Councillor Fiona Higgins has argued that elected representatives must be free to question unelected council officials over public spending, warning that the current conduct rules are having a chilling effect on scrutiny.
Writing for the Daily Record, Higgins said the newspaper's support for her challenge at the Court of Session was important, and highlighted its warning of a “chilling effect on free speech in local authorities”. She noted the Record's description of councillors as the “last line of defence” for communities facing cuts, and its emphasis on transparency over “where the axe falls locally”.
Concerns over the conduct code
Higgins said that when she was first elected, new councillors were warned that scrutinising officers could bring trouble with the standards system if they got it wrong. She said experience had made her see that warning differently.
She pointed to a meeting in Glasgow on October 30 last year, when councillors considered the Accounts Commission's findings on £1.035 million of exit packages paid to five former senior officers. Elected members had not been involved in approving those deals, and the lack of independent scrutiny was a central criticism. Before the meeting, all 85 councillors received a reminder about the Councillors' Code of Conduct.
Higgins said she had spent a year under an intensive Ethical Standards Commissioner investigation after challenging how teacher cuts had been presented in 2024. She said the questioning at the meeting was noticeably restrained.
Impact on scrutiny across Scotland
Since her case developed, councillors across Scotland and across party lines have contacted her. Some stepped back after the Code was raised, while others became more cautious after seeing what happened to colleagues.
Higgins said councillors are increasingly using Freedom of Information requests to get information from councils they sit on, adding that elected representatives should not need FOI routinely to understand their own councils.
She referenced a 2015 Daily Record report on concerns in Perth and Kinross that the Code was being used to stifle councillors' criticism, and said local reporting last year showed similar concerns in Dundee and Perth and Kinross.
Case studies and the need for reform
Higgins cited a £2.66 million decision to buy 12 buses in Dumfries and Galloway, taken under delegated powers without prior scrutiny by elected members. Councillor Andrew Wood later criticised the decision and was reported to the Standards Commission, with his hearing due in September. Wood said: “if you dare to criticise a council officer, you are threatened with being reported to the Standards Commission.”
Edinburgh councillors have also told her the Code was invoked before they considered matters arising from the tram inquiry, which put the cost of the restricted tram line at £835.7 million.
The Standards Commission has responded by pointing out that only a small proportion of complaints are made by council officers. Higgins said that answers who makes complaints, but not how many councillors change their behaviour because they fear one.
The Code must protect officers from improper interference, but it must be equally clear about protecting legitimate democratic scrutiny, she said. “Councillors need to know that persistence in seeking an answer is not, by itself, misconduct.”
Reform is not about councillors' convenience, she added, but about making it harder for poor decisions and incomplete information to escape challenge. If councillors are pushed back from asking questions, it is the public who lose out.
