Complaint number LA/R/843 concerning alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Audrey Doig of Renfrewshire Council

• Introduction
• Outline of the Complaint and Response
• The Investigation
• Consideration of the Evidence
• Findings and Conclusion

Introduction

1.1   Complaint number LA/R/843 alleges a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct (“the Code”). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

1.2   The complaint has been lodged by Councillor Jim Sharkey (“the complainant”) who alleges a contravention of the Code by Councillor Audrey Doig (“the respondent”). The complainant and the respondent are both elected members of Renfrewshire Council (“the Council”).

1.3   The complainant has not identified the specific parts of the Code which he considers have been breached but it is clear from the context of his complaint that paragraphs 4.3 (Registration of Interests/Category One; Remuneration), 5.6 (Declaration of Interests/Your Financial Interests) 5.14 and 5.15 (Making a Declaration) and 5.16 (Effect of Declaration) are the relevant paragraphs against which the complaint should be assessed.

With regard to the aforementioned paragraphs the Code states:

“Category One: Remuneration

4.3 You have a registerable interest where you receive remuneration by virtue of being:

• employed;
• self-employed;
• the holder of an office;
• a director of an undertaking;
• a partner in a firm; or
• undertaking a trade, profession or vocation, or any other work.

Your Financial Interests

5.6 Any financial interest which is registerable under any of the categories prescribed in Section 4 of this Code must be declared.

Making a Declaration

5.14 You must consider at the earliest stage possible whether you have an interest to declare in relation to any matter which is to be considered. You should consider whether agendas for meetings raise any issue of declaration of interest. Your declaration of interest must be made as soon as practicable at a meeting where that interest arises. If you do identify the need for a declaration of interest only when a particular matter is being discussed you must declare the interest as soon as you realise it is necessary.

5.15 The oral statement of declaration of interest should identify the item or items of business to which it relates. The statement should begin with the words "I declare an interest". The statement must be sufficiently informative to enable those at the meeting to understand the nature of your interest but need not give a detailed description of the interest.

Effect of Declaration

5.16 Declaring a financial interest has the effect of prohibiting any participation in discussion and voting. You should leave the meeting room until discussion of the item of business is concluded.”

1.4   The respondent has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which the respondent has undertaken to meet the requirements of the Councillors' Code of Conduct in the performance of her functions in that office.

1.5   For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Harris Wells, Investigating Officer.

1.6   This report has been prepared for submission to the Standards Commission for Scotland in terms of section 14(2) of the 2000 Act. The report was submitted in draft form to the respondent for any representations. Details of the representations received and the extent to which the representations have been accepted or otherwise are set out in Annexes A and B.

Outline of the Complaint and Response

The Complaint

2.1   The complaint is set out in a letter from the complainant which is attached as Appendix A. The complainant alleges that, having declared what he perceived to be a financial interest in an item of business at a meeting of the General Management and Finance Policy Board (“the Finance Policy Board”) on 25 February 2009, the respondent failed to withdraw and, instead, remained in the room and participated in the discussion of the item.

The Response

2.2   The response is set out in a letter from the respondent which is attached as Appendix B. The respondent alleges that, as an employee of the facility under discussion, she considered it appropriate to declare an interest but there was no personal financial benefit for her from the proposal. As she had knowledge of the facility in question she felt that her contribution would add to the debate.

The Investigation

3.1   To establish the background to the complaint, the Investigating Officer sought and received information from the respondent and from the Monitoring Officer of the Council.

3.2   Having considered the documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer proceeded individually to interview the complainant, the respondent and the Monitoring Officer of the Council. The interviews were held on 21 May 2009. A list of those interviewed is attached as Appendix C .

Consideration of the Evidence

4.1   The respondent represents the Houston, Crosslee and Linwood ward on the Council as a member of the Scottish National Party. She is a member of the General Management and Finance Policy Board, the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Board, the Education Policy Board, Depute Convener of the Regulatory Functions Board, Convener of Renfrewshire Valuation Joint Board and a member of a number of other Council Boards, Committees and outside bodies.

4.2   The complainant represents the Paisley East and Ralston ward on the Council as a member of the Scottish Labour Party. He is a member of the Community and Family Care Policy Board, Paisley North Local Area Committee, a number of other Council Boards and Depute Convener of the Scrutiny and Petitions Board.

