Seòmar agus comataidhean

I beg your pardon, was that page 43?

I ask Mr Lumsden to refer to the specific budget line.

It is important for context to look below at the specific budget lines. The money is being deployed through a range of interportfolio transfers. For example, look at the additional funding to local government for education recovery and additional teacher support. That relates to the point that I made about how, although resource is allocated to the portfolio where decisions are taken, it can then be allocated to another portfolio in which delivery takes place. That is reflected in those figures.

Are you referring to section 6?

I want to make sure that I am referring to the appropriate part of the model code when I respond. Section 3 is on respect and courtesy. Is that the area that you refer to?

I touched on some of that in my previous answer to Paul McLennan. As has been touched on by other committee members in relation to the first-person narrative, it is about personal ownership by board members.

If someone is appointed as a member of a public board, it is incumbent on that individual to familiarise themselves with their own code, which will be provided to them by their chair. I made reference to the induction workshops that the Scottish Government’s public bodies unit facilitates when someone is appointed to a public board. I also referred to the fact that those include presentations from the Standards Commission and from the commissioner. Therefore, training opportunities exist.

It is also incumbent on individual board members to take opportunities to continually update their awareness and understanding of how the code is applicable to their conduct and to the operation of their board. I appreciate that that places a heavy emphasis on individual responsibility, but I hope that that is balanced by the support that is provided for new members as they are appointed—and, of course, each board has the resource of the standards officer, to whom individual board members can turn if they seek further clarity or guidance on the code and its applicability.

To complement the codes of individual boards, guidance is provided by the Standards Commission. That is under development. Should the model code be adopted by the Parliament, guidance by the Standards Commission will be published on the website.

Although a heavy emphasis is placed on individual responsibility, a range of support is available, including at the point of induction and continually thereafter.

If you do not mind, I will turn to Ian Thomson for further input on the points that you have raised, Mr Doris.

You have asked an important question. As I touched on in my introductory remarks, the original code was introduced—[Inaudible.]—and was revised in 2014. I want to highlight two points that informed our decision to progress the revision at this juncture, the first of which is simply the amount of time that has passed since 2014. I mentioned the issues of social media and bullying and harassment several times in my opening remarks, and I know that across the public and private sectors and, indeed, wider society there have been significant reflections on codes of conduct and whether they are fit for purpose. Indeed, the committee considered the issue in great detail in the previous parliamentary session. In short, we wanted to reflect the changes that have happened in society over the past seven years and felt that this was an appropriate juncture at which to consider and revise the code.

As I said in my opening remarks, the councillors’ code is also being revised. Both codes were introduced at a similar time, close to the beginning of the devolution era. Because the councillors’ code was being revised, it was deemed appropriate that the two codes should continue to be aligned where appropriate.

Those two factors have informed the decision to carry out the revision now. Of course, in future, we will always take account of developments and changes. That will inform future decisions on when it would be appropriate to revise the code.

That is an important point. I draw the committee’s attention to the fact that the code for members of public bodies is a model code and it will be up to the individual bodies that are listed in schedule 3 to the 2000 act to apply it as appropriate to their own organisations. Obviously, the codes that they seek to apply will have to be agreed to by the Scottish ministers. However, the need for a degree of flexibility to recognise not only the distinction between public bodies and local authorities but the variety of public bodies that exist is the reason why we have a model code as opposed to prescribing one overarching code to which each public body must adhere.

I hope that that reassures you on the point that you raised, convener.

I am happy to take that away. Clearly, the figure was reached previously and, hence, is reflected across a number of codes, including the MSP code, which is a matter for the Parliament to decide. I am happy to seek to provide the committee with further information at a later date as to how the figure was arrived at for the previous code. However, it has clearly been generally accepted, hence its appearance across multiple codes.