Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sorry, Mr Briggs, but what do you mean by “point 24”?

I hope that that gives you the reassurance that you are looking for, Mr Griffin.

What sort of clarity do you mean?

In the redrafted code, section 6 has been shortened to make it easier for users. I appreciate your point that there will often be discussion in the community or public discourse that the councillor will be aware of but they cannot engage directly with stakeholders, whether that is the applicant or, for example, a community campaign that is in opposition. As Mr Coffey will appreciate, planning issues can be sensitive, given the nature of the decision that is being made. It is clear both in the code and in a councillor’s engagement with the code that they must be able to make a quasi-judicial decision that has not been influenced.

I think that the drafting is clear. If the committee thinks that it needs further consideration, I can take that point away. However, I encourage the committee to agree to the code as drafted today. Again, Tony Romain might want to add to what I have said, given his engagement throughout the process.

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?

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.

As I said, we have recently published evaluations on the carers allowance supplement and the young carer grant, and we will continue to do that as appropriate and in due course. However, the obligations that the amendments would place on us would take resources away from our development of Scottish carers assistance and the on-going work to consider improvements to the young carer grant, which is where our focus should be.

To respond directly to Miles Briggs, I note that, if the amendments are not agreed to, there is no intention to bring them back at stage 3, but I can commit to continuing to explore options outside the bill. I have talked about what we have done in terms of evaluation in recent times.

I am grateful to Maggie Chapman for the discussions that I have had with her in recent days, and for not moving amendment 4. As Jeremy Balfour has moved it, I will say that, although I am grateful for the debate that we have had, I urge members to reject all the amendments on reporting requirements, because they would detract from our work on developing the new Scottish carers assistance.