Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Perth and Kinross > LA/PK/407

Note Of Decision Web Version

Complaint no. LA/PK/407 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Gordon Hunter of Perth & Kinross Council

1. Complaint number LA/PK/407 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code) by Councillor Gordon Hunter ("the respondent). It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular that he had breached paragraph 2.1 relating to Duty, paragraph 3.16 relating to requirements of confidentiality in regard to private information, and paragraph 6.1 of the Code relating to requirements of openness and transparency.

The complainants had applied to the Council for housing and had been in contact with Councillor Hunter in regard to this. They alleged that he failed to be accessible to them as members of the public by telling them not to contact him and by hanging up on the telephone. In so doing, they alleged he failed in his duty under paragraph 2.1 of the Code. They also alleged that he failed to use his powers as Convener of the Housing and Health Committee to obtain information which they requested, namely a list showing details of long-term void houses. By failing to access this information, which is not made available by the Council to members of the public, the complainants considered that the respondent breached paragraph 3.16 of the Code. They further alleged that, by taping telephone conversations and not putting replies in writing, Councillor Hunter did not act in an open and transparent manner as advised in paragraph 6.1 of the Code of Conduct.

3. There was a divergence between the complainants and Councillor Hunter as to the circumstances of a telephone conversation on 8 October 2004. Councillor Hunter agreed that he ended a telephone call from the complainants prematurely, however he stated that he did not tell them not to contact him again. He provided a fax message which he received from the complainants only two days later, which indicated that the complainants did continue in contact with him. There was no evidence to support the allegation that the respondent told the complainants not to contact him again, nor that he breached the key principle of duty to be accessible to members of the public, including the complainants.

4. The complainants also alleged that the respondent breached paragraph 3.16 of the Code by failing to obtain for them a copy of the Council's long-term void housing list. They considered that, as Convener of the Housing and Health Committee, it was within his powers to obtain such document and provide them with the information since they themselves could not get it. Paragraph 3.16 of the Code does envisage that councillors will sometimes receive exempt information which is not intended to be public but it also states that councillors must comply with the requirement to keep such information private. While legislation gives councillors certain rights to obtain private information not otherwise available to the public, such information must not normally be disclosed. The complainants had mistaken the meaning of paragraph 3.16 of the Code. It does not convey the power to a councillor, whether or not he holds office within the Council, to obtain and disseminate information not normally made public. Councillor Hunter advised the complainants that the Council did not provide tenants with a list of long-term void housing. In such circumstances, I found that Councillor Hunter had not breached paragraph 3.16 of the Code of Conduct. The complainants' proper recourse would be to make a request to the Scottish Information Commissioner who would determine in terms of the statutory powers available to him under the Freedom of Information Act whether the Council should provide them with a copy of the information they required.

5. The complainants further alleged that Councillor Hunter taped their telephone conversations and that he never put anything in writing to them. Councillor Hunter denied taping any telephone conversations. I considered that this amounted to claim and counter-claim and it was not a matter which I could satisfactorily resolve or establish.

6. On the question of not putting anything in writing to the complainants, Councillor Hunter said they had never asked him for a written response. The issue at the heart of the matter was the complainants' application for housing, in regard to which they had been in touch with Councillor Hunter. It is perfectly proper for a constituent to consult and for a councillor to advise in such cases. However, the day-to-day operation of the housing system, the processing of applications and the allocation of housing is an operational matter undertaken by Council officers in accordance with the Housing Allocations Policy. Elected members have no input or involvement in the housing allocation process. As Convener of the Housing & Health Committee, Councillor Hunter has responsibility to chair the Committee which determines the Housing Allocations Policy, but it is for departmental officers to put the policy into effect and deal with applicants. Maintaining written contact with the complainants about the progress of their application would be a matter for the housing department. It appeared to me that the complainants had expected the respondent to become involved and exert some influence beyond the role a councillor is meant to play. I did not uphold the allegation that the respondent had not been open and transparent with the complainants and I did not find that there had been a breach of paragraph 6.1 of the Code of Conduct.

7. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Gordon 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
12 September 2006