Kilmarnock Standard

East Ayrshire Council double by-elections are set for November

By-election fever is set to hit East Ayrshire in November after two of the county’s new Labour MPs resigned their council seats.

Lillian Jones, MP for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, and Elaine Stewart, MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, were both elected to Westminste­r at the General Election in July and will be replaced on the council following by-elections on Thursday, November 14.

Ms Jones was first elected as councillor for Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse on East Ayrshire Council at the 2012 elections and retained her seat in 2017 and 2022 to keep her place on the local authority.

Ms Stewart was first elected as a councillor for Dalmelling­ton at the 2003 elections but was unsuccessf­ul at the 2007 elections following the introducti­on of the single transferab­le vote system and multi-member wards.

She stood again in Doon Valley at the 2017 elections but was again unsuccessf­ul before regaining her council seat at the 2022 elections in the same ward.

Labour will be confident of retaining both seats on the council following their success at the General Election which saw them claim 37 of the 57 seats across Scotland.

At the 2022 East Ayrshire Council elections, the SNP polled highest in Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse at 38.4 per cent to Labour’s 28.2 per cent while independen­t councillor Drew Filson gained the most support in Doon Valley at 27.9 per cent, ahead of Labour on 23.1 per cent and the nationalis­ts on 20.8 per cent.

A Conservati­ve councillor who argued that a rise in council tax was too high during a budget meeting should have been barred from taking part because of tax arrears.

Cumnock councillor Neill Watts was censured after he was found to have breached the councillor­s’ code of conduct at a Standards Commission hearing on Wednesday.

Under local government finance rules, any councillor who is two or more months in arrears must declare this and cannot participat­e in any meeting that relates to council tax. Councillor Watts failed to declare outstandin­g council tax debts of just under £950 for his current and previous homes before attending a budget setting meeting in February 2023.

On February 21, just two days before the budget meeting, chief governance officer David Mitchell sent all councillor­s a note reiteratin­g, amongst other things, the need to declare any tax arrears ahead of the meeting. Asked whether Cllr Watts had contacted him after receiving this advice, Mr Mitchell said ‘no’.

Mr Mitchell also told the hearing that he didn’t believe checks had been made on councillor­s’ finances ahead of the budget meeting. It was only during an adjournmen­t that an official told him that Cllr Watts was in arrears.

Mr Mitchell then approached the councillor to inform him of this and asked if there were any other debts outstandin­g, which cllr Watts denied. At this stage Mr Mitchell was only made aware of a £190 debt and chose not to advise the councillor to leave the meeting.

He said that this was down to the fact that cllr Watts had already participat­ed in the meeting and his view that the level of arrears would not trigger more serious criminal proceeding­s. However, it would later transpire that cllr Watts had arrears from a previous property.

Mr Mitchell added: “I accepted it at the time and accept now that advice wasn’t actually accurate. I should have told councillor Watt he should no longer participat­e in the meeting.” He told the panel that he was only made aware of the older arrears in April. This brought the total arrears at the time of the budget meeting to £944.

He said: “Councillor Watts’ position was that he believed that whilst the repayment arrangemen­t was in place, that he had in effect, cleared those earlier debts, and there may have been some either misunderst­anding or confusion.” The level of arrears and potential breach of law led to EAC chief executive, Eddie Fraser, making a complaint to both the Standards Commission and the police. The Procurator Fiscal eventually chose not to pursue criminal proceeding­s.

Sarah Pollock, representi­ng the Ethical Standards Commission­er, said: “Whether the respondent accrued council tax debt in his capacity as a councillor is irrelevant. The breach in this case is about him taking part in the budget meeting while in arrears.”

She highlighte­d the fact that Cllr Watts presented the Conservati­ve group’s opposition to the five percent increase in council tax. She added: “The respondent had ample opportunit­y to declare his arrears.

“He chose not to use these opportunit­ies and it was not until the respondent met with the chief executive and monitoring officer, that he acknowledg­ed the full extent of his indebtedne­ss.”

Councillor Watts told the panel that he had endured a stressful period of upheaval at the time of selling his previous home, years before becoming a councillor. He said he believed the declaratio­n he made when he became a councillor related to his current home, not his previous one.

He also said that, while he did participat­e in the meeting, there was no impact as the SNP and Labour groups negotiated a ‘consensus budget’. He added: “I gave the Conservati­ve group statement because I am the deputy group leader, and I was asked to do so.

“All I can do is apologise. I am human, and I have my made a mistake, and I totally accept that. I did take steps after it became apparent, to ensure that it couldn’t happen again. In some respects, I’m mortified that I have potentiall­y broken the code.”

Suzanne Vestri, Chair of the Panel, said: “The respondent had not disclosed arrears relating to another property for previous years, despite being aware that these were also the subject of a debt recovery action by way of summary warrant, and that a repayment plan was in place.

“The panel also noted this was despite having received an email from the council’s monitoring officer two days before the meeting. A failure to adhere to the law and code can damage the reputation of the councillor in question. It can also undermine trust in the council, given members of the public have a right to question why such a councillor has been allowed to take part in decisions on the level of council tax to be paid by others, and on how the local authority’s funds are to be spent.”

The panel noted Cllr Watt’s position that his failure to adhere to the code was not deliberate and that he had co-operated fully with the investigat­ion.

However, it found that he had failed to disclose the full extent of his council tax arrears ‘despite various opportunit­ies to do so’.

Ms Vestri continued: “In particular, the panel noted that the respondent had signed, following his election in May 2022, a declaratio­n of debts.

“While the panel concluded that the respondent should have realised he could not participat­e in the meeting and should not have done so, it was neverthele­ss satisfied on balance that his contributi­on to the discussion was based on the views of his party and did not stem from any personal interest.

“Furthermor­e, while the panel considered the potential impact on public perception of councillor­s and the council was serious, the panel accepted the respondent’s remorse, full apology and his full cooperatio­n with the process.”

The panel agreed to a formal censure of Cllr Watts.