Information on Investigations

Which Sector? > Local Authorities > West Dunbartonshire Council > LA/WD/705

Complaint no. LA/WD/705 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by Councillor David McBride of West Dunbartonshire Council

1. Complaint number LA/WD/705 alleged a contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) by Councillor David McBride (“the respondent”).

2. It was alleged that the respondent had contravened the Code, in particular, the key principles of Honesty, Leadership and Respect, and the provisions regulating Conduct in the Chamber.

3. The person complaining (“the complainant”) Councillor William McLaughlin, alleged that during the meeting of the Council held at Dumbarton on 19 December 2007, the respondent approached and threatened the Leader of the Council, Councillor Iain Robertson. The complainant also alleged that the respondent breached the Code by his denial of the incident to the Labour Group, and by seeking the support of members of the Labour Group against a vote requiring an apology.

4. In regard to Conduct in the Chamber paragraph 3.14 of the Code requires councillors to respect the chair, fellow elected members, Council employees and any members of the public present during Council meetings.  This is given further effect by the key principle of Respect which, although not in itself a substantive provision of the Code, requires members to respect and treat with courtesy their colleagues and Council employees at all times.

5. Although the incident giving rise to this complaint did not occur in the course of an ongoing debate and took place as the respondent was leaving the Chamber, I considered that the respondent’s conduct could not be divorced from the immediately preceding item of business and took place while the meeting was still in progress.  Accordingly I found that it fell within the scope of the Code.

6. The validity of the complaint turned on the facts which, in the absence of a verbatim record, were reliant on the recollection of the witnesses.  The respondent himself acknowledged that as he was in the course of leaving the Chamber he pointed towards and addressed a remark at Councillor Robertson.

7. There was conflicting evidence as to the precise wording employed by the respondent.  It was however a reaction prompted by aspects of the preceding debate which the respondent felt imputed a degree of dishonesty in comments made by him in relation to the redevelopment of Dumbarton Academy.  The respondent stated that he used the words, “That was out of order”, and Councillor Robertson had a similar recollection.  Councillor McColl, who was seated in the front row of the SNP benches across the aisle from Councillor Robertson, recalled the wording used by the respondent as “I won’t forget what you accused me of.”, and the Provost stated that he heard the words “I’ll have you” or “I’ll do you”.  In view of these differing accounts I was bound to conclude that the fact that the respondent approached and spoke to Councillor Henderson had been established, but that reliance could not be placed on the wording recalled by witnesses who may have caught only partial snatches of the respondent’s remarks.  I noted however that the respondent that he addressed a remark to Councillor Robertson, that he pointed towards him, and that another member felt that that the respondent’s actions warranted a protest to the Provost.  Accordingly I had no doubt in finding that the gesture and words employed by the respondent were inappropriate and showed a lack of courtesy both to Councillor Robertson and the Provost, whose position as chair of the meeting the respondent failed to acknowledge. 

8. However in considering this matter I noted that Councillor Robertson, to whom the remarks were addressed, did not himself consider that he had been subjected to a serious physical or verbal threat and had made no complaint himself.  Indeed he stated that he would not have supported the subsequent SNP motion seeking an apology from the respondent.  In addition the incident was of a fleeting nature and was apparently prompted by the emotional reaction of the respondent following what he regarded as a personal attack on his integrity during the preceding debate.  An apology had been tendered by the respondent, (although it would have been more meaningful if volunteered at a much earlier stage) and this indicated an acknowledgement on the respondent’s part that his conduct was inappropriate.  Given the difficulty in establishing precisely what was said by the respondent when he approached Councillor Robertson, its brief nature, and the subsequent, if belated, apology I considered that the respondent’s conduct, while inappropriate, did not in its scale or intent amount to a breach of paragraph 3.14 of the Code, and I found accordingly.

9. The key principles contained in section 2 of the Code are not in themselves substantive terms of the Code but are to be read in conjunction with the prescriptive provisions contained in sections 3 to 7.  The complainant quite rightly linked the key principles of Respect and Leadership to the respondent’s conduct during the Council meeting on 19 December 2007.  Leadership and courtesy are inherently desirable qualities in those who engage in public service and is regrettable when personal emotion is allowed to detract from the normal standards of conduct.

10. The complainant also suggested that the respondent failed to act honestly in the explanation of the incident which he gave to the meeting of the Labour Group prior to the Council meeting on 30 January, and that this influenced or misled colleagues in the voting at that meeting.  My jurisdiction does not extend to internal meetings of political groups and accordingly I was unable to consider this aspect of the complaint.

11. Finally I noted that the Chief Executive had taken steps by means of a letter addressed to all members of the Council drawing their attention to the standards of conduct required by the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.  I endorsed this action with the additional comment that such standards should be observed by members as individuals who should exercise restraint and mutual courtesy in the conduct of Council business.

12. Having considered the information that arose from my investigation, I concluded that Councillor David McBride had not contravened the Councillors’ Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

02 June 2008