Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Midlothian Council > LA/Mi/356

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no: LA/Mi/356 Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct By Councillor Sheila Thacker and Councillor Raymond Prior Of Midlothian Council

1. Complaint number LA/Mi/356 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillors Sheila Thacker and Raymond Prior ("the respondents).

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular that, at a meeting of Midlothian Council on 18 August 2005, they failed to declare an interest and participated in the appointment of a third religious representative on the Cabinet of Midlothian Council.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant") alleged that Councillors Thacker and Prior not only failed to declare an interest, but participated in the meeting and proposed the appointment of someone who, like themselves, was a member of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

4. The investigation established that there was no party political input in the nomination of a third religious representative. The nominations were managed by the Council Secretary following a standard procedure. The vacancy for a third religious representative was publicly advertised, and duly constituted religious bodies were invited to put forward nominations. There were two candidates who had been nominated by their respective religious bodies. However, Councillor Thacker and Councillor Prior had no knowledge of the nominees until they received the agenda papers for the Council meeting of 18 August 2005 at which the appointment was to be made.

5. At the meeting, the two nominations were placed before the Council. Although Councillor Thacker and Councillor Prior respectively moved and seconded the appointment of one of these nominees, the voting went against them by 13 votes to 2 and the other candidate was appointed. In responding to the complaint, Councillor Thacker and Councillor Prior explained their reasons for proposing and seconding their preferred nominee. This related to his standing in the community as a retired Police Officer and a church elder.

6. I noted that the other Liberal Democrat councillor on Midlothian Council voted differently from his two colleagues, which indicated there was no political impetus among Liberal Democrat councillors to vote for the same person. I also considered that, having stood for election as a Liberal Democrat councillor at the May 2003 elections, the nominee's adherence to the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party was already fully in the public domain.

7. I concluded that there are many circumstances in which councillors must consider how their actions will be seen by the public and whether they have any interest which should be declared. Care must always be exercised to ensure that no impression is given that their actions are influenced by an interest which has not been declared. However, having reviewed the circumstances of this case, I did not consider there were grounds to question the reasonableness of the respondents' non-declaration of interest. I did not consider, therefore, that there was a breach of the Code of Conduct through failure on the part of the respondents to declare such an interest. Furthermore, I did not consider that, for the purpose of these statutory appointments, the mere fact that a councillor is in the same political party as a candidate is, by itself, a declarable interest.

8. In relation to complaint number LA/Mi/356, I came to the conclusion that Councillors Sheila Thacker and Raymond Prior 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 December 2005