An East Ayrshire councillor censured for breaching the Councillors’ Code of Conduct has defended his actions during a lengthy debate at full council, claiming that warnings he raised about fire risks had not been acted upon.
Censure and Defence
Conservative Councillor James Adams was formally censured by the Standards Commission for Scotland in September after disclosing confidential council correspondence to a third party following concerns about fire safety and waste management. The independent watchdog found that he had breached four provisions of the code relating to confidentiality and the use of council resources. However, it cleared him of separate allegations relating to respect and courtesy towards council employees.
The findings were brought before East Ayrshire Council, when Cllr Adams sought to explain the circumstances surrounding the complaint. His contribution prompted repeated interventions from a senior council officer, who reminded members that the meeting was not an opportunity to rehear the Standards Commission case.
Fire Risk Concerns
Cllr Adams told councillors he had raised concerns about cardboard being stored outside commercial premises and the potential fire risks associated with the practice. He also referred to warnings about the security of the Palace Theatre and Grand Hall in Kilmarnock, claiming that concerns about the historic buildings had been brought to his attention.
Reflecting on the circumstances surrounding the fire that led to his correspondence with council officers, he said: “So on reflection I had contacted senior officers in the council 36 hours before the fire took place.” He added: “I had warned them there could be a fire – on the evidence there had been fires 36 hours previously.” Cllr Adams suggested that the outcome might have been different had his warnings been heeded.
Officer Interventions and Acknowledgment
However, the council’s Chief Governance Officer and monitoring officer, Craig Young, repeatedly stressed that councillors were being asked to consider the Standards Commission’s findings rather than revisit the evidence. Mr Young said: “Obviously, this is not for the purposes of any rehearing or retrying of it.” He explained that the council was legally required to consider the outcome and any implications arising from the decision.
Cllr Adams subsequently acknowledged that forwarding the correspondence had been inappropriate. He said: “I do appreciate what I shouldn’t have done was forwarded on an email to a third party during the process and the process is put to bed now.”
Calls for Improved Training
The discussion prompted calls for improvements to councillor training, particularly around confidentiality, social media and the handling of sensitive information. Councillor Linda Mabon said: “There’s information that needs to be shared publicly, but there’s also information is dangerous to be shared publicly and we always need to represent facts. Most members seem to understand that responsibility and carry these duties out following all the rules. Maybe if this training had been in place, we might have been able to avoid the misunderstanding that this has brought and a whole load of social media drama. It is a huge argument for mandatory training is that if if we had had thatin place there would have been no misunderstanding. There could have been no excuses and expectations and responsibilities would have been clear and we would have been spared the need to spend valuable council time debating issues such as this that should never have happened in the first place.”
Mr Young explained that mandatory training is currently a legal requirement for councillors serving on licensing boards, but that the position is different for other elected member responsibilities. He confirmed that a working group had been established to examine training arrangements ahead of the May 2027 local government elections. Training on the Councillors’ Code of Conduct would be among the priorities. Officers also confirmed that a paper was expected to return to the council around the turn of the year, setting out proposals for mandatory training and regular updates on participation.
Support for Councillors and Building Safety
The debate broadened to the support available to councillors involved in formal complaints procedures. Councillor Sally Cogley said she had experienced a similar process and believed greater consideration should be given to the wellbeing of elected members. She said: “I think we need to reflect and change what we do so that when these sorts of things happen again because inevitably they will do that there is some support provided to elected members who find themselves for whatever reason in these positions.”
The issue of how councillors should respond to concerns about potentially unsafe buildings was also raised. Councillor David Richardson described difficulties he had encountered after receiving a report about an unsecured former cinema building. Chief executive Joe McLachlan advised that Police Scotland should be the first point of contact where concerns involved buildings not owned by the council. He also acknowledged that a wider discussion about the respective responsibilities of elected members and officers could be useful.
At the conclusion of the debate, councillors noted the Standards Commission findings and the recommendations in the report. No further sanction was imposed by the council.
