Chamber and committees

It is important to say that the MSP staff pay bands that are established by the Parliament are indicative; they are not compulsory. It is very much a matter for individual MSPs to determine what level of pay they wish to award.

The 5.6 per cent increase that is being paid to parliamentary staff in total, as with the 5.6 per cent increase that is going to the staff cost provision for MSPs, means that there are members of the parliamentary staff at higher grades who will be receiving no or very little increase this year and others at lower grades who will be receiving increases in excess of 8 per cent. The whole system is designed to allow a degree of variation to reflect the individual circumstances of the employee. It is for members to decide how they deploy the sum that they have as their total staff cost provision.

I am pleased to be able to confirm that agreement has been reached on a pay deal for Scottish parliamentary staff for 2023-24. The deal, which was recommended by all three of the corporate body’s recognised trade unions—the Public and Commercial Services Union, Prospect and the FDA—for acceptance to their members, was arrived at following intensive negotiations. I place on record the corporate body’s thanks to Lorna Foreman, who led the negotiations for the Parliament for the first time, and to everybody whose participation resulted in the successful outcome of the discussions.

The pay award that has been agreed is progressive and fair, ensuring that the highest percentage increases will go to those staff on the lowest grades. The corporate body has agreed to extend its existing guarantee of no compulsory redundancies until the end of the current parliamentary session.

The corporate body’s wage bill for 2023-24 will increase by 5.6 per cent and, as Carol Mochan will be aware, the staff cost provision, which is accessed by members to employ their staff, has also been uplifted by 5.6 per cent for 2023-24. It is for members to determine salaries for their staff.

The corporate body is pleased to be able to support its staff in this way and is grateful to its partner unions for the pace and intensity with which they have engaged with the negotiation and for coming to an early resolution.

I would certainly be interested in writing to the minister to ask him what form he expects his open line of communication to take and whether he is able to confirm a structured and ongoing basis for that. As Carol Mochan suggested, we also want to write more formally to the Scottish Social Services Council to seek its views on the issues raised in the petition. We want a view on providing bursaries to all third- and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements; an explanation of the criteria for assessing bursary applications for postgraduate students; and clarification on where members of the public can access information on the assessment criteria, because SPICe seemed to find that more problematic than it ought to be. If SPICe found it problematic, I do not quite know how other people are meant to find it more readily.

Are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, he wanted to capture it. [Laughter.]

We will therefore keep the petition open. We will seek further information from those bodies, and we will invite the petitioners to join us at a future committee meeting in order to discuss directly with them their views on the responses that we receive and where we might take the petition. Do we agree to take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

It would be interesting to inquire of Police Scotland the extent to which the condition of the roads has been a contributory factor in accidents that police have had to attend. Dipping back into my now long-distant past career in the retail motor industry, I recall that, as a large repairing operation, we did not routinely have to undertake repairs as a result of damage caused by potholes. To be fair, there were considerably fewer automobiles on the roads 30 years ago than there are today. Notwithstanding that, all of us can see a deterioration.

The word “pothole” can mean so many different things. It can mean just a little bit of rough texture on a road, which is messy, but it can also be quite a heavily disguised but large and fairly dangerous pothole, which, if the road is busy, people will often not have advance sight of until they find themselves in it. That needs to be taken far more seriously as it becomes a potentially more dangerous experience.

Are we agreed that we will write to the various organisations and keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

Colleagues, are we content with Mr Stewart’s suggestion in relation to this petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 3 is the consideration of new petitions. As always, before I introduce the first of the new petitions, I say to petitioners who may be with us or watching our proceedings that we do a considerable amount of work in advance of our first consideration of petitions. Part of that work is getting an initial view from the Scottish Government. That does not necessarily determine the outcome or the actions that we might subsequently take—it is simply an initial view of the Scottish Government’s perspective on the petition. We also receive a briefing from the Parliament’s impartial research service, SPICe. Petitioners should know that that work is done in advance.

The first of the new petitions is PE1993, which has been lodged by David Grimm and Lucy Challoner. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that social work students have access to adequate financial support during their studies by providing bursaries to all third and fourth-year undergraduate social work students on work placements, reforming the assessment criteria and adequately funding the bursaries for postgraduate social work students on work placements.

By way of background information, the petitioners highlight that social work students spend nine months on placements during their third and fourth years but that, unlike, for example, student nurses and paramedics, there are no bursaries to support them.

