 Welcome to the seventh meeting of the local government housing and planning committee in 2021. I would ask all members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent and that all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. The first item on our agenda today is an evidence session on the code of conduct for councillors. I would like to welcome Ben Macpherson, minister for social security and local government. I would also like to welcome Tony Remain, senior policy officer, local government policy and relationships unit, and Claire McKenna, senior policy officer, local government policy and relationships unit, the Scottish Government and they are joining us virtually. We are going to be taking evidence from the minister before moving to a formal debate on the code of conduct and in that light, I would like committee members to declare any interests they might have in this issue. Thank you convener and welcome to the minister and his team. Just to declare my interests as per my register and interests that I am a councillor in the Steershire council, thank you. I would like to declare that I am a serving councillor in North Lanarkshire. I would like to invite the minister to make a short opening statement on the code. The revised councillor's code of conduct that you are looking at today 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 expects elected officials, whether a councillor or a member of this Parliament, to adhere to the highest standards of behaviour. That is a commitment that this Parliament demonstrated by passing the ethical standards in public life, etc. Scotland Act 2000, as one of its earliest statutes. That act required Scottish ministers to issue a councillor's code of conduct and a model code of conduct for members of devolved public bodies. It also formed the ethical standards commissioner to investigate complaints and the standards commissioner to adjudicate on alleged breaches of the codes of conduct and where a breach is found to apply a sanction. The current version of the councillor's code was published in 2010 and underwent a minor revision in 2018. During the decade that it has been in force, it has become increasingly apparent that it is viewed as cumbersome and outdated. Many stakeholders complained that they no longer understood some of the provisions, finding it too confusing to read or no longer relevant. Members of the public were often confused as to what would constitute a complaint. Therefore, my predecessor, Kevin Stewart, initiated the review of the councillor's code. Officials worked together with the standards commission, the ethical standards commissioner, COSLA, SOLIS and SOLAR to develop and partnership the new code. I would like to thank those individuals involved for their hard work and the organisations involved for their collaboration with the Scottish Government. Whilst that work was initially delayed by Covid, I am pleased that the review is now complete and the revised codes are now laid before Parliament for approval. I would like to stress that, fundamentally, both codes of conduct remain based on nine key principles. Those are duty, selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability and stewardship, openness, honesty, leadership and respect. Both codes continue to work to promote public trust in those that they elect. That has not changed. Those key principles underpin the standards of behaviour that are expected under the current code and they continue to underpin the standards of behaviour that are required under the revised code. What the revised code does is spell out those behaviours more clearly and make plain the situations and circumstances where those behaviours are expected, including online. The changes have been broadly welcomed by the majority of those who responded to the consultation, so I am happy to address any questions that the committee may have. Thank you very much. We have a few questions. I invite Mark Griffin with the first question. I have a question about section 4 on registration of interests, particularly category 5, when it comes to houses, land and buildings. I have always had a concern when it comes to registration of interests that councillors seem to be held to a higher standards than MSPs or MPs. They need to register their own family home where they have an interest, whether that be owner, part owner or tenant. If the minister is able to say why it was felt important to still maintain that section of that particular part of registration, because there have been instances in the past where sometimes overzealous recording of a councillor's property has meant that home addresses have been made available online and that has caused safeguarding issues. We have seen fairly high profile safeguarding issues recently in the national press, but others have intimidation, bullying and aggression directed towards a local councillor. I wonder if any consideration was taken to put local councillors on a par with Parliamentarians and take out any reference or need to register any interest with a home address? I will bring Tony Romain in a moment, because you raised some important points there, Mr Griffin, particularly around security and individuals' residential address. Tony, perhaps you can please shed some light from Mr Griffin on the point that he has raised with regard to discussions with stakeholders in the process of the review. We recognise that members of the public having councillors addresses is a danger and there have been some high profile instances of late. There is still a need for councillors to register an interest because, for example, there might be a planning application in the ward that they live in. We recognise that we must protect councillors. The main change here is that the address will no longer be in the public domain. Although the council will know that the councillor lives where he does, that will not be made public, so people cannot go around to the house and threaten the councillor. I hope that that gives you the reassurance that you were looking for, Mr Griffin. That is purely the distinction, because councillors are dealing with planning issues that they still need to have a connection with, where they live. Just following on the theme of declarations of interest, declaring an interest has always been a great area for councillors and the process of leaving a meeting if they declare a significant difference from the process that is used by the