AN Argyll and Bute Councillor will not be punished after an alleged breach of confidentiality on social media.
A report by the Standards Commission for Scotland has said that a referral took place earlier this month after a complaint was made in August 2025.
The councillor, who is not identified in the document, was reported to have shared an email from one of the authority’s officials which was sent to all councillors.
However, the Standards Commission ruled that it was “not proportionate” to hold a hearing, and no action will be taken.
The report, dated Monday, February 16, said: “Following his investigation into a complaint received on August 28, 2025 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct (the Code) by an elected member of Argyll and Bute Council (the respondent), the ESC (ethical standards commissioner) referred the matter to the Standards Commission on February 10.
“The complaint was that in August 2025, the respondent disclosed, on social media, an email from a senior officer to all elected members of Argyll and Bute Council, in breach of the confidentiality requirements of the Code.
“The officer noted in the email that while information had been circulating on social media and in the press suggesting grooming gangs were operating in the area, there was no intelligence to suggest that was the case.
“The officer further noted that if anyone had concerns about any individual being abused, or being at risk of abuse, they should contact the police or the council using an online form on its website.
“The ESC reported that the respondent identified himself as a councillor on the social media account on which he posted the email. As such, the Code applied to his conduct.
“He had found the email was headed ‘OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE-NONE’ and was therefore classified, under the council’s system, as confidential. The ESC accepted that the officer had sent the email so that elected members could use the information it contained to answer any questions they might receive from constituents.
“The ESC noted, however, that the email was not intended as a public statement and that the officer did not expect it to be disclosed in full. The ESC and advised he had concluded that, by disclosing it, the respondent breached the provisions in the Code that require councillors to maintain confidentiality.
“He was of the view that there were other ways in which that the respondent could have reassured his constituents, without sharing a confidential email. The ESC advised he considered there was a need to maintain the confidentiality of the email ‘in order to avoid any unnecessary anxiety and potential racial unrest among members of the community’ as well as to protect the mutual bond of trust and confidence between councillors and officers that enables local government to function effectively.
“The ESC advised that, as such, he had concluded that a restriction on the respondent’s right to freedom of expression, that a formal finding of a breach of the Code and imposition of a sanction would entail, could be justified.”
The document added: “In considering proportionality, the Standards Commission accepted it appeared the respondent may have breached the council policy in respect of how emails were labelled and whether the information they contained could be disclosed (being a policy he should have been aware of).
“The Standards Commission further accepted it was the respondent’s responsibility to seek the permission of the email’s author in the event he thought it necessary to share it in its entirety.
“The Standards Commission had sympathy with the email’s author as it agreed that officers had a right to send emails to councillors, properly labelled, containing information they might make use of, without expecting them to then disclose the email in full.
“Indeed, the Standards Commission acknowledged there was a risk that officers would be less candid in future if they were concerned that every word they write, or say, will be publicised by elected members.
“The Standards Commission nevertheless noted that the police had already made public the information the email contained by the time it was disclosed by the respondent, meaning its contents were already in the public domain (even if the email itself was not).
“The Standards Commission did not consider that disclosing the email and providing the assurance that there was no intelligence to suggest grooming gangs were operating in the area would be likely to cause unnecessary anxiety or racial unrest.
“As such, the Standards Commission considered the consequences of the respondent’s actions were minimal and were never likely to be otherwise.
“It was not persuaded, therefore, that even if the respondent’s conduct was found at a hearing to amount, on the face of it, to a breach of the Code, a restriction on his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights could be justified.
“Having taken into account the nature of the potential breach, and the likelihood of the respondent’s conduct being protected by his enhanced right to freedom of expression, the Standards Commission concluded that it was not proportionate for it to hold a hearing. The Standards Commission determined, therefore, to take no action on the referral.”
