Chamber and committees

That is fine.

It is on page 31, in the section entitled “Public comment”. The definition seems to me to be very tight, in that councillors are discouraged from making any public comment that could bring the council “into disrepute”. There is a huge difference between, say, someone in the administration and a councillor in the opposition, who might feel that they have not received a satisfactory resolution from the council’s processes and might make some public comment in the press. I wonder how that paragraph was drawn up.

I note that, in the section on public comment, point 24 says:

“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.”

Reading that, a new councillor might feel that they should not comment on any concern, even if it is to do with bullying or whatever. Indeed—the minister will be aware of such cases here in the capital—such matters are often taken to the press before the council can start to look at them. Do you think that that rule is too tight, with regard to councillors being unable to comment publicly on concerns that they have about the running of the council or other issues to do with it?

I take those points on board, and paragraph 25 captures that view. However, paragraph 24 is specifically about bringing the council as an institution “into disrepute”. I am concerned that a new councillor who reads that might feel that, under the code of conduct guidance, they cannot be critical in the press. It says that they have to

“project a positive image of the Council”,

but in some cases they might not feel that they can do that. Perhaps it is just a matter of looking at the wording to ensure that councillors know that, if they need to, they can make public comment against the organisation, as it were, but not against a particular employee.

I reiterate what my colleague Jeremy Balfour has said. Amendments 4, 5, 8 and 9 are useful and I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for lodging them. Further to what she has outlined to the committee at stage 2 about the discussions that she has had with the Scottish Government on the issues, can she reassure us that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Green Party will bring what is proposed in the amendments back to Parliament at stage 3 so that the important requirements in them can be taken forward? Has she received such a commitment from the minister? He is here, so maybe he will also outline that to the committee.

Listening to this morning’s conversation, I have a question about the rationale behind using the health board model. I fully understand that as far as patient advocacy is concerned, but would it not make more sense to use a local government model, given that a lot of advocacy is already provided for people in that area?

With regard to commitments, you touched on the issue of digital barriers. We have seen some improvements in that respect, but not for those who might be at a further remove from such technology. Perhaps some consideration should be given to making commitments with regard to people who do not have such access. Moreover, have there been any commitments in relation to British Sign Language translation services and advocacy?

I have a couple of questions, but first I put on record that, like everyone round the table, I welcome the move to independent advocacy.

However, there are concerns about the organisation that will deliver the service not having a footprint in Scotland and institutional knowledge. What assurances have you had, beyond those that you refer to in your letter to the committee, that it will genuinely be a national service? Setting up a centre in Glasgow is one thing, but Glasgow is not Scotland. I apologise to Glasgow members, but it is important that we make sure that the service is a national one and that some of the barriers that we have had previously will not be put up by the new service.

In addition, could you outline what level of funding is currently provided to other organisations in Scotland to provide advocacy?

We know that national planning framework 4 will give ministers additional powers over local planning. Council leaders, including those from the First Minister’s own party, have voiced real concerns about the impacts of the Government’s proposals regarding the centralisation of services and further loss of local accountability and decision making. Those include concerns about alcohol and drug partnerships and children’s services being swept up in proposals for a centralised system. I ask a very simple question of the First Minister. By the end of this session, will councils have fewer or more powers?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that, in the last year, ministers overturned almost 50 per cent of planning applications. (S6F-00319)