4.3   At its meeting on 25 February 2009 the Finance Policy Board considered a report from the Chief Executive on the Lagoon Leisure Centre, Paisley (“the Centre”), which is attached as Appendix D. The Centre is operated by Renfrewshire Leisure Limited (“RLL”). RLL is an Industrial and Provident Society and a registered charity. The respondent is employed at the Centre by RLL. Under an agreement between the Council and RLL the Council is responsible for providing funding to RLL to meet any deficit arising on the cost of operating the Centre. The Centre has been leased by Renfrewshire Council to RLL under an Agreement which requires RLL to provide leisure services at the Council's eight sports and leisure centres. The Board of RLL is comprised of three Renfrewshire Councillors and 5 other members. The Council do not have a majority control of the Board.

4.4   The report set out the findings of an investigation which the Council had requested the Chief Executive undertake into significant cost overruns on a major project to extend and refurbish the Centre. The report recommended the Finance Policy Board to note the outcome of the investigation, to endorse management action taken to address various issues and to approve additional expenditure of £130,000 to finalise the project to an appropriate standard. The decision of the Board was to approve the recommendations in the Chief Executive's Report. The decision was agreed without division and is set out in the minute (Appendix E).

4.5   The complainant is not a member of the Finance Policy Board but he attended the meeting on 25 February 2009 and sat in the public gallery. He alleges that when the item of business relating to the Centre came up for discussion the respondent asked to speak and declared an interest. It is the complainant's understanding that the respondent stated that she was employed in the Lagoon Leisure Centre and that she would benefit from the money spent. He also states that it is his understanding that a declaration of interest should be made at the earliest possible stage and that, if there is a pecuniary or financial interest, the individual should withdraw from the room. The complainant points out that the respondent did not withdraw after making her declaration but remained and spoke at some length about her work at the Centre and the difficulties she experienced as a result of the issues referred to in the Chief Executive's report. At interview the complainant confirmed his allegation that, having declared an interest, the respondent said that she would benefit from the proposals in the Chief Executive's report.

4.6   The respondent states that, when she declared an interest, she described the nature of her interest as being a member of staff of Renfrewshire Leisure Limited and points out that she has entered this interest in the Members' Register of Interests (under “Remuneration”). Her first notice of registerable interest is dated 08 May 2007 and under category one: remuneration it states “I am employed by the Renfrewshire Leisure Trust Limited which delivers to sports and leisure services which is funded by Renfrewshire Council” (Appendix F). She states that there is no personal financial benefit to her from the matters referred to in the Chief Executive's report, or in its recommendations, and that she did not give any indication that she would benefit financially when she spoke during the discussion of the item. She says that she considered that her contribution would add to the debate as she had first hand knowledge of the facility in question.

4.7   At interview the respondent stated that, when the item came before the Finance Policy Board on 25 February 2009, she declared an interest because she was a member of RLL staff. Initially, she had no intention of speaking but when the debate started she became concerned that there was an attempt to implicate other members of RLL staff in the problems associated with the refurbishment project. She felt that she had to point out that RLL staff had done a fantastic job in keeping the Centre open during very difficult circumstances while the refurbishment work was taking place. The respondent said that if the issue had gone to a vote she would have abstained. The respondent accepted that, while she did not benefit personally from the project, there was a benefit to RLL staff generally in the form of improved working conditions.

4.8   The respondent is employed as a Training Officer by RLL and has worked at the Centre for 30 years.

4.9   The Monitoring Officer states that the respondent declared a “non-pecuniary” interest as she was an employee of RLL and, as such, she enjoyed the improved working environment at the Centre following completion of the refurbishment project. He states that the respondent did not seek his advice about what she should do at the meeting but, if she had done so, he would have advised her to declare a financial interest and not participate in the discussion.

4.10   The Monitoring Officer made available notes which the Senior Committee Services Officer took during the meeting. The relevant extracts in relation to the respondent's comments are shown below:

“[Councillors] Adam and Mackay – declared an interest, [Councillor] Doig – employee pecuniary ……

Cllr Doig – RLL Management Team – lot of disruption – management team – were frustrated – will benefit – areas – staff will benefit – will go ahead – providing service – credit to Lagoon staff.”

The notes indicate that the respondent declared a pecuniary interest, pointed out the disruption which the project had caused, acknowledged the benefits to staff and praised the efforts of staff while the project was taking place.

4.11   The minute of the meeting (Appendix E) states in relation to Declaration of Interest in respect of this item of business “Councillors Mackay, Adam and Doig declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item of business and participated in the discussion and voting.”

Findings and Conclusion

5.1   The complainant alleges that Councillor Audrey Doig has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of this Report.

