Does the Councillors’ Code prevent effective scrutiny by councillors?

27th November 2025

Does the Councillors’ Code prevent effective scrutiny by councillors?

Councillors, as elected representatives, are responsible for assisting the public in scrutinising how their local authorities deliver essential services to communities, including housing, education and waste management.

Given the importance of these services and the expenditure of public funds involved in their delivery, it is vital that councillors are able to undertake robust scrutiny to ensure local authorities are accountable, transparent and effective, and are providing value for money.

We note that councillors sometime suggest to us, or in the media, that the Councillors’ Code of Conduct prevents them from undertaking this important role effectively or that the Code is being ‘weaponised’ by Council officers to prevent them from doing so. However, as our Executive Director explained to the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government Housing and Planning Committee when she appeared before it at an evidence session on 25 November 2025, the Standards Commission refutes this suggestion entirely. 

By its very nature, scrutiny involves challenge, and councillors are entitled, and may even be expected, to do so robustly. The Code does not restrict this. It does, however, require councillors to behave with courtesy and respect when challenging others and expressing their views.

The Code also requires councillors to refrain from criticising publicly the conduct, performance or capability of officers. A failure to adhere to this can damage a councillor’s relationship with officers, which in turn can have a detrimental effect on how they perform their duties. Any concerns about the conduct, performance or capability of an officer should be raised privately, with their line manager or the Chief Executive.

An easy way to avoid falling foul of the Code’s provisions in this regard is for councillors to focus on the issue itself, rather than making any personal comments about their political opponents or any council officers.

For example, if a councillor was concerned about the adequacy of a risk assessment outlined in a report prepared by an officer, it would be respectful and constructive to say “I consider there is insufficient information to enable me to consider fully the risks involved. Can more analysis on the potential risks be provided?”, rather than to directly criticise the competence of the report’s author.

If a councillor is concerned their council is not meeting its targets or the expectations of their constituents in respect of an aspect of service delivery, they are entitled to say this, to ask for information or to call for improvements. What they should not be doing is publicly criticising any individual officer or calling for them to be subject to performance measures. It should be noted that an unexpected event, outwith the control of any individual officer, could have led to there being a lack of resources or conflicting priorities that has affected achievement of the target or delivery of the service.

Councillors require information in order to undertake their scrutiny role properly and effectively. Elected members have a right of access to information held by their council, including a legal right under statute and common law to inspect council documentation. However, councillors only have a right to information that is reasonably necessary to enable them to perform their duties properly as a member of the council. This principle is commonly referred to as the ‘need to know’ principle. Asking for information they do not require can result in councillors making unreasonable demands of officers and can adversely affect the ability of the officers in question to undertake their normal day-to-day tasks. It can lead to councillors becoming inappropriately involved in operational matters. This, in turn, can mean they lose sight of the bigger picture and are unable, or do not have the time, to focus on the strategic and scrutiny elements of their role.

The vast majority of complaints alleging breaches of the Code by councillors are made by members of the public, with only a very small percentage being made by council officers. While it may be the case that officers occasionally provide councillors with advice to help ensure they do not breach the Code, there is no evidence that it is being ‘weaponised’ to restrict effective scrutiny. In any event, it should be noted that while officers can provide such advice on the Code, it is ultimately for the Standards Commission to determine whether it has been breached and, if so, the sanction that should be applied.

In summary, therefore, adherence to the Code should not be viewed as a barrier or a means of restricting effective scrutiny. Instead, it ensures councillors remain focused on the bigger picture and the strategic nature of their role.