Two Edinburgh councillors censured after breaching code of conduct
Two Edinburgh councillors have been censured by the Standards Commission for failing to declare an interest when they took part in meetings on controversial traffic measures near where they lived.
Liberal Democrat Neil Ross and Tory Marie-Clair Munro, who both represent Morningside, were found to have breached the code of conduct for councillors after a hearing at the City Chambers.
Both took part in meetings about the future of the Spaces for People scheme in Morningside's Braid estate and the Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route, without declaring an interest, despite the fact Cllr Ross lived in Midmar Gardens, part of the Braid estate, before selling his house and moving in January 2024, and Cllr Munro lived and still lives on Braid Avenue, which is on the Quiet Route.
Four members of the public had made a complaint against Cllr Ross and one had complained about Cllr Munro.
The complaint against Cllr Munro involved three separate meetings - the transport committee on 15 June 2023, which agreed to look at redesigning the Braid Road and Greenbank to Meadows Quiet Route schemes; a workshop for councillors in August 2023 on the alternative options; and another transport committee on 7 March 2024, which agreed to reopen roads in the Braid estate and install a segregated cycle lane.
The complaint against Cllr Ross related to the June 2023 meeting and the workshop - he had move away from the area by the time of the March 2024 meeting.
Cllr Munro told the hearing that documents presented by the Ethical Standards Commissioner, who had investigated the complaints and reached an initial view that the code had been breached, were wrong in claiming she lived on the Braid estate.
She said: “I live on Braid Avenue, north of Cluny Gardens. Where I live is outside the Braid estate.” Angela Glen, representing the Ethical Standards Commissioner, conceded this was an error and apologised.
Cllr Ross, who was represented at the hearing by former Edinburgh Lib Dem councillor Fred Mackintosh KC, said he was not a member of transport committee, but attended on 15 June 2023 as a substitute for another councillor, and wanted to press for the council to carry out an engagement exercise with residents which had previously been agreed but which had not happened.
He had made transparency statement, saying he lived in the area, but did not declare an interest because the decision was only about how a consultation would take place. “It didn't change anything on the ground,” he said.
Cllr Munro said lots Spaces for People schemes were being discussed at the meeting and the Greenbank to Meadows was one among many.
Cllr Ross said he had also made a transparency statement at the August workshop. Told by Mr Mackintosh that one complainant claimed he had designed the option, Cllr Ross said: "I had no part in the design of options, it was done by officers. We were not involved in that process.”
Cllr Munro said of the workshop: "This was officers presenting maps and designs to us. No votes were held, no decisions were taken. I was there in my capacity as a ward councillor to listen.”
And she told the hearing she had sought advice ahead of the March 2024 transport committee, which was deciding which option to pursue, on whether she needed to make a declaration of interest.
She said she had meant to do so, but instead had said she was making a transparency statement.
But she insisted whatever changes were made to the Braid estate had no impact on her part of Braid Avenue. And she said she had voted for the option preferred by a majority of those who had taken part in the consultation.
She said: “When the public has been asked to respond, I believe it is our duty to vote accordingly.”
The panel found that both councillors should have declared an interest, withdrawn from the meetings and taken no part in the discussion and decision-making on the matter. Their failure to do so was a breach of the councillors’ code of conduct.
The code says a declaration of interest should be made ”where a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard the connection to the particular matter as being so significant that it would be considered as being likely to influence their discussion or decision-making”.
Both councillors were censured - the lowest form of sanction the panel can impose.
The panel said it was satisfied there was no attempt by either councillor to conceal their connections, or any evidence that they had benefitted financially or personally.
But panel chair Dr Lezley Stewart said: “The panel emphasised that the requirement for councillors to declare interests is a fundamental requirement of the code as it gives the public confidence that decisions are being made in the public interest, and not the personal interest of any councillor or their friends, family or close associates.
“A failure to comply with the code’s requirements in this regard can erode confidence in the council and leave its decisions open to legal challenge.”