Scottish Parliament, for example. Has any further consideration been given in relation to declarations of interest? Should there be more clarity surrounding councillor participation in meetings if they declare that? What sort of clarity do you mean? For example, if I was sitting in a councillor meeting and I declared like I did this morning, I would therefore have to leave and not participate in that meeting. Has there been any work undertaken to make sure that councillors, for example—I will choose a generic one, if they work for a third party organisation and they were doing a piece of work in a committee in relation to community empowerment—they would not have to therefore leave that committee, they could therefore participate and give the knowledge and experience that they have within that work that they are doing? I appreciate the nature of the question and the need for balance between making sure that councillors are able to contribute in a way that is helpful for the wider consideration and utilising the experience, but I am sure that you will appreciate the need for that consideration in terms of the public trust in order to make sure that there is not undue influence. I am going to bring Tony in in a moment because he has led the engagement of the stakeholders throughout the consultation process and when my predecessor was in place, but I know that those considerations around declaration of interest were the revisals that have been made within the new draft are about making sure that it is clear not just for councillors but for members of the public too. Tony, perhaps you can please give some insight into the considerations that went on during the process. We considered that the previous version was the main part of the code that was too cumbersome and confusing. We have broken it down into the three main parts, which are connection, interest and participation. If you have an interest, you should declare it, and if that interest is significant, normally we would expect you to withdraw from the meeting, but there may be occasions where the councillor's knowledge and experience will help the rest of the councillor to inform their decision. There is now the provision to apply to the Standards Commission when you know that it is coming up to have a dispensation to maintain your presence. You can appear in the meeting if you need to. If the Standards Commission agrees with you, of course. Thank you, Tony. The way that the drafting is laid out in section 5 is very clear of the three different forms that Tony Romain spoke about in terms of the different natures of the interests. I hope that that will be clear for councillors going forward. Thank you for that. Willie Coffey, you've got a question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister and your colleagues. I wanted to ask your views on the issue of what councillors can, can't and shouldn't do in relation to lobbying and planning applications. The guidance seems quite clear, minister, that a councillor must not divulge an opinion in advance. In my experience, when I was a councillor, often the advice from senior officials was just not to engage at all with supporters or opposers of a planning application per se. I always felt that that inhibited and restricted the councillor's ability to us to look at all the information that might be available to him or her to enable them to make a decision. Have you any views about whether that is still a little grey area in the code or are you clearer that a councillor can meet people who are proposing a planning application or indeed opposing it or whether they shouldn't? It's still a little unclear for me, I would say. Thank you, Willie Coffey. The redrafted code has shortened section 6 to try to make it easier for users. I appreciate your points in relation to planning applications where there will be often discussion in the community or in the public discourse that the councillor will be aware of but not be able to engage with stakeholders directly, whether that is the applicant or the community campaign in opposition. However, the way in which it has been set out and the position continues is to make sure, particularly with regard to the plans that you will appreciate, which are appropriately sensitive given the nature of the decision that is being made, that it is important that it is very clear in the code and in the councillor's engagement with the code that they are able to make a quasi-judicial decision that is not an influence. I think that drafting is clear, but if that is something that needs further consideration, we can take that point going forward. However, I would encourage Parliament to agree that the code is drafted today. Again, I will bring Tony in for context just because of his engagement through the process. I do not know if there is anything further that you want to add on that. Fundamentally, we have not actually changed the section. We have made it clear, at least I think that we have. However, the main change with the section was that there are other types of quasi-judicial applications that councils now have to undertake besides planning, for example community asset transfer requests. The section was redrafted mainly with that in mind rather than changing any of the existing rules or regulations around planning applications. I think that you would agree that it would be unwise to engage with lobbyists because that does, in gender, mistrust in the public. That does not stop councils and councillors asking for or seeking information from people at making applications. We would prefer that it would be done in a more transparent and open manner than behind closed doors, which I think is the fear that has happened in the past. The new section makes that much clearer. What we are saying is that it is unwise to engage, and I think that you would agree that it is unwise to engage behind closed doors. It is on the point about how do we ensure that a councillor gets the fullest picture of a thing? There is going to be a pinion at both sides of an application. We know that. The question for me is, should the councillor disengage from that process for fear of being lobbied and possibly forming a view, or should the councillor embrace that process and declare that he or she has done so that the public can see that an objective assessment is still possible? The position that has been set out, as Tony Romain alluded to, is that the councillor should not engage himself