillor Ryan misled the public and the Executive Committee and that he may have done so in order to put pressure on the Executive Committee to support the recommendations in the report to the meeting on 20 March 2008. My comments in paragraphs 5 to 10 above (in relation to similar allegations against Bailie Matheson) were also applicable to my assessment of these allegations against Councillor Ryan and, for the reasons outlined in those paragraphs, I did not consider that Councillor Ryan’s statements or conduct constituted a breach of the Code and I found accordingly.

21. The second complainant alleged that the Head of Public Relations and Marketing made extensive efforts to get editors and journalists to suppress publication of the fact that Councillor Ryan was one of 11 councillors who had been reported to the Office of the Chief Investigating Officer. This occurred at the time of the Glasgow East by-election for which Councillor Ryan was reported as being a potential candidate for the Labour Party. The second complainant alleged that Councillor Ryan was, either directly or indirectly, involved in this attempt and considered that his action represented a breach of paragraph 3.17 of the Code.

22. Councillor Ryan stated that he had no knowledge of and had no involvement in any action to influence what stories the press or media may have wished to publish about him. The Head of Public Relations and Marketing explained that the Council’s press office had been contacted on numerous occasions by journalists since the beginning of the year about Paddy’s Market.  On all occasions when he had been asked about the complaints relating to the Market his intention had been to protect the Council’s interests. At the time of the first complaint the Council had authorised officers to negotiate taking over the lease of the Market from Network Rail and it was his assessment of the situation that the purpose of encouraging the media to reveal that complaints had been referred to the Office of the Chief Investigating Officer was to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the decision to authorise officers to negotiate with Network Rail. He considered that it was not in the Council’s interests for such stories to appear in the media and so, when contacted by journalists, he encouraged them not to publish the story or, if they intended to do so, to reflect accurately that the complaints did not affect the decision to negotiate the take-over of the lease of the Market from Network Rail. He stated that at no time did any member of the Council, or anyone else, ask him to take action that would benefit the Labour Party or Councillor Ryan’s potential candidacy for the Glasgow East by-election.

23. The second complainant claimed that she had evidence from journalists which supported this allegation and she sought an assurance that their identity would not be revealed if she produced the evidence. If at the end of an investigation the Chief Investigating Officer concludes, and reports to the Standards Commission, that there has been a breach of the Code, the Commission may decide to hold a public hearing. For this reason it was not possible to give the second complainant the assurance which she sought and, in the absence thereof, she felt unable to release her evidence. The Head of Public Relations and Marketing had, in any event, openly acknowledged that he was in contact with journalists and encouraged them not to publish the story in order to protect the Council’s interest and both he and the respondent stated that they did not collude to prevent the publication of the story in order to protect the respondent’s personal position.  I considered that the action taken by the Head of Public Relations and Marketing was on his own initiative and was for the purpose of protecting the Council’s position and not to assist Councillor Ryan or the Labour Party. I considered his action to be a legitimate function of his role as Head of Public Relations and Marketing. On the basis of the information available to me I did not consider that Councillor Ryan was involved in action to get the Head of Public Relations and Marketing to attempt to get the media to suppress the fact that he was the subject of complaints to the Office of the Chief Investigating Officer and I found that he had not breached paragraph 3.17 of the Code.

24. The final allegation, which was made against Councillor Ryan and the remaining nine respondents by both complainants, was that they failed to declare an interest arising from their membership of certain organisations when the report on the Market was considered by the Executive Committee on 20 March 2008. The organisations in question included Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company, Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee, Culture and Sport Glasgow Limited, Glasgow Community Planning Limited and a number of other similar organisations. It was the complainants’ view that these organisations are actively seeking to regenerate the area and that this gave rise to a declarable interest on the part of those councillors who are members of these organisations.

25. As indicated in paragraph 18 above, in relation to a similar complaint made against Bailie Matheson, the organisations identified by the complainants had expressed no specific interest in the Market. I did not consider that any general interest that these organisations might have in the regeneration of the area gave rise to an interest which a member of the public, acting reasonably, would consider required the respondents to declare an interest and I found that Councillors Shaukat Butt, James Coleman, Aileen Colleran, Stephen Curran, Stephen Dornan, Archie Graham, Steven Purcell, George Ryan, Ruth Simpson and Bailie Hanzala Malik had not breached paragraphs 5.9 and 5.10 of the Code. 

26. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillors Shaukat Butt, James Coleman, Aileen Colleran, Stephen Curran, Stephen Dornan, Archie Graham, Steven Purcell, George Ryan, Ruth Simpson and Bailies Hanzala Malik and Gordon Matheson had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

18 November 2008