Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Inverclyde > LA/I/69

Complaint no. LA/I/69

Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Jim Hunter of Inverclyde Council

1. Complaint number LA/I/69 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor Jim Hunter ("the respondent").

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 2 relating to Honesty and section 5 relating to Declaration of Interests.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") represented Cowdenknowes Residents Association. Their complaint related to the disposal of Rankin Park, Greenock by Inverclyde Council, and its proposed redevelopment for commercial, residential and leisure purposes. Local residents had raised concerns with the Residents Association about the development proposals, and in particular the licensing of a social club within the park.

4. On 4 February 2004 an application was made to Inverclyde Licensing Board for the provisional grant of a public house licence in respect of the proposed social club. In accordance with normal practice the application was sent out to members of the Licensing Board, including Councillor Hunter, about one week prior to the Board meeting.

5. On 11 February 2004 the Licensing Board met. Immediately prior to the public session a pre-meeting was held at which the Depute Clerk outlined the agenda and alerted members to those applications which were controversial or had attracted objections. This included the Rankin Park application which had attracted a considerable number of objections.

6. At the meeting itself a representatives of Cowdenknowes Residents Association spoke to their concerns about road safety, noise disturbance and over-provision of licensed premises within the area. Councillor Hunter then asked two questions of the applicant's agent regarding the agent's experience of similar licensed social clubs.

7. The Board adjourned to consider their decision, being advised by the Depute Clerk that the applications was legally sound. On reconvening in open session a vote was taken which resulted in 4 members, including Councillor Hunter, voting in favour of grant, and four voting against. The Chairman then exercised his casting vote in favour of the application.

8. During the hearing the complainants overheard a remark to the effect that Councillor Hunter and one of the directors of the company making the application were both members of the same Rotary Club, and they formed the opinion that if this was the case it would raise a presumption that Councillor Hunter should have declared an interest and withdrawn from consideration of the application relating to Rankin Park.

9. On enquiry being made it was confirmed that Councillor Hunter and the director had both been members of the Rotary Club although the period of their membership differed considerably. It was not disputed that they knew each other through this connection but this acquaintance did not extend to a close friendship.

10. Section 5 of the Code details the factors to be taken into account by councillors in deciding whether or not to declare an interest. The overall intention is to produce transparency in regard to interests which might influence, or be though to influence, their actions. Interests which require to be considered for declaration are (a) financial interests; (b) non-financial interests; and (c) the interests of other persons.

11. The complainants did not suggest, and no evidence was adduced, that Councillor Hunter had any financial interest in relation to the application.

12. The respondent has registered his membership of Rotary International as a non-pecuniary interest. It would therefore be appropriate for him to exclude himself from consideration of issues relating to that organisation as a corporate body - for example in relation to planning permission, the issue of a public entertainment licence, or the grant of a liquor licence for a fund-raising event. In this context the respondent would have an interest in the outcome of the application and should withdraw from its consideration.

13. The issue is different in relation to a matter involving an individual who is a member of the same organisation as an elected member charged with consideration of the matter. The fact that a councillor is a member of the same club as an applicant does not in itself mean that the councillor would be unduly influenced by that fact, and the degree of acquaintance is clearly a material factor for consideration.

14. Councillor Hunter and the other party concerned have stated that their acquaintance does not extend to a close friendship or business relationship. The complainants themselves have no knowledge to refute this and acknowledge that their complaint was based on hearsay. In the absence of evidence to establish a close relationship I do not consider that the degree of acquaintance between the parties can be regarded as being significant.

15. The licensing application was legally valid and its grant did not rely on Councillor Hunter's supportive argument or vote. The points raised by Councillor Hunter with the applicant's agent were neutral requests for information rather than overt attempts to influence the Board.

16. I have therefore found that the respondent did not have any non-financial interests and that there were not any interests of other persons, which should have been declared in terms of the Code.

17. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor Jim Hunter had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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