5.2   The complaint alleges that, having declared what the complainant perceived to be a financial interest in an item of business relating to the Lagoon Leisure Centre, Paisley, at a meeting of the Finance Policy Board on 25 February 2009, the respondent failed to withdraw and, instead, remained in the room and participated in the discussion of the item. The essence of the complaint points to the respondent having failed to declare a financial interest and failed to withdraw from the meeting in breach of paragraphs 5.6 (Your financial interests), 5.15 (Making a Declaration) and 5.16 (Effect of Declaration) of the Code.

5.3   It is accepted by both the complainant and the respondent that the respondent is an employee of RLL (which operates the Lagoon Leisure Centre) and that the respondent declared an interest when the item of business relating to the Centre came up for discussion at the meeting of the Finance Policy Board on 25 February 2009 but the respondent does not accept that she stated that she would benefit from the money spent. The substantive matter at issue is whether she properly declared an interest and should have withdrawn from the meeting and taken no part in the discussion of the item.

5.4   I find that the respondent has registered a financial interest in respect of her remuneration as an employee of RLL in the Members' Register of Interests, as required in terms of paragraph 4.3 of the Code that the item of business considered at the meeting on 25 February 2009 regarding the Lagoon Leisure Centre did affect the interests of RLL of which the respondent is an employee and that the respondent consequently had a financial interest (as an employee of RLL) in the item of business. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that any financial interest which is registerable under section 4 must be declared. Paragraph 5.16 states that declaring a financial interest has the effect of prohibiting any participation in discussion and voting and requires the person to leave the meeting room until discussion of the item of business is concluded.

5.5   When the item relating to the Lagoon Leisure Centre came before the Finance Policy Board for discussion the respondent declared an interest, indicating that she was an employee of RLL. She is clear that she did not say that she would benefit from the money spent, as alleged by the complainant and, in this connection, I consider that the remarks she made were to the effect that employees generally of the Lagoon Leisure Centre would benefit from the expenditure proposed to be approved. The Monitoring Officer states that the respondent declared a non-pecuniary interest and the relevant minute also describes the respondent as having declared a non –pecuniary interest but the notes taken by the Senior Committee Services Officer indicate that the respondent declared a “pecuniary” interest. The current Code of Conduct uses the term “financial interest” rather than “pecuniary interest”. On this aspect I find that whilst the respondent declared an interest in the item of business and explained she was an employee of SLL she declared a non-financial interest and failed to declare to the meeting that she had a financial interest in the item.

5.6   The respondent had a financial interest in the item of business as a consequence of her position as an employee of RLL which she had recognised by having registered her remuneration from RLL in the Members' Register of Interests. In terms of the requirements of paragraph 5.16 of the Code the respondent should have withdrawn from the meeting room and taken no part in the discussion. I find that the respondent remained in the meeting room and participated in the discussion and the decision of the Board and that, by doing so, she has breached paragraph 5.16 of the Code.

5.7   The provisions of the Code relating to the declaration of interests are of the utmost importance and must be rigorously applied by members to comply with the key principles of integrity, honesty and openness. Failure to comply with the Code's provisions is serious misconduct. The respondent is a relatively new councillor having been first elected in May 2007 and, notwithstanding that she has received training on the operation of the Code, she is not fully acquainted with all of its detailed provisions. The respondent had intended, originally, not to speak on the item and only did so when she felt that the employees of the Centre were not receiving proper recognition, for the manner in which they continued to operate the Centre, during a period of severe disruption while the refurbishment works were being carried out. The respondent genuinely believed that, as she did not personally stand to benefit financially from the matter under discussion, she did not have a financial interest and was entitled to remain in the meeting room and participate in the discussion of the item of business. I consider that the respondent's decision to participate in the discussion was well-intentioned but was a breach of the Code which will have the effect of undermining public trust and confidence in the decision taking process of Renfrewshire Council. My finding of a breach of the Code should be seen in the context of the foregoing factors.

5.8   It should be noted that the respondent has, in her letter of 8 July 2009 (Annex A), accepted in full my report on this matter. She has cooperated with my investigations to the fullest extent and there is no evidence that her failure to declare the necessary interest constituted a deliberate course of action on her part.

5.9   In relation to complaint number LA/R/843, I have come to the conclusion that, having regard to the findings in section 5 and in particular paragraphs 5.4 to 5.6 of this Report, Councillor Audrey Doig has contravened the Councillors' Code of Conduct.

D Stuart Allan

Chief Investigating Officer

Forsyth House

Innova Campus

Rosyth Europarc

Rosyth

KY11 2UU

21 July 2009