Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Highland Council > LA/H/602

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/H/602 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor James Gray of Highland Council

1. Complaint number LA/H/602 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor James Gray ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, that he had repeatedly failed to comply with the requirements of section 5 of the Code in relation to the Declaration of Interests.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant"), alleged that in November 2003 the respondent had been appointed by the Council as a member of the Inner Moray Firth Ports and Sites Strategy Working Group and that at subsequent meetings of the Working Group he had failed to declare a financial interest namely, from 2003 to 2005, his membership of the Board of the Cromarty Firth Port Authority (CFPA), and, from 2005 to date, his Chairmanship of CFPA.

4. The complainant noted that, as required by section 4 of the Code, the respondent had registered as a financial interest his membership and subsequent chairmanship of CFPA. She alleged that CFPA is not a public body but is instead a private corporation accountable only to its Board and subject to the provisions of the appropriate Harbours Act and the Cromarty Firth Harbour Revision Orders. She expressed concern about what in her opinion was a conflict of interest between the respondent's role and activities as a councillor serving on the Working Group and his role as a director, and subsequently the chairman, of CFPA. She observed that the respondent had not declared his financial interest in CFPA at any of the meetings of the Working Group and that the Working Group had helped to produce a strategy document in relation to an integrated ports/major industrial sites strategy for the Inner Moray Firth which supported a non-public organisation, namely CFPA, playing a key role in the said strategy.

5. The respondent advised me that he had not been appointed to CFPA by the Council, but applied, and was appointed, direct under the open competition system. He also advised me that he understood that he had been appointed to the Working Group in the full knowledge of his membership of CFPA.

6. I established that the Cromarty Firth Port Authority is not a private corporation but is constituted as a Trust Port. It is an independent statutory body operating under the Cromarty Firth Port Authority Confirmation Act 1973 (as amended). I was satisfied that CFPA is a statutory port authority which is a public trust and which has no shareholders. It is therefore, for the purposes of the dispensation at paragraph 106 (1) (b) of the Guidance and Dispensations Note to Councillors and Local Authorities in Scotland dated April 2007, a public body established by the authority of statute. Paragraph 106 (1) (b) of this Guidance and Dispensations Note is in the following terms;- "Accordingly in terms of paragraphs 5.20 and 5.21 of the Code the Commission grants a dispensation to any councillor who has been nominated or appointed or whose appointment has been approved by the councillor's local authority and who has registered an interest under section 4 of the Code as a member of... a public body established by enactment or in pursuance of statutory powers or by the authority of statute or a statutory scheme... so as to enable the councillor to take part in the consideration and discussion of, and vote upon, any matter relating to the body in question." I established that the respondent's appointment to CFPA was approved by Highland Council in September 2004. Paragraph 106 (1) (b) of the Guidance and Dispensations Note is in substantially the same terms as parts of previous Guidance and Dispensations Notes dating back to 31 March 2003 and covered the respondent's position at least since September 2004. (My office's investigations procedures provide that an investigation will not - other than in exceptional circumstance - which are not present in this case - look into conduct that took place more than twelve months from the date of complaint - in this case June 2007.) In all the circumstances I was satisfied that the respondent did not require to make more formal declarations of his interests at the meetings of the Working Group and that he was entitled to participate in those meetings, and did so without contravening the provisions of section 5 of the Code.

7. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor James Gray had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan,
Chief Investigating Officer.
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
Fife
KY11 2UU
24 September 2007