Code of ethics consultation report

Consultation process

Published
17/07/2015
Last updated
19/08/2026

We aimed to carry out a consultation process with the CLD field which would ensure that the paper was seen widely across the entirety of the field and by associated partners. We therefore organised a series of five three-hour-long consultation events open to all in venues around Scotland:

  • 24 March - The Tolbooth, Stirling
  • 26 March -  Dundee Contemporary Arts
  • 7 April - Urquhart House, Inverness
  • 12 April -  Atlantic Quay, Glasgow
  • 16 April - Thistle House, Edinburgh

In addition we organised three similar events which, whilst equally open, were promoted as being aimed at people with a particular interest in one of the strands of CLD, including people who did not necessarily define themselves as CLD workers. 

  • Youth Work: 31 March, Thistle House, Edinburgh
  • Adult Learning: 9 April, Thistle House, Edinburgh   
  • Community development: 14 April, Atlantic Quay, Glasgow  

Invitations were circulated as widely as possible within the field, including to the Youthlink Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, Community Learning and Development Managers Scotland and Community Development Alliance Scotland networks.  

A total of 85 people took part (not counting ourselves and Standards Council staff). A wide range of fields of employment, practice specialisms and levels of seniority were represented. The participants are listed and their contribution is acknowledged in Appendix 1.  

A series of very lively and thoughtful discussions resulted. Everyone had a chance to discuss the purpose and principles of the code and the basic definitions of CLD practice that it contains. Participants then split into two groups and looked at the proposed Code clause by clause. With one minor exception, every clause was discussed at every session by at least one group and sometimes by both. Notes of points raised were taken.  

A number of other informal discussions have been held in teams or at conferences. In addition, the Standards Council created an online space for debate on the draft code. By 26 April this had attracted 43 comments from 20 individuals (not including Professor Sercombe's own contributions). These have been taken into account in this report where possible. The site remains open for contributions.