WEB REPORT
LA/R/1800
Commissioner for Ethical Standards
in Public Life in Scotland
REPORT
Complaint number LA/R/1800
concerning an alleged contravention of
the Councillors’ Code of Conduct
by
Councillor Paul Mack
of
Renfrewshire Council
CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction
2.0
Outline of the Complaint and the Response
3.0
The Investigation
4.0
Consideration of the Evidence
5.0
Findings and Conclusion
Appendix A
The Complaint
Appendix B
The Response
Appendix C
List of Persons Interviewed
Appendix D
The respondent’s representations on the Proposed Report
Appendix E
The Commissioner’s comments on representations on the
Proposed Report
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Complaint number LA/R/1800 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.
A revised edition of the Code was issued on 21 December 2010.
1.2
The complaint has been lodged by Councillor Jacqueline Henry (“the
complainant”) who alleges a contravention of the Code by Councillor Paul
Mack (“the respondent”). The respondent and complainant are elected
members of Renfrewshire Council (“the Council”).
1.3
It is alleged that the respondent has contravened the Councillors’ Code of
Conduct, and, in particular, paragraph 3.2 in respect of conduct at
meetings.
Paragraph 3.2 of the Code states:
Conduct at Meetings
3.2
You must respect the chair, your colleagues, Council employees and
any members of the public present during meetings of the Council, its
Committees or Sub-Committees or of any Public Bodies where you have
been appointed by, and represent the Council. You must comply with
rulings from the chair in the conduct of the business of these meetings.
The Standards Commission for Scotland’s Guidance for Councillors and
Local Authorities in Scotland, current at the time of the alleged
contravention, advises:
7. Paragraph 3.2 provides that you must respect the Chair, your
colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present and
provides some examples of the type of meetings to which this provision
applies. However, as stated above, paragraph 3.1 provides that that the
rules of good conduct set out in Section 3 must be observed in all
situations where councillors are acting as councillors, including
representing the Council in official business and the list of meetings to
which this provision applies should be viewed as illustrative, rather than
exhaustive. The effect of the provision is that councillors must respect the
Chair, colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public in all
situations where they act as councillors including – but not restricted to –
meetings of the Council, its committees and sub-committees or of any
public bodies where they have been appointed by, and represent the
Council.
Conduct at Meetings
8. The role of the Chair in any Council meeting, which includes a
Committee meeting or a meeting of a working group or similar forum, is
to ensure that the agenda of business is properly dealt with and clear
decisions are reached. To do this, the Chair has a responsibility to ensure
that the views and opinions of other participants (including the advice of
officers) are allowed to be expressed and, at the same time, he/she has a
responsibility for proper and timely conduct of the meeting and for
ensuring that the meeting is conducted in compliance with the Council’s
Standing Orders. This includes determining the point at which conclusions
should be reached. It requires a balanced approach to ensure fairness to
participants while at the same time dealing firmly with any attempt to
disrupt or unnecessarily delay the meeting. Members present share the
responsibility for the proper and expeditious discharge of business and the
role of the Chair in reaching such judgments requires to be supported and
respected.
9. Councillors are accountable for their own individual conduct in the
Chamber or Committee at all times in terms of the Councillors’ Code of
Conduct irrespective of the conduct of others. Abusive or offensive
language should not be tolerated and it is a matter for the Chair to rule on
the acceptability of language used during the course of a meeting and to
take appropriate action as necessary, including requiring withdrawal of a
remark, requiring an apology, or any other action required to allow the
meeting to properly proceed.
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 his functions in that
office.
1.5
For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Mr Ian Innes,
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 proposed 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 Appendices D and E.
2.0
Outline of the Complaint and the Response
The Complaint
2.1
The complaint is set out in a complaint form which is attached as
Appendix A. The complainant alleges that at a meeting of the Education
and Children Policy Board of Renfrewshire Council on 20 August 2015 the
respondent behaved in a disrespectful way by using offensive and abusive
language and refusing to accept the rulings of the Chair.
The Response
2.2
The response is set out in an email of 26 October 2015 from the
respondent which is attached as Appendix B. The respondent also
referred to his email of 27 August 2015, the text of which was attached by
the complainant to her complaint form and is contained in Appendix A. In
essence he put forward two arguments. The first was that he was being
humorous and speaking figuratively which he feels should have been
recognised. The second was that there was a history of animosity
between the complainant and others, including the complainant’s
husband, and the respondent which led to an unnecessarily critical
response to his comments.
