Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Official Report 559KB pdf

---

“Code of Conduct for Councillors”

Agenda item 3 is on the revised “Code of Conduct for Councillors”. The revised code of conduct—SG/2018/65—is to be approved by resolution of the Parliament, so the committee’s role is to consider it as it would consider an instrument that is subject to affirmative procedure. For this agenda item, the committee will take evidence on the revised code from the minister. For the following agenda item, the committee will formally consider a motion to approve the revised code.

I welcome again Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government and Housing, who is joined by Brian Peddie, who is the relationship manager with the Scottish Government’s local government policy and relationships unit. I thank you both for joining us. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about the proposed changes to the code of conduct. Mr Peddie’s input might be necessary at various points, as he is, without a doubt, the expert on the code of conduct.

I have laid this revised version of the code before the Parliament primarily to address two issues. The first concerns the code’s rules on declarations of conflicts of interest. We received representations that those rules were inhibiting councillors’ ability to represent councils on the boards of regional transport partnerships and that that could adversely affect the effective working of those boards.

I should probably declare at this point that I was previously chair of a regional transport partnership, Nestrans—the north east of Scotland transport partnership. RTPs exist to strengthen the planning and delivery of regional transport developments and it is important that councillors should be able to take part in their work while still properly representing those who elected them. The proposed amendments, which were the subject of public consultation, are aimed at removing the unintended barriers to achieving that aim while maintaining the general rules on conflicts of interest.

The second reason for the revised code is to make it as clear as possible to councillors, those who work with them and members of the public that bullying and harassment in any form will not be tolerated. Despite the great progress that has been made in promoting and achieving equality, it is clear that more needs to be done. My colleagues and I are determined that any form of prejudice, by anyone, should be stamped out wherever it exists.

People are entitled to expect that elected councillors will not engage in unacceptable behaviour, and the proposed amendment to the code will make that crystal clear. That follows similar changes made by the First Minister earlier this year to the Scottish ministerial code. I am pleased to say that COSLA is fully supportive of the proposed change.

It is also proposed to make some minor clarifying changes to the code, many of which reflect suggestions put to us by the Standards Commission for Scotland.

Looking ahead, we await the outcome of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee inquiry into sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct at the Parliament, which includes consideration of the code of conduct for MSPs. Once that inquiry has reported, we will consider whether any of its recommendations should be reflected in further changes to the code for councillors. I will advise the committee once that consideration has taken place.

I hope that that is helpful. Mr Peddie and I are prepared to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, minister. We will move to those questions now.

We have had the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, Bill Thomson, before us for a couple of fairly robust sessions. Members—me, in particular—have expressed concerns about the code and the way in which it is used against councillors, which is often in a vexatious and politically motivated manner. Should we have a root-and-branch look at it, rather than having the piecemeal reforms that you have produced today? We as MSPs have not had a chance to input into the process—this session is it, as well as the yes-or-no vote later today—or to amend any part of it.

My concern is that what we will be left with could be even worse. The section on bullying and harassment in the proposed code says only:

“Bullying or harassment is completely unacceptable and will be considered to be a breach of this Code.”

On the face of it, we might say that that is fair enough, but how do we define “bullying” and “harassment”? It could open the floodgates for councillors, in particular, to make complaints against other councillors and to say, for example, “He has harassed me,” or, “She has bullied me.” It is just not specific enough. What is your view on that?

I wrote to the convener earlier in the year about that. I agree that there might be merit in a full review of the code. It was last fully reviewed in 2010 and it must continue to evolve and change with the times. However, we do not currently have firm plans for a review. We will consider the way forward once the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has produced its report.

On the general points that Mr Simpson has made, having been a councillor myself for a number of years, I am aware that the code has sometimes been used for political purposes. We live in a political environment. Sometimes, complaints have been vexatious. However, the code and the standards are required. The changes that we have made will mean that the code is much more explicit on bullying and harassment than previously.

11:15  

The problem is that it is not explicit. It is extremely vague. It simply uses the words “bullying or harassment”, and those two terms mean many different things to different people. Do you not agree with my initial point that it could open the floodgates?