in a position where they can be lobbied. However, in the quasi-Jews-Israel setting, whether that is consideration of a committee or consideration of papers at a committee or in a committee session where there is a presentation on the position from both parties, for example, that the due process is followed and that the process lends itself to hearing the different perspectives. That maintains the quasi-Jews-Israel nature of the process and the arrangement. I do not know if you want to add any more to that, Tony. Yes. The Standards Commission are providing guidance on the back of this as well, which will make it more clear how to get that information from planning applications or applicants rather than doing it through the lobbying thing. They should make it more clear and make it safer for councillors so that they would not get accused of doing it on board. However, they have taken that on board, and that will be included in their guidance. Tony, that is great to hear that the Standards Commission is taking on providing guidance. Are there opportunities for training for councillors in that situation? I hear from my colleagues that there are areas that are not clear where councillors want to have the confidence that they are doing the right thing. The Standards Commission guidance will also be followed up with training material provided to council monitoring officers. It will, of course, be up to individual councils how they provide the training to the councillors, but the training material will be provided by the Standards Commission. I would like to invite Miles Briggs with a question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister and the panel. It was specifically with regard to point 24 about public comment, and it states that councillors and employees both have a responsibility to project a positive image of the council and should avoid making any public comments that could bring it into disrepute. As a new councillor reading that, you would feel that you could not comment on any concerns that you might have, be it with bullying, often—and minister will be aware—of cases such as that here in the capital, where they are often brought to the press before the council really starts looking at them. Do you think that that is too tight in terms of councillors not being able to publicly comment on concerns that they might have about the actual running of the council or issues within the council? Sorry, Mr Briggs. You said point 24. It is on page 31 in terms of public comment, and it seems a very tight definition to me of councillors being discouraged from making any public comment that would bring the council into disrepute. There is a huge difference between someone in administration and an opposition councillor deciding that they are not getting a satisfactory resolution within processes in the council, where they might go to the press and make public comment. I just wondered how that was drawn up as a paragraph of advice. I appreciate it. I think that our page numbers are different from your committee papers, so thank you, Mr Briggs, for your patience on that. We will bring Tony remaining in a minute because of the background in terms of the engagement with stakeholders. Of course, it is about making sure that there is an appropriate consideration for the integrity of the institution, but I take your point about the need for political debate and discussion on performance and all the other things that you would consider. There will be members of staff working for councillors who are not appropriate levels to be considered for criticism in the public domain, and a lot of that is considered around their wellbeing and considerations. I will let Tony say a little bit more on that. You have made the point for me, minister. The main concern here is making address comments about employees. We are not saying that councillors lose the right to scrutinise the council. That is a part of the councillor's role. What we are really doing here is trying to protect employees from individually being picked on by councillors. For example, you could go around and say that Mr Romain is not very good at his job. You would need to do it more formally by going to the council and saying that we are not doing very well at this particular role. It is just a matter of how you say it, more than anything. Those points—I think that point 25 just below that—capture that. I think that what that point specifically points towards is that council is an institution and bringing that into disrepute. I would be concerned that a new councillor reading that would feel that they cannot be critical in the press as part of the code of conduct guidance. That is specifically saying that they have to project a positive image of the council, which in some cases they may not have to do. It is maybe a wording issue around that as well, which needs to be looked at to make sure that councillors feel that, if they need to, they can make public comment against the organisation, so to speak, not an employee. I appreciate the points that Mr Briggs has made. The draft, as before us, is being considered by Parliament, but what we can do is, should Parliament pass the draft of the code, we can look at how, in the training process, that point is made clear. I think that it is a point of perception that you are talking about, Mr Briggs. You raised something that is worth considering, and we will take that away in terms of how we lay with stakeholders and colleagues on the training points, if that is a satisfactory answer for you. Thank you very much, minister, for taking that on board. I have made a note that we are going to keep an eye out for that being made clear in training. I thank you, Miles, for raising that point. I think that there are not any more questions. I thank the minister and his officials, and we are going to move on to the second item on our agenda. That is the consideration of motion S6M-01124, that the local government housing and planning committee recommends that the code of conduct for councillors be approved. I invite the minister to move the motion. The question is that motion S6M-01124, in the name of Ben Macpherson, be approved. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed, and the committee report will confirm the outcome of the debate. As agreed previously, we will now move to consider our work programme in private, and I now close the public part of the meeting, and we will move into private.