Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > Renfrewshire Council > LA/R/31

Note of Decision Web Version Complaint no. LA/R/31

Concerning an alleged contravention of The Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor James Harkins of Renfrewshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/R/31 alleged a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code") by Councillor James Harkins ("the respondent"). Councillor James Harkins is a Labour member of the Council, he is Leader of Renfrewshire Council and Convener of the Leadership Board.

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, section 2 relating to Accountability and Stewardship and Respect.

3. The person complaining ("the complainant"), Councillor Brian Lawson, an SNP member of Renfrewshire Council, alleged that Councillor Harkins prevented him from speaking about an item on the Agenda of the meeting of the Leadership Board on 26 November 2003.

4. The Leadership Board meeting on 26 November 2003 was held in the Council Chamber and started at 1.00 pm. Councillor Lawson indicated several times that he wished to speak on a Report on Sustainable Development, which was the single item of business on the Agenda. The Board has only a small number of Members and Councillor Lawson said his request to speak could not have been missed by the Chair.

5. Four members of the Board were allowed to speak and Council Officers responded to questions. Councillor Harkins then moved adoption of the report and started to draw the meeting to a close, although the complainant had not yet been allowed to speak. When, after some discussion, Councillor Lawson was still not given the opportunity to do so, he moved as an amendment that the Report be rejected. By doing so, he expected under the Council's Standing Orders to be allowed to speak to his amendment. However, when he attempted to do so, Councillor Harkins stated that he was raising questions rather than speaking to his motion. The Convener then simply put the matter to a vote and the meeting was over.

6. The complainant said that the meeting only lasted around 30 to 40 minutes, whereas other Leadership Board meetings may last two hours. A reasonable cross-section of the Board membership had been able to speak and there was a fair covering of speakers across the political parties. Nevertheless Councillor Lawson felt that he should have been allowed to make his points. He felt the meeting was rushed in order that the Convener could attend a private meeting with the Chief Executive which had also been arranged in the Council Chamber with a starting time of 1.30 pm.

7. The investigation established that the other meeting involving the Chief Executive and Councillor Harkins was a Budget Strategy Meeting attended by 10 Councillors and a number of senior officers. Councillor Harkins said that it was not a private meeting. It had been organised by the Chief Executive's PA and was held not in the Council Chamber but in another room. The aim would be for the Leadership Board to finish around 1.30 pm, and it is common practice to arrange for another meeting to follow a Board meeting. However, The Budget Strategy meeting was a moveable meeting and the majority of people attending it would know that the Leadership Board meeting could finish later and that some members might not be able to make the 1.30 pm start time for the Budget Strategy meeting.

8. As Convener of the Leadership Board, Councillor Harkins said he tries to structure the Board's business. While he does not consider it necessary for all Board members to speak, he normally tries to allow a fair proportion or balance of speakers. On 26 November 2003, Councillor Lawson challenged him about not getting to speak, and although the other SNP members had already spoken that day, Councillor Lawson insisted on his right to come in.

9. A recording of the meeting showed that it lasted between 37 and 38 minutes; the presentation by officers took 16 minutes, councillors spoke for 11 minutes; officers answered questions for 7 minutes and another 4 minutes were taken up with cross-floor discussion. The recording indicates that Councillor Harkins allowed Councillor Lawson to start speaking to his amendment, but because Councillor Lawson began to raise questions with one of the Council's officers instead of confining himself to making a statement on his motion, Councillor Harkins decided to go to the vote.

10. Councillor Harkins said he conducted the meeting in accordance with relevant Council Standing Orders 12, 13 and 40. While with hindsight, he could have given Councillor Lawson a greater opportunity to speak, he said the Report on Sustainable Development was a low key report requiring no decision and he felt there was no reason to continue the meeting.

11. The investigation found that Councillor Harkins exercised fairness in the debate; that he allowed Councillor Lawson to speak and only went to the vote when Councillor Lawson did not confine his remarks to his statement, and that Councillor Harkins did not unduly curtail the Leadership Board meeting.

12. Having considered the information arising from my investigation, I concluded that, Councillor James Harkins had not contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

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