3.0
The Investigation
3.1
To establish the background to the complaint, the Investigating Officer
sought and received information from the Council.
3.2
Having considered the documentary evidence, the Investigating Officer
proceeded individually to interview the complainant, the respondent and
relevant witnesses. The interviews took place on 7 December 2015. A list
of those interviewed is attached as Appendix C.
4.0
Consideration of the Evidence
4.1
Councillor Paul Mack is an independent councillor and was elected in 2012.
He had previously been a member of the Labour Party and had been
elected as a councillor for Renfrew District Council between 1992 and
1995 and then for Renfrewshire Council between 1995 and 1999.
4.2
Councillor Jacqueline Henry is the Convener of the Education and Children
Policy Board of Renfrewshire Council. Councillor Paul Mack is a member of
the Board.
4.3
The Board met on 20 August 2015. The final item on the agenda was a
report by the Director of Finance and Resources on an invitation from the
Oberburgermeister of the Council’s twin town, Furth in Germany for a
small delegation from Renfrewshire Council to visit Furth between 8 and
13 October 2015 to strengthen town twinning links. The Report intimated
that after discussion with the Provost and the Director of Children’s
Services the Board were being asked to approve a delegation comprising
the Provost, Convener of the Education and Children Policy Board and two
senior Education Officers to visit Furth to study their educational practices,
in particular the steps being taken to tackle the adverse impact that living
in poverty could have on educational attainment.
The travel costs
estimated at £3,000 would be met from the international links budget.
4.4
Councillor Henry invited an officer to speak to the report and then made
some comments herself. She then opened it to the floor and Councillor
Cameron, the SNP spokesperson on education, spoke against the report
recommending the position of the previous SNP/Lib Dem administration
which stopped supporting councillor delegations to twin towns on the
basis that such visits did not produce results significant enough to justify
the cost, given the financial savings the Council had to make. The SNP
continued, however, to support educational visits by schoolchildren to
Furth accompanied by teachers and officers of the Council. Councillor
Cameron seconded by Councillor Lawson moved an amendment that the
Board should not support the councillor delegation to Furth.
4.5
The respondent was then invited to speak. He was against the report. He
spoke for several minutes and became animated and loud. There is no
record of his actual words and no agreement by the parties as to the
exact words he used but there is general agreement between witnesses
that he said, “I can see the headlines now in the Paisley Distress (sic).
Annie and Jackie are going to Germany on the lash. Playing hide the
frankfurter with the Oberburgermeister”. The complainant’s recollection is
that the respondent referred to the Provost and her as “Wee Annie and
wee Jackie” and that he also referred to the Oberburgermeister as
“Oberburgermeister Tommy”. The notes of the officer witness taken at
the time refer to the first names of the complainant and the Provost but
not the adjective “wee”. The Press report in the Paisley Daily Express
does not refer to the use of the Provost’s or Convener’s first names. The
respondent said that he did not know the Oberburgermeister’s first name
and therefore could not have used it.
4.6
The complainant objected to the respondent’s comments and threatened
to adjourn the meeting if he did not stop. It had no effect and she felt he
was not paying any attention to her. According to the complainant, the
respondent talked over her. She adjourned the meeting and as she left
the room the respondent shouted “There are no dirty words only dirty
minds”.
4.7
After five minutes or so, the complainant returned to the chamber and reconvened the meeting. She called on Councillor Lawson to speak and he
started to do so. The respondent intervened and asked if he was not
going to be allowed to continue speaking. The complainant decided that
she was not going to risk further disruption and moved that the vote be
taken. That took place and the motion was passed and the meeting was
then concluded.
4.8
The following day the complainant wrote to the Chief Executive concerning
the respondent’s behaviour at the meeting. She considered the remarks
to be sexual in nature and to be offensive, abusive and sexist. She
pointed out that the remarks were made in the presence of officers,
including female officers and she was concerned to protect officers from
any future incidents.
The complainant was advised that the Chief
Executive could not take any action unless there were complaints from
officers.
4.9
On 27 August the respondent sent an email to all his fellow councillors as
follows:
“ “The Lady Protests too much me thinks".
There's nothing new under the Sun.
Apropos Councillor Henrys' faux offence and phony indignation, it's a
clumsy attempt to deflect attention from her own misfeasance and a
practice which has been going on for decades. I first delivered those
allegedly 'offensive remarks' in the Robertson Centre on the evening
when they were closing Stanley Green Sports Facility and Ardentinny
Lodge, while the provost had (note, past tense) just swanned off to
Germany.