No, I do not agree with that point at all. I remember that, at the time of the publication of the code of conduct, people said that it would open the floodgates for complaints from members of the public and other elected members. That did not happen. However, in my opinion, the code did change certain behaviours in council chambers, which was a good thing. As with any code in a political environment, there will be folks who will chance their arm at points, which is not a good thing for grown-up and mature politics. We need a code, and it is right in the current circumstances to emphasise bullying and harassment.

Other members want in, Mr Simpson. There will be the opportunity for a wider discussion on that theme under the next item on the agenda. You can continue if you want, but you will have another opportunity under the next item.

It is up to you, convener. I have questions about another part of the code.

Okay. Mr Gibson, do you want to come in in relation to this issue?

I agree with the minister that we have to move with the times and it is important that issues such as bullying and harassment are covered, but we cannot just use a couple of words to do that. What is bullying to one person could just be a robust exchange of views to somebody else, but that person could say, “You’re bullying me.” There has to be more detail and meat on the bones if people are to know what the parameters are.

It is not just about protecting councillors from vexatious complaints; it is about ensuring that people who genuinely are being bullied or harassed are taken seriously. There is a balance to be struck, and the form of words that is to be used in the code does not meet the required standard.

Does the minister want to respond?

The wording is taken from the changes to the ministerial code and was agreed by COSLA. I understand that it was agreed by COSLA leaders—I am getting the nod from Brian Peddie.

We will go back and look again after the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has reported. Many people wanted a change to reflect what is currently going on in society. The First Minister agreed to change the ministerial code, and the proposed change reflects that.

Nobody disagrees that we have to be alive to the fact that, in a political environment, individuals have their own views and opinions and sometimes the situation can become heated. We acknowledge that the code was brought in to protect councillors, their integrity and the officials around them, and to ensure that there was a good balance, which did not happen in the past. Many of the rules and conditions that are in the code are there to ensure that there is protection. However, as we have heard, we could find ourselves in a very difficult situation and councillors could find themselves in some very difficult situations in relation to the interpretation of the code.

Who was consulted? You said that COSLA leaders commented. Did they give written evidence? Did they take soundings from any of their councils? Is there any evidence on what areas were looked at with reference to bullying and harassment, or was it just an overview?

You have touched on the ministerial code. It may well cover what a minister does, but the situation may not be the same for a councillor. You and I had that role for a number of years prior to coming into this place. A council chamber is a very different environment, and a councillor’s role and responsibilities, how they are involved in the community and who he or she gets involved with are all very different. The complexities that councillors may face are different from those that we face in our roles here.

I would like to find out more about the consultation. Who was involved, what was discussed and what areas of expertise were taken on board when making the decision?

It does not matter whether someone is a minister, an MSP, a councillor or any other type of public servant, there should not be any bullying or harassment going on.

The wording has been chosen to match that in the ministerial code and has been agreed not only with COSLA but with the Standards Commission for Scotland and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. My understanding is that the code was agreed by COSLA leaders. Brian Peddie will give you the details. I do not know whether there was any dissent; I do not think that there was, but I will pass you over to Brian Peddie in that regard.

I just add that the proposed change was endorsed by COSLA leaders at a meeting at the end of March. I cannot speak to what consultation may have taken place between COSLA and its member councils before that, but we had quite lengthy discussions with COSLA officials before that meeting to lay out and discuss the proposed wording of the change to the code.

We also discussed it at official level with the Standards Commission for Scotland and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. In fact, originally, the proposed wording was going to be a bit longer but the standards commission and the ethical standards commissioner felt that it was potentially unhelpful to do that, partly because of the risk of accidentally excluding behaviours that ought to be included. They felt that the better approach was to have a clear and short amendment, and that is the approach that we adopted.

All 32 leaders of councils had a say or should have had a say at their leaders meeting. They would have seen the proposals that were put before that leaders meeting.

I want to leave the couple of questions that I have until the end. Do members have any other questions?

As we have heard, the substantive changes make an addition to section 3 of the code to make it clear that

“Bullying or harassment is completely unacceptable”.

