Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities>North Lanarkshire> LA/NL/868

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/NL/868 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillors  Harry McGuigan and Richard Lyle of North Lanarkshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/NL/868 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Harry McGuigan (“the first respondent”) and Councillor Richard Lyle (“the second respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondents had contravened the Code, in particular, section 3.14 of the Code (Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee) and section 2: Key Principles (Leadership)

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”), who was attending a Council meeting as a member of the public alleged that:

LA/NL/868A

The first respondent had acted inappropriately towards her including accusing her of interrupting him, and distracting him, pretended to be deaf when she spoke and that he shouted and pointed at her when she was seeking to ask a question. When the complainant had asked for an apology in respect of the first respondent’s conduct, she further alleged that the first respondent had shouted that the complainant was “a stupid woman”, had marched “intimidatingly” towards her and had said “right, you and me outside”.

LA/NL/868B

The second respondent who had been chairing the meeting at which the first respondent allegedly behaved as outlined above, had failed to conduct the meeting in an appropriate way and had allowed the first respondent to persist in his alleged bad behaviour towards her. She had considered the attitude displayed by the second respondent had confirmed his support for the first’s respondent’s alleged inappropriate behaviour. She made specific references to the second respondent’s “facial expressions”.

4. Paragraph 3.14 of the Code required councillors to respect the chair, their colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public who might be present during Council or Committee meetings and to comply with rulings from the chair. The role of the chair in any meeting was to ensure that business was conducted in a competent manner.  It was also the responsibility of the chair to achieve fairness and equality of treatment among participants and, in particular, to ensure that any member who wished to contribute to the discussion was allowed to do so without being interrupted.  It was clear that the meeting of the Local Area Partnership in this instance fell within the range of meetings covered by the Code.

5. I found that Guidance issued by the Standards Commission also made clear that every council should have a set of Standing Orders which should include provisions to regulate procedure at meetings. In particular as regards disruptions in meetings, the Guidance stated appropriate sanctions should be available “to deal with members guilty of such behaviour, including exclusion from the meeting if necessary to allow Council business to be completed”. It was my assessment that North Lanarkshire Council had appropriate Standing Orders in place which complied with the Commission’s Guidance. In cases of “one-off” disruption, exclusion from the meeting was the correct action and, critically, also the sanction envisaged by the Standards Commission in the formal Guidance it had issued as applying in such circumstances.

6. I considered that the evidence of the second respondent as Convener of the of the Bellshill and District Area Partnership and Area Committee merited particular note. He was not without experience in such matters.  His clear approach in such matters was to be as inclusive as possible in encouraging participation in contrast to what might be termed as a more restrictive or authoritative approach where participation was more curtailed.   Whilst there could be differing views and approaches on how to chair a meeting, the matter of “convener style” in conducting meetings was essentially for individual conveners to consider and implement as he/she saw fit. It had also to be recognised that meetings where controversial issues were being aired and which had become heated could become difficult to chair. It was essentially a matter for the judgment of the individual convener on the balance to be struck in allowing opinions and positions to be aired or restricting or curtailing individual contributions, (the latter approach often compounded already difficult situations). 

7. In this instance, there was a particular context which it was necessary to consider in reaching an evaluation of whether or not breaches of the Code had arisen. The meeting topic was the matter of changes in the town centre traffic scheme which was extremely controversial and the bulk of those members of the public present at the meeting in question were vehemently opposed to the effects which had resulted. It was not clear what responses could have been given by any member or officer of the Council which would have been considered satisfactory by such an audience other than the reversal of the scheme to deal with the various individual objections. The position of the Council, as set out by the first respondent, was that there had been appropriate consultation originally prior to the change and that it was necessary to evaluate the new arrangements in their full effect for the town centre and to then consider any further adjustments which might be required.  On the first respondent’s own admission he had done so “robustly” against interruptions from some members of the audience.

8. The second respondent was adamant in his evidence that he had not considered there was any aspect of the first respondent’s conduct which he felt necessitated action on his part as convener and his use of Standing Orders to regulate that individual conduct. He had also made the point that the first respondent was a long term political opponent with whom he had had a history of disputes and who he would not have supported unless the circumstances of the particular issue merited it.  The second respondent had also confirmed that the first respondent had complied with his ruling and returned to his seat when he directed him to do so. (He had not agreed with the interpretation placed by the complainant on the suggestion from the first respondent that they discuss matters outside the meeting. In his view it was a patent attempt to be “placatory”. It had not been aggressive in nature and the first respondent was several feet away from the complainant when he went back to his seat. The second respondent did not hear any comments from the first respondent addressed to the complainant which he assessed as insulting or rude.) It was also noted that the minute of the meeting in question had not recorded any move by any other member of the Committee to invoke Standing Orders to have excluded the first respondent as they would have been entitled to do had any alleged disruptive conduct also been an issue for them.)

9. The evidence of the complainant in this case had been quite clear in setting out her assessment of how she perceived and interpreted the conduct of the first and second respondents towards her at the meeting. (Her position in seeking a public apology had been endorsed by two members of the audience who submitted identical letters of support.) Her starting point of objection to the revised traffic scheme had related to the original consultation process which she had considered to be fundamentally flawed and the specific effects of the resulting change to her street.  As had been recognised by the complainant, such a process was not a matter of individual councillor conduct for my evaluation but fell into potential consideration by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman as a complaint of possible maladministration against the Council as an organisation. It was clear however that at the meeting the first respondent had felt the need to defend and justify the original consultation process and had done so.

10. The evidence of the senior Police representative present at the meeting had also to be taken into particular account regarding any assessment of the conduct of the first and second respondents.  His clear assessment was that it was a difficult and heated meeting in which members of the audience were vehemently opposed to the traffic changes the Council had introduced. As regards the first respondent, no criticism was made of his behaviour and confirmation was also given that there was no material difference in the first respondent’s general demeanour at that meeting compared with other such meetings.  His assessment of the second respondent’s conduct had also offered no criticism and had also recognised the particular difficulties faced in chairing such a meeting.

11. I found that the key principles contained in section 2 of the Code were not in themselves substantive terms of the Code but were to be read in conjunction with the prescriptive provisions contained in section 3. 

12. I considered that councillors should always seek to give a lead and exercise restraint in their public responses in heated situations and seek to avoid ill-considered reactions. It had not been possible, due to the varying reported recollections, to ascertain with complete certainty the exact words which had been used by the first respondent in his attempts to put his points of view across at that difficult meeting. It could however be said that the first respondent’s debating style was robust and he had put forward his stance in direct terms. Patently, he had not been prepared to agree with the representations of individual members of the audience who had opposed the traffic changes and how he had responded was prompted by what he had considered to be the hostile stances being taken by a number of people attending the meeting. 

13. I found that the complainant had become very upset, primarily, at the first respondent’s attitude toward her position. (She also had clear views of how she felt the meeting should have been chaired by the second respondent.)  I considered it was misguided, (but not ill-intentioned), of the first respondent to leave his seat during the debate and seek to speak to the complainant outside the meeting. It was my clear assessment that this had taken the initiative away from the second respondent as convener and the first respondent should have remained in his seat and left it to the chair to deal with taking the meeting situation forward.

14. Having taken all these factors into account, I did not consider that the conduct of the respondents could reasonably be taken – in the context of a difficult and contentious meeting – to be unacceptable or inappropriate so as to amount to a breach of the Code.

15. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Harry McGuigan and Councillor Richard Lyle had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

44 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7SW

22 January 2010