In those days (July 1996) we were asked to 'homologate' Nancy's
peregrinations - should I re-phrase that, in case Councillor Henry takes
offence? It was received on that occasion to howls of laughter. Then,
like now, officers were terrified to be seen even swapping pleasantries
with 'moi'. It was redolent of the old plenary session of the Chinese
National Peoples Council when the first to sit down and stop applauding
was taken out and shot. The poor Director of Planning was caught with
his knuckles in his mouth hoping Mrs Alison wouldn't catch him
laughing. Provost Alison on Councillor Henry's advice summoned the
police. It was to presage an administration that this town is still picking
up the tab for to this day.
Lets turn to the afternoon in question and the Education and Children
Policy Board (20/8/2015). I've always taken view that those who make
a lucrative living out of being offended - The Offenderati' of which
Councillor Henry is the doyen should try and consider the author's
intentions rather than their own. Any impartial observer couldn't have
failed to notice that day that there was a total absence of rancor or
malevolence. Good humour was in the air, we just witnessed the
county's finest six­formers receive the prestigious Duke of Edinburgh
awards and their parents were understandably chuffed. Still basking in
the reflective glory, intoxicated by this, I said the following sotto
voce,"Convenor, for an administration which is acutely conscious of
how matters appear in the Distress, I can see the headline - you're
just going off on the lash. Playing hide the frankfurter with the,
Oberburgermiester". Of course I was speaking figuratively and I think
I threw in some working-class argot which Councillor Henry with her
twee petit bourgeois pretensions seems to have a pathological aversion
to, Kenneth in his reportage as is his wont, took a razor to the iambic
pentameter and dropped the 'Oberburgermiester' which tends to
deaden the effect of the playful repetition and classic, polysyllabic
humour, a la Blackadder, Les Dawson and Winston Churchill.
I don't know about you but I'm beginning to find Councillor Henry's
histrionics every time I open my mouth quite tiresome. I find the
Henrys greed and grasping vulgarity, singularly offensive but I,
unfortunately, have to keep my own counsel.
Aye Yours
Councillor Paul Mack”
4.10
In his evidence, the respondent pointed out that there was a legitimate
issue for political challenge in terms of money being spent on a trip
abroad for councillors in the context of the current cuts to the budgets of
public bodies. He said he was trying to use humour to help make his
point. He never meant to be offensive. He was also pointing out the
likely headline which would appear in the local press. He did not accept
there was any sexual innuendo.
He said he was trying to do his
“adolescent/undergraduate humour a la Les Dawson, Kenneth Williams
and Blackadder”. He described his comment as like a seaside picture
postcard but that it was a “euphemism for improper conduct”. He felt it
was “much ado about nothing” and that it fell within the cut and thrust of
politics. He also stated that there was a history of bad blood going back
many years between him and the complainant’s husband who had
previously been a councillor and the effect of that was to make the
complainant overly-sensitive to his behaviour. He said she would like to
cast him in “the role as a crypto-misogynist”.
4.11
With regard to his compliance with the rulings of the Chair the
respondent’s view was that following the adjournment he re-asserted his
request to speak only once and accepted the ruling.
4.12
The complainant said that she found the respondent’s comments
distasteful and offensive particularly as a woman and found them
personally abusive. As stated in her letter to the Chief Executive she
found the comments to be sexual in nature and sexist. She did not find
them humorous and apart from possibly two members of the opposition,
nobody laughed. She thought the tone and manner of speaking did not
convey humour and were inappropriate. She also found the comments in
the email from the respondent offensive, particularly the final paragraph
and the reference to “twee petit bourgeois pretensions”.
5.0
Findings and Conclusion
5.1
The complainant alleges that Councillor Paul Mack contravened the
Councillors’ Code of Conduct, as outlined in paragraphs 1.3 and 2.1 of this
Report.
5.2
The complaint alleges the respondent used abusive and offensive
language at a meeting of Renfrewshire Council’s Education and Children
Policy Board of 20 August 2015 and failed to comply with rulings from the
Chair. The language which was complained about was a comment by the
respondent in relation to a proposal that the complainant and the Provost
take part in a visit to Renfrewshire’s twin town in Germany. The comment
was to the effect that the decision would attract newspaper coverage
along the lines of “Annie and Jackie are going to Germany on the lash.