I would like to look at that from a gender perspective, because we have heard recent reports with regard to bullying and harassment at local level. In Fife, a Conservative councillor, Linda Holt, has spoken out previously about “misogynistic bullying” leading to women being “shamed” into silence.

The gender representation on our councils is not great and, nationally, only six council leaders are female. Arguably, a macho culture still exists at council level. Alexander Stewart is absolutely right that there is a different culture in our councils. I have witnessed Fife Council meetings in the past and I have to say that I was pretty shocked by some of the culture and the behaviour of elected members at meetings.

Do you recognise that there is a difference in terms of cultures and do you think that the code needs to be formalised further, specifically with regard to gender? I am also thinking about what has happened more recently with sexual harassment.

On the reason why the words “bullying” and “harassment” are used with no specifics, to be frank, we could go into a huge amount of specifics, including on gender, homophobia and race—the list goes on—but it is much easier to say that we have zero tolerance of any sort of bullying or harassment.

We may well have to make amendments after the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee reports. As Ms Gilruth mentioned, people such as Councillor Holt and others across the country, a number of whom are new to local government, have been quite shocked by the behaviours that there have been. Beyond that, the change in demographics in local authorities at the most recent election has allowed other folks who felt uncomfortable previously but who were unwilling to say anything about it to come forward, and that is a good thing.

I want a situation in which we are clear that we will not tolerate bullying or harassment in any shape or form.

I also have a question about social media. I do not think that the code explicitly refers to online behaviours, but there is a reference to that in the guidance on the code where, in the section on general conduct, councillors are encouraged to think about

“whether your comments are likely to bring your office ... into disrepute”

and

“whether you are treating others with respect”.

The guidance also states:

“tone can be harder to convey online so consider whether humour, irony and sarcasm can be perceived as such”.

There is even a reference to retweets and likes, which I suppose can be done in a passive-aggressive manner or in a surreptitious way. There is a possibility, though, that councillors will ignore that guidance wilfully, as it is not part of the code. Does that need to be revisited?

I ask Brian Peddie to deal with that aspect first.

I am a bit sorry that the minister described me as “the expert”, as that is sometimes an invitation to disaster, but I will take my chances.

One of the proposed amendments to the code refers to social media. That was at the suggestion of the Standards Commission for Scotland. Section 3.1 of the amended code explicitly requires councillors to respect

“The rules of good conduct ... including ... when using social media.”

The commission felt that, although that was probably implicitly included, it would be sensible and appropriate to include a specific reference to it, and that is why it has been added. Again, we could come back to that in a wider review of the code and consider whether it ought to be expanded upon, but at least we will now have an explicit reference to social media in the amended code, if it is approved.

I hope that that is helpful.

It is. Thank you.

Under section 5 of the code, on declaration of interests, councillors are required to declare any financial or non-financial interests of

“a spouse, a civil partner or a co-habitee ... a close relative, close friend or close associate ... an employer or a partner in a firm”,

and the list goes on. However, none of those requirements applies to MSPs. We are not approving an MSP code, but I wonder why, in general terms, it is felt that that degree of declaration of financial interests of councillors and people they know continues to be required in the code, specifically when, under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006, we do not have to say anything about our spouses, cohabitees, partners, close relatives and so on.

I am, of course, not responsible for the declarations that MSPs have to make. I was quite used to all of that as a local authority member and, personally, I would have no problem in declaring all of that as an MSP, but I am here today to talk about the “Code of Conduct for Councillors”.

That is why I asked the question. What is the continuing justification for that degree of declaration to be made by councillors?

11:30  

Obviously, the code has been in place for a long while, and it was put together after a huge amount of consultation, including with the public. It is what we have. It is the “Code of Conduct for Councillors”. If members want to talk about any other codes of conduct, they need to do that with the relevant ministers. There is an expectation among the general public that folk should be as transparent as possible, and that is what the code requires.

If an accusation of bullying and harassment is made against a councillor, how would that be dealt with under the current code, before it is changed?

There is a general line on that. I ask Mr Peddie to tell you what it is.

