Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > South Lanarkshire > LA/SL/711, 716, 731

Note of Decision Web Version

Complaint nos: LA/SL/711, 716 & 731 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor Jim Docherty of South Lanarkshire Council

1. Complaint numbers LA/SL/711, 716 and 731 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor Jim Docherty (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principles in paragraph 2.1 on Duty and Respect, paragraph 3.3 relating to Relationship with Council Employees, paragraphs 3.14 relating to Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee and the provisions in paragraphs 7.2, 7.3, 7.8 and 7.10 relating to Dealing with Planning Applications.

3. The persons complaining (“the complainants”) alleged that, when a particular planning application came before the meeting of East Kilbride Area Committee on 30 January 2008 for consideration, the respondent tried to lobby support from other councillors and conducted himself in a manner that was aggressive, bullying and disrespectful to other councillors and to staff.  The first and third complainants pointed out that the Labour Councillors on the Area Committee all voted as a block in support of the application and questioned whether the party whip had been used for this purpose.

4. The complainants’ specific allegations were that the respondent did not speak through the Chair that he interrupted and spoke over other councillors and that he behaved like a bully. 

5. The complainants’ allegations were supported in some measure by Councillor Gordon Simpson who took an opposing view to the respondent and proposed the successful amendment to refuse the application.  He stated that the respondent interrupted the discussion, failed to respect other councillors and acted in an aggressive manner, although he added that the respondent’s conduct was of no consequence to him (Councillor Simpson).

6. The respondent pointed out that he had not directed any comments at objectors who were present.  He denied that he had been disrespectful to other councillors but accepted that he had put forward his views in a “robust” manner. From the information available it was clear that, in relation to this particular application, there had been unwillingness on the part of the respondent to accept that other councillors held different views from him and intolerance, on his part, to allow them to express their views without interruption.  In considering this matter I took account of the fact that the respondent’s conduct had been confined to other councillors and not directed at officers or members of the public who were present.  While I regarded the respondent’s conduct as distasteful and somewhat overbearing I considered that it fell short of what could reasonably be taken to amount to a breach of the Code and I found that the respondent had not breached the key principle of Respect in paragraph 2.1 of the Code or the provisions of paragraph 3.14. 

7. The allegation that the respondent failed to act in the interests of the Council as a whole or to represent the interests of his constituents conscientiously and, therefore, that he breached the key principle of Duty appeared to relate to the fact that he had been strongly supportive of the application and dismissive of the views of other councillors who held a different view.  While the respondent displayed a degree of intolerance in relation to other councillors’ views I did not consider that by adopting a firm position of support for the application he failed to uphold the key principle of Duty especially when account was taken of the fact that he was supporting the Executive Director’s recommendation to approve the application.  Accordingly, I found that the respondent had not breached the key principle of Duty in paragraph 2.1 of the Code.

8. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened paragraph 3.3 of the Code. This paragraph explains the different roles and responsibilities of councillors and employees and advises councillors to respect these roles and not to interfere in officers’ responsibilities.  There was no indication from my investigations that the respondent had failed to respect the operational role or responsibilities of officers and I found that he had not breached paragraph 3.3 of the Code.

9. Two of the complainants alleged that the respondent had breached paragraph 7.2 of the Code. One of the allegations was based on the respondent’s conduct at the meeting of the Area Committee and the second allegation related to a comment attributed to the respondent in an article in the East Kilbride Mail on 6 February 2008 to the effect that the application should not have been refused “because it was a straightforward application and planning officials are paid very large salaries to make their recommendations.”

10. Paragraph 7.2 places a responsibility on councillors to ensure that development decisions are properly taken and that the parties involved in the development process are dealt with fairly.  In relation to this application there was a detailed report from the Executive Director, the application was considered by the Area Committee and all members present were entitled to contribute to the debate and vote on the application.  Notwithstanding that the respondent may have expressed strong views in support of the application and may have attempted to interrupt other councillors who were opposed to the application, there was no evidence that he was successful in preventing those who held a different view from himself from expressing that view.  This was borne out by the fact that the Committee rejected the view put forward by the respondent and voted to refuse the application.

11. Put simply, the comments attributed to the respondent in the East Kilbride News (which he did not deny) expressed the opinion that, notwithstanding the Area Committee’s decision, the planning officer’s recommendation to approve the application was correct.  I considered that the respondent was entitled to express this view, especially as he did so after the Area Committee meeting, and that his action in doing so, and his conduct at the Area Committee meeting, did not indicate that the decision relating to the application had been improperly taken or that there had been any failure to deal fairly with the parties involved in the process.  Accordingly, I found that the respondent had not breached paragraph 7.2 of the Code.