Playing hide the frankfurter with the Oberburgermeister”. I was satisfied
from the evidence that the respondent had used the first names of the
complainant and the Provost.
5.3
The relevant parts of paragraph 3.2 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct
say that “You must respect the chair, your colleagues …during meetings of
the Council, its committees…You must comply with rulings from the Chair
in the conduct of the business of these meetings”.
5.4
Paragraph 9 of the Standards Commission for Scotland’s Guidance for
Councillors and Local Authorities in Scotland in force at the relevant time
relates to paragraph 3.2 of the Code and includes the guidance that
“Abusive or offensive language should not be tolerated and it is a matter
for the Chair to rule on the acceptability of language used during the
course of a meeting and to take appropriate action as necessary, including
requiring withdrawal of a remark, requiring an apology, or any other
action required to allow the meeting to properly proceed.”
5.5
Two questions arise in respect of the respondent’s behaviour in the
context of the Code. The first is whether he failed to respect the Chair
particularly in his use of allegedly abusive or offensive language and the
second is whether he failed to comply with rulings from the Chair.
5.6
It is generally accepted that those involved in politics require to have a
higher level of tolerance of criticism of their political views and actions
than other members of the community, and that the restrictions imposed
by the Code should not unduly restrain robust debate on public matters.
It should be possible, however, to have robust public debate without being
personally offensive or using derogatory language.
5.7
The issue with regard to the respondent’s comments is whether they fell
within the “cut and thrust” of politics and in particular whether they can
be regarded, as argued by the respondent, as humorous and inoffensive.
There is no doubt that there was a legitimate topic for debate in respect of
the issue of funding councillors to visit the Council’s twin town in Germany
and that is reinforced by the contribution of the SNP opposition to the
debate which was critical of the recommendation in the officer’s report.
The respondent said that his comments were meant to be humorous and
not meant to be offensive. The test to be applied in respect of such
comments must, however, be an objective one, whatever the intentions of
the respondent were. As he stated, the comments gave rise to innuendo
and he described them as “adolescent” and of the seaside picture postcard
variety. From an objective perspective, there seems little doubt that the
comments were capable of giving rise to sexual innuendo. It is the nature
of innuendo that it has a level of vagueness and ambiguity which makes it
impossible to ascribe to it any exact meaning and therefore little point in
trying to analyse it any further. The respondent also personalised it by
the use of the first names of the complainant and the Provost and the
suggestion that they were engaged in a game. His comments as the
complainant adjourned the meeting also appeared to reinforce his
determination to continue to use his innuendo in a disruptive way. The
respondent made no serious claim to the effect that he was simply trying
to warn the complainant of the likely reporting of the decision in the
press. In fact his comments seemed designed to achieve such reporting as
opposed to avoiding it.
5.8
The key principle of “Respect” in paragraph 2.1 of the Code calls for
“courtesy at all times”.
In addition, paragraph 8 of the Standards
Commission Guidance to the Code states that “abusive or offensive
language should not be tolerated.” It is implicit in this that neither should
it be used. The language used by the respondent was both offensive in
terms of the sexual innuendo and abusive in terms of personalising it in
the name of the complainant and the Provost. I do not accept that it was
a case of over-sensitivity on the part of the complainant.
The lack of
respect for the Chair continued in terms of the email issued by the
respondent to his fellow councillors on 27 August 2015. I therefore find
that the respondent failed to respect the Chair and was in breach of
paragraph 3.2 of the Code.
5.9
In relation to the second aspect of the complaint, I have to consider
whether the respondent failed to comply with rulings from the Chair. He
showed no sign of taking into account the views of the complainant as the
Chair of the meeting and proceeded to talk over her until she felt that the
only course was to adjourn the meeting.
The respondent pointed out
that he accepted the complainant’s decision not to let him continue
speaking when the meeting re-convened. However he clearly did not
respect her attempts to control him in the period leading up to the
adjournment. There are respectful ways of challenging or questioning
rulings from the Chair which the respondent could have used. He chose
not to and I find that he failed to comply with paragraph 3.2 of the Code.
5.10
In relation to LA/R/1800, I have come to the conclusion that, having
regard to the findings in section 5 and in particular paragraphs 5.7, 5.8
and 5.9 of this Report, Councillor Paul Mack has contravened the
Councillors’ Code of Conduct.
Bill Thomson
Commissioner
Thistle House
91 Haymarket Terrace
Edinburgh
EH12 5HE
15 August 2016