The general provision in the code as it stands is a requirement to treat other persons with respect. That has been used in the past as the basis for proceedings against councillors under the code in relation to behaviour that could be described as bullying or harassment. It is a very wide-ranging and general statement in the current code.

The issue is significant. There is obviously a thirst among committee members for the code to be looked at more generally. I am loth not to approve the code today just because it is not much clearer about bullying and harassment, but some reassurance might be necessary about how we move forward after today. I seek a bit of clarity on your intentions. Once the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee concludes its consideration, irrespective of what is in its report, will you return to the committee and consider, collegiately with us, what opportunities there are to take a more general look at the code?

As I said, we will see what the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has to say about the entire scenario. I am not averse to coming back to this committee to discuss the code further. That committee’s report might well clearly show that there is a need for a review, but it might not. As I said in my opening remarks, changes to the code have not been looked at in any great depth since 2010, so it is probably about time that we had an overview to see whether a review is required.

I assume that that is without prejudice to what the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee does or does not report.

Yes.

I want to ask about section 7 of the code, but first I want to reflect on what we have heard already. The committee has only just started to look at the code, but members have raised a number of interesting points and you have accepted that you might need to reflect on it further. Why do we not just park the issue for now and let the committee do its job? We can make suggestions. Why not have the review now?

I am happy for the committee to do its job, but I also have a job to do, and I would be failing in my duty if I disregarded the situations that I have heard about in recent times, many of which are truly and utterly shocking. We have to do our level best to eradicate bullying and harassment in whatever shape or form, not only in local authorities but elsewhere. The First Minister showed leadership on the issue by changing the ministerial code very quickly. With the agreement of COSLA, including the agreement of the president of COSLA, Alison Evison, and the leaders, we want to do likewise. I think that we should do so now and should not wait for anything else, to show that we have a clear commitment that such behaviours are unacceptable.

Members can make any other points that they wish to make under the next agenda item, which is to debate the motion on the code. If members have no more specific questions, we will move on.

We move to agenda item 4, which is still on the “Code of Conduct for Councillors”. The committee will formally consider motion S5M-12191. Only the minister and members may speak during the debate. I invite the minister to speak to and move the motion.

I have said all that I need to say on the subject.

I move,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the revised and updated Code of Conduct for Councillors' for the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 be approved.

Unfortunately, we are not looking only at the revisions to the code; we are looking at the entire code, and that is what we will vote on. When Bill Thomson was before the committee, I asked him whether we should look at the whole code at this point and he said that, in an ideal world, that is what we should do. We need to consider not just the proposals for change but what is there already.

I was going to ask about section 7, but I cannot, so I will just make points about it. My biggest bugbear about the code is probably the fact that section 7 limits the ability of councillors to express a view on planning matters. Section 7.3 does not just say, “You must not say what you think”; it says, “You must not prejudge”. It strikes me that that is equivalent to saying to councillors, “You must not even have thoughts about planning applications,” not just that they cannot say what they think about them in advance. That seems to limit free speech. When I was a councillor for 10 years, I always thought that that was absurd, because someone who is elected as a councillor is elected to represent people and to have opinions on things.

Why should councillors not be able to express an opinion in advance of a committee meeting? I accept that, when they have heard further evidence, they might well come to a different view, but they should certainly be able to say what they think. The code prevents councillors from getting involved in planning matters, and they often hide behind it. They are not entitled to express an opinion once a planning application is live, although, bizarrely, they are entitled to express an opinion and say what they think before it goes live. Once an application is live, they are, in effect, stymied, which is absurd. For that reason, and because of the woolly language that we heard about earlier, I will vote against the motion.

My concern is that, in effect, the committee is being bounced into this. There should have been much more consultation with the committee, and deliberations, discussions and taking of evidence. Way back in the 1990s when I was a councillor on Glasgow City Council, I was involved when we brought in the first code in Scotland. I remember that we had weeks of evidence taking and deliberations.

The code has been built on since then. It seems to be growing arms and legs. I was a councillor in the days when we did not have the nonsensical restriction with regard to planning. The public point blank do not understand the situation—they do not comprehend why the people they have elected cannot have a say in planning decisions on which they are lobbying them. There is an element of frustration.