12. One of the complainants alleged that as a result of breaching paragraphs 3.3, 3.14 and 7.2 the respondent “compromised the Code” and had also breached paragraph 7.3. Paragraph 7.3 advises councillors that they must not only avoid impropriety but must at all times avoid any occasion for suspicion and any appearance of improper conduct.  While some aspects of the respondent’s conduct may have constituted undesirable behaviour I did not consider that there had been any improbity associated with his conduct and I found that he had not breached paragraph 7.3 of the Code. 

13. The remaining allegations were to the effect that the respondent acted with the other Labour councillors who were present at the meeting to vote as a group on the application and that by doing so they breached paragraphs 7.2, 7.8 and 7.10 of the Code.  These allegations were deduced from the fact that the respondent is the business manager of the Labour group, that it was unlikely that any of his fellow councillors would have opposed the strong views which he put forward in support of the application and, in particular, by the fact that all 7 Labour councillors present at the meeting voted in support of the application.

14. Councillor Simpson, who proposed the successful amendment to refuse the application, was also of the view that Labour councillors vote as a group on planning applications.  In his response he referred to a comment by the respondent, when the possibility of a hearing was being discussed at the Area Committee meeting, in which the respondent was alleged to have said “and anyway you have a majority, you don’t need a hearing.”  Councillor Simpson believed that this comment was open to the interpretation that the Labour group runs a block voting system on planning matters.

15. It was a fact that all 7 Labour members of the Area Committee voted to approve the application.  It was also a fact that all 7 SNP members of the Area Committee (along with the one Conservative member present) voted to refuse the application. It was relevant to point out that, by their action, the Labour councillors were supporting the Executive Director’s recommendation on the application.  As regards the respondent’s alleged allusion, at the Area Committee meeting, to the fact that the other parties had a majority I did not consider that, of itself, it was evidence that Labour councillors were subjected to a party whip to ensure that they voted as a group to approve the application.  It could equally have been construed as meaning simply that, if the non-Labour members of the Area Committee were minded to oppose the application, they had sufficient numbers to carry that position.  Having regard to all of these factors I found that neither the respondent nor the other Labour councillors present at the meeting had breached paragraphs 7.2, 7.8 and 7.10 of the Code.    

16. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor Jim Docherty had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

Observations

17. In relation to the issues raised by this complaint, it is relevant to refer further to the provisions of paragraph 3.14 of the Code.  This paragraph urges councillors to respect the chair, their colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public who may be present during Council or Committee meetings and to comply with rulings from the chair.  The role of the chair in any meeting is to ensure that business is conducted in a competent manner.  It is also the responsibility of the chair to achieve fairness and equality of treatment among councillors and, in particular, to ensure that any member who wishes to contribute to the discussion is allowed to do so without being interrupted.

18. The Standards Commission has issued guidance to councillors on the application of the Code which, among other things, explains the role and responsibilities of the chair of a meeting and which states that disruptive behaviour should not be tolerated. The guidance makes it clear that the chair has a key role in ensuring that the business of a meeting is conducted with fairness, tolerance and an absence of offensive conduct.

19. Where a councillor attempts to impose his or her own views on a meeting by overbearing conduct or, by interrupting other councillors, to prevent or frustrate them from expressing their views it is essential that effective action is taken by the chair, not solely to ensure fairness of debate but also to prevent members of the public and the press from forming an unfavourable image of the Council and the manner in which it conducts its business.

20. In relation to members of the same political party voting as a group it is important to emphasise that, while it is common and entirely acceptable practice for councillors from the same political party to vote as a group on general policy matters, different considerations apply in relation to planning applications and other applications of a quasi-judicial nature.  In such cases individual councillors should consider all of the evidence relevant to the particular application and should vote according to their personal assessment of the merits of the application.  Applications should not be decided on the basis of political group voting.  The provisions of paragraph 7.8 in particular, counsel against organising support or opposition, or lobbying other councillors, in respect of a planning application.  Where members of the same political party regularly vote as a group in relation to planning applications it can create a perception that applications are being assessed in accordance with a group policy rather than in accordance with the personal assessment of individual councillors.  If this were to occur on a consistent basis it could undermine the public’s confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Council’s processes for dealing with applications.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

20 June 2008