Seòmar agus comataidhean

I take the point. Indeed, in the period ahead, we will be discussing together and in a collegiate way the benefit take-up strategy and how we can work through not just the Government but all available channels to raise awareness of what is available and encourage take-up. It is an incredibly important issue in which the Government is very seriously and proactively engaged.

I am happy to give Mr Briggs an undertaking that I will continue to receive stakeholder feedback, whether from CHAS or from others. Indeed, we have formal processes in that respect. However, I also note that the changes before us today are based partly on stakeholder feedback. I hope that it reassures Mr Briggs, the committee and those who are listening that the regulations that we are seeking approval of today have been based somewhat on that feedback.

We have thought carefully about the matter. It is important to emphasise that we still intend to pay eligible child winter heating assistance clients as quickly as possible and that we expect to pay the vast majority of the more than 19,000 eligible children and young people by the end of the year. I just want to make that clear.

This year, making payments safely to everyone will require additional time and care. If regulations are passed that extend eligibility to around 5,000 young people who are in receipt of PIP, client data will come from a brand new source, which will mean an increase in client volumes, and we need to consider the practicalities around that.

In the event that payments are not made by 31 December, we expect that fewer than 10 per cent will be impacted. However, as I said, our intention is that the vast majority will be paid before 31 December.

It is also important to emphasise that it makes sense to provide support when it is needed most. We have thought about that point carefully. As we know, the coldest months in Scotland tend to be January and February, and user research suggests that some clients would prefer to receive their winter heating benefits in those months. Removing the deadline might help us to meet the needs of clients by paying benefits at a time that suits them best. It will be a consideration for us next year, once we are able to evaluate this year’s process and reflect on the feedback that we have received.

It is important to appreciate that, with the launch of CDP and the start of case transfer for children from DLA to CDP, Social Security Scotland enters a crucial and complex phase in its work this winter. The flexibility that we will gain around making determinations on child winter heating assistance cases through the removal of the 31 December deadline will ensure that Social Security Scotland will be able to deliver all its benefits to a high standard and on time, to the ultimate benefit of all our clients.

We are determined to deliver to as many clients as possible by 31 December, and we are confident that the vast majority of people will get their payment before then. Removing the deadline will give us the flexibility to consider, next year and in the years after, whether payment in a different period during the winter would be more advantageous for more clients.

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.

Thank you for your patience, Mr Briggs. I think that the page numbers in our papers must be different.

I will bring in Tony Romain to talk about the background and engagement with stakeholders, but I think that this is about ensuring appropriate consideration of the institution’s integrity. I take your point, though, about the need for political debate and discussion about performance and everything else. A balance has to be struck here. There will be members of staff working for councillors who are not at an appropriate level for criticism in the public domain, and a lot of this is about taking their wellbeing into consideration.

I appreciate the nature of the question and the need to ensure that councillors can contribute in a way that helps the wider consideration of matters and uses their experience. However, I am sure that you will appreciate the need to balance that with the consideration of maintaining public trust by ensuring that there is no undue influence.

I will bring in Tony Romain again, because he led the engagement with stakeholders throughout the consultation process, including while my predecessor was in post. The revisions to the code are about ensuring that considerations around declarations of interest are clear not just for councillors, but for members of the public. Tony can give us some insight into the considerations during the process.

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.