With regard to bullying, there has to be much more detail, as other members have said. The example of online sarcasm has been mentioned. Is someone bullying if they speak quietly and menacingly, but not bullying if they shout, or vice versa? How do we decide on those matters? There has to be much more discussion. The council leaders have discussed the issue, but I do not know whether all 32 were in attendance, what the vote was or whether they consulted their members. If the code is to go forward, we should look at it more comprehensively. If we do that, we will have a code that is much more workable, and the public and elected members will understand it and will be much more willing and able to work with it.

Ministers have a duty to bring forward the code and get Parliament’s approval for it. It is clear from the questions that were asked and from some of my colleagues’ contributions that questions remain about the appropriateness of elements of the code. I am particularly uncomfortable to be voting as an MSP on a code that requires councillors to divulge financial and non-financial interests that relate to family members, which increasingly intrudes on their privacy. I understand why such provisions are there, but the contrast between the duties that are placed on MSPs and those that are placed on councillors is profound. I would like to explore whether that is appropriate.

I have substantial sympathy with Graham Simpson’s comments about section 7. Since the first code was issued, a lot of the code has evolved on the basis of concerns about very specific instances. In general terms, it is understandable that a code should respond to matters that arise, such as the emergence of social media, but I am a little concerned that the on-going applicability of some restrictions has not been fully considered. This is only a code, but it could ultimately result in severe sanctions for councillors.

I very much welcome the incorporation of the bullying and harassment element, which is a key change and is one of two substantive changes. Given the public concern about the subject and given some of the behaviours that the minister referred to, it would be wrong to vote against a code that incorporated that new provision—that would send the wrong signal to the public, who expect the highest standards of behaviour from all elected members.

I will vote to recommend that Parliament should approve the code, but there are substantive concerns—Graham Simpson raised one, and I have raised another about the disclosure of financial and non-financial interests. It is time to have a root-and-branch review of whether those requirements are still appropriate and, if they are, of the terms in which they should be expressed in the code.

I served for 18 years as a councillor. Before the code was introduced, my council had a standard, but I acknowledged that a code was required, and I still believe that it is required.

There is no question but that adding a provision on bullying and harassment is right, but the code must be more explicit. In the past, we used the term “respect” in relation to bullying and harassment—anyone who did not show respect was managed in that way. Under the code, that was how people who bullied and harassed others were dealt with.

There is no question but that individuals hide behind the code so that they do not have to give constituents, organisations and individuals information. I certainly never did that but, on numerous occasions, I witnessed that being done by individuals who felt that the code gave them an advantage in not getting embroiled in a situation. That was their choice.

I have sympathy with what is proposed and I acknowledge what the Government is trying to do, but I still have concerns about where we are. We are not seeing the full picture and we are not being given every opportunity to have a discussion. The committee is discussing the code only today; we have not had an opportunity to broaden the horizon and broaden the process.

I have difficulty in seeing where we can go. I want the code to be as robust as it should be to protect individuals and to ensure that people trust and have confidence in it but, if the provisions are not explicit, the situation could be worse than it is now. Those are my concerns.

11:45  

I will be brief. I will go back to my question, which was about gender. I am the only female MSP here today. I will vote for the revised code of conduct, because I think that it is really important that we say that the behaviour that Alexander Stewart has talked about, which has gone unchallenged in the past, is unacceptable. By agreeing to the motion, we will send out a clear message. When I look round the table, I see that there are 14 men and two women. I do not think that that is okay in here, and it should not be okay out there, either.

I will take the opportunity to set out my views. I asked a specific question about what is in the existing code on treating others with respect. That is clearly a vehicle that someone who believes that they have been subjected to bullying and harassment can use, and I am sure that it has been used effectively in the past. However, it is wrong that there is no mention of bullying and harassment in the code and that it does not say that people should come forward. That is a flaw, and the code should be changed. I will support that change.

