Seòmar agus comataidhean

Section 5 is drafted and laid out in such a way that it makes clear the three different aspects that Tony Romain mentioned. I hope that that will be clear for councillors.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, colleagues. The revised “Code of Conduct for Councillors” that the committee is considering is part of a joint exercise to review the code and the “Model Code of Conduct for Members of Devolved Public Bodies”, which was also laid before Parliament on 2 September.

The public expect elected officials, whether they are councillors or members of the Parliament, to adhere to the highest standards of behaviour. The Parliament demonstrated that commitment by passing the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000 as one of its earliest statutes. That act required the Scottish ministers to issue a code of conduct for councillors and a model code of conduct for members of devolved public bodies. It also formed the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland to investigate complaints and the Standards Commission for Scotland to adjudicate on alleged breaches of the codes of conduct and, when a breach is found, to apply a sanction.

The current version of the councillors code was published in 2010 and underwent a minor revision in 2018. During the decade for which it has been in force, it has become increasingly apparent that it is viewed as being cumbersome and outdated. Many stakeholders complained that they no longer understood some of the provisions and found it too confusing to read or no longer relevant. Members of the public were often confused about what would constitute a complaint. My predecessor, Kevin Stewart, therefore initiated a review of the code.

Officials worked together with the Standards Commission, the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers and the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland to develop the new code in partnership. I thank the individuals who were involved for their hard work and the organisations that were involved for their collaboration with the Scottish Government. The work was initially delayed by Covid, but I am pleased that the review is now complete and the revised codes have been laid before Parliament for approval.

I stress that, fundamentally, both codes of conduct remain based on the nine key principles of duty, selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability and stewardship, openness, honesty, leadership and respect. Both codes continue to work to promote the public’s trust in the people whom they elect. That has not changed. The key principles underpin the standards of behaviour that are expected under the current code and they continue to underpin the standards of behaviour that will be required under the revised code. The revised code spells out the behaviours more clearly and makes plain the situations and circumstances in which they are expected, including online. The changes have been broadly welcomed by the majority of those who responded to the consultation.

I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

You raise some important points, Mr Griffin, particularly on security in relation to an individual’s residential address. Perhaps Tony Romain can shed some light on that point with regard to discussions with stakeholders during the review.

I appreciate Mr Briggs’s point. Should the draft document that the Parliament is considering be agreed to, we will look at how that issue can be made clear in the training process. The member has raised a point of perception that is worth considering, and we will take it away and think about how we might liaise with stakeholders and colleagues with regard to training. I hope that that is satisfactory.

Correct.

As Tony Romain set out, the position is that the councillor should not get into a situation where they can be lobbied. However, in a quasi-judicial setting such as a committee session in which papers are considered or presentations are made by both parties, due process must be followed. Of course, the quasi-judicial nature of the process and arrangement lends itself to different perspectives being heard. Do you have anything to add, Tony?

I thank colleagues for their comments. I respect and appreciate the points that Jeremy Balfour has made, but I do not believe that the review and reporting obligations that would be imposed by the amendments in the group are required, and I will set out why.

The Scottish Government has recently published evaluations on the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, as Maggie Chapman alluded to a few moments ago. The evaluation shows that the supplement has gone some way towards meeting its overall aims, which are to improve outcomes for carers by providing extra financial support and to provide greater recognition of the essential societal contribution that carers make. The majority of young carer grant recipients felt that it helped to make a difference to their lives, gave them access to more opportunities and improved their mental wellbeing.

We have undertaken all of that, and we are progressing our work to deliver Scottish carers assistance, including the commitment to an additional payment for those with multiple caring roles. I cannot support the amendments in the group, because meeting the additional reporting requirements that they would create would require reallocation of resources internally in the Scottish Government, away from our work to develop Scottish carers assistance and away from on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant.

The funding is new. As I said, it is an investment of £20 million in a new service to fulfil the obligations in the 2018 act. We will make that investment over four years.

We will work with VoiceAbility on raising awareness. I will be pleased to keep the committee updated on our engagement with the charity as it develops its presence in Scotland and creates the networks that are needed to deliver its service effectively. That will involve working with a range of partners, which is what VoiceAbility has done in other parts of the United Kingdom, to raise awareness of the service. As part of the 2018 act, there is an obligation on us in that regard. As ministers, we are focused on raising awareness of what social security support in the round is available to people, as are Social Security Scotland and the wider Government.

On the point about the service being exclusive, when people request advocacy support with devolved benefits that are delivered by Social Security Scotland, that will be delivered exclusively by VoiceAbility. However, if people want advice, they will still be able to go to a citizens advice bureau or through other organisations.

Of course, the distinction between advocacy and advice is important. Mr Balfour will recall that we discussed it at length during the progress of the 2018 act.

Ruari Sutherland might want to come in.

To Parliament, do you mean?

The milestones in the contract relate to assessing performance and provision. As for outcomes, the Government and the Parliament will be watching to ensure that the standards are being met and the service is being effective for people, and that will happen in due course.