By not supporting the revised code, we would send out an appalling message. However, there is a general thirst for the code to be looked at in the round. I do not think that those are competing interests. Some members of the committee will have a continuing interest in the issue of financial declarations. No change is being made on that today, and members have identified a variety of other issues on which no change is being made. Whichever way we cut it, the most fundamental aspect of the changes that we are considering today is whether we send out a clear message that bullying and harassment are wrong and that we wish people to come forward.

I absolutely get the point that has been made about what we mean by bullying and harassment. I suspect that, if you feel it, you know what it is. If we were to provide too specific a definition, we would exclude some people who feel that they have been bullied or harassed. There are huge challenges there, because there is sometimes a lack of objectivity when people feel that they have been bullied or harassed. However, it is an omission not to mention bullying and harassment in a code of conduct.

I seek from the minister a reassurance that we will look at the code of conduct again after the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee reports. I am not using my support as leverage; I will support the revised code, because it includes a clear assertion that bullying and harassment are not acceptable and will be acted on. However, that does not negate all the significant issues with the code that other members have raised. I still seek an assurance that we will look at the code of conduct again and that we will work out collegiately what it should say. That process should go more widely than six or seven MSPs on this committee or 32 council leaders and it should involve individual councillors—women as well as men—who do the job on the ground. When it comes to what a revised code should mean, we should go through a process of co-production.

However, I cannot possibly vote against something that says that bullying and harassment in local authorities are wrong, regardless of where in the country they happen, and that we should encourage people to step forward to make complaints.

Do other members wish to comment?

The convener and Jenny Gilruth have spoken passionately about the bullying and harassment section. I would like to clarify that it is not my position that we should not say something about bullying and harassment. I am simply saying that we need to be clearer about what that is. My fear is that, if the revised code is agreed to—although that is not what we are doing today; we are just sending it on to Parliament—it could open the floodgates, with the result that genuine cases of bullying and harassment that need to be dealt with could be lost.

That is helpful. Although I disagree with Mr Simpson, it is important to say that, if we agree to the motion today, it will be the full Parliament that makes the final decision. That is absolutely right, because the code is being dealt with in the same way as an affirmative instrument. That is another reason for supporting the motion.

I do not doubt the integrity of people who take a different view from me on tackling bullying and harassment. However, I do not think that we have a binary choice between looking at bullying as part of reviewing the code more generally and agreeing to the motion now. That is why I will support the motion.

If there are no other comments, I give the minister the opportunity to sum up.

The revised code is before the committee for two reasons. The first is because we must tackle the bullying and harassment issue and we would be failing if we did not do so. The other part of the revision is a result of the request from regional transport partnerships. The reason why that is the only other revision is because that is the only other thing that we have been asked to look at in a very long time. I do not want to say that we have heard nothing about any of the things that we have been discussing, but there have been no requests for any other revision in recent times, whether in relation to section 5, section 7 or any other part of the code.

As I have said, I am willing to look at the code again, after the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has reported. I am glad that this committee has taken an interest in the code in the round. The Government looks carefully at any requests for changes to the code, but we have had no requests to revise it recently, other than the request from RTPs, which I agreed that we would consider favourably. We will look at the code in the round.

When the code of conduct came into being, folk said that it would open up the floodgates for many complaints. There were complaints, and many of them were of a sort that previously would not have been dealt with. There were also some vexatious complaints—there always are in a political environment, because that is the way of the world. I do not think that the changes will open up the floodgates this time either.

The discussion in recent times has given people the opportunity to tell folks that they are unhappy about certain aspects of the environments in which they work. We should make that as easy for them as possible. That is why it is right for us to make the change in relation to bullying and harassment as soon as we can. We have COSLA’s agreement on the matter. If COSLA was unhappy about it, I am sure that it would have let the committee know. I urge the committee to back the motion.

Thank you. We have had a pretty vigorous and open debate, so we will move to a vote.

The question is, that motion S5M-12191, in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Housing, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Abstentions

Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 2, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the revised and updated Code of Conduct for Councillors' for the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 be approved.

The committee will report to Parliament on the outcome of the instrument shortly. I thank the minister and his official for coming to speak to us.