In its initial response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that the relevant minister met the petitioners and representatives of the Scottish Association of Social Work, the Social Workers Union and the British Association of Social Workers to discuss support for social work students—I might refer to the summary of that meeting later. The Scottish Government’s response also states that, while a preference for bursaries over loan payments is likely to be shared by most students, there should be recognition of the wider funding landscape and the pressures across the Scottish Government’s budget, and of the challenges that that brings to ensuring that the student support package is fair while maintaining the overall affordability of the student support system. The response also highlights that social work students have access to living-cost grants that are not available to nursing, paramedic and midwifery students.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners in response to the Scottish Government. In that submission, the petitioners highlight that the support that is available for social work students currently comes in the form of a repayable loan and depends on household income. That differs from the support available to nursing, midwifery and paramedic students, who are eligible for a bursary totalling £37,500 over four years. The petitioners tell us that, while undertaking work placements, social work students work just as hard as their colleagues who are on nursing, midwifery and paramedic courses. They recognise that social work students undertake placements only during their third and fourth years, while nursing and midwifery students do so throughout the entirety of their courses, which is why the petition calls for bursaries to be made available for those in the later stages of their study.

The petitioners call for a review of the funding and assessment criteria for postgraduate bursaries administered by the Scottish Social Services Council. As noted in the SPICe briefing, it has not been possible to locate details of that scheme on the SSSC’s website, but individual universities provide more details of the scheme.

I want to refer to one comment by the minister in the Scottish Government’s response that caught my eye:

“The points raised by the petitioners in their meeting with Mr Hepburn were captured and will be taken into consideration when progressing current work to review the support available. The Minister also expressed to the petitioners that he and his fellow Ministers would welcome maintaining an open line of communication on this matter.”

I was slightly entertained by the idea of things being “captured”. That expression does not necessarily indicate that there will be a subsequent course of action.

Do members have any comments?

PE1996, which has been lodged by Calum MacKellar on behalf of the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, calls for action to prevent discriminatory abortions for disability in Scotland. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to legislate to ensure that abortions cannot take place after 24 weeks in circumstances where the child is likely to have a disability.

The petitioner highlights that section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967 enables termination up to the point of birth if the fetus has a disorder but restricts termination to 24 weeks if the fetus has no disability. The petitioner feels that that sends a discriminatory message that a non-disabled child’s life has more worth and value than that of a child with a disability.

Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government has said that it recognises that the issue of terminating a pregnancy where a fetus is likely to have severe physical or mental abnormalities is a deeply emotive one. It has stated:

“The Scottish Government equally values the contribution of all members of society and opposes any discrimination on the basis of disability.”

The committee will be aware from its consideration of related petitions that the Scottish Government currently has no plans to amend the Abortion Act 1967.

In response to the view that the Scottish Government has offered, the petitioner has highlighted the lack of explanation for why the provision exists. He suggests that section 1(1)(d) of the 1967 act enables a woman who could arguably cope with a disabled child to terminate the pregnancy because she believes that having a non-disabled child is preferable to having a disabled child.

The petitioner notes the Marie Stopes UK position paper that is referred to in the SPICe briefing, which suggests that introducing an upper gestational limit for abortion on the ground of fetal abnormality could have the unintended consequence of pressuring women to make a difficult decision in a relatively short period of time, potentially increasing the number of abortions. The petitioner feels that the Marie Stopes UK position paper does not develop or emphasise the legal context of the 24-week limit. He notes that the 24-week limit reflects an important and meaningful fetal development stage at which it is considered that a healthy fetus is deserving of protection, whether or not the fetus may eventually become a burden.

Do members have any suggestions for action in relation to the petition? I certainly studied the briefing that we received with some care.

Our final new petition this morning is PE1999, which has been lodged by William Hunter Watson. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is referred to as the UNCRPD, is fully implemented in Scotland. The petitioner believes that treatment for mental disorders without consent should not be permitted. He states his view that covert medication and chemical restraint are incompatible with the UNCRPD, as he interprets article 25 as meaning that persons with disabilities have the right to refuse treatment. The petitioner highlights the importance of the right to refuse treatment in care homes and mental hospitals.

We have received two submissions from individuals who have shared their experiences in relation to treatment without consent. In particular, Barry Gale expresses his view that there is a gap between policy and practice. He states that patients and carers should be empowered

“to make their own discretionary decisions about their own lives, and to put the onus on the professionals to appeal against them—instead of the other way around.”

The committee has received a response to the petition from the Minister for Mental Wellbeing and Social Care. He states that, for some individuals,

“compulsory treatment is used to provide the person with medical treatment to alleviate suffering and for the protection of both the person and others”.

He adds:

“Compulsory treatment is only allowed under mental health legislation in Scotland in very strict circumstances.”

The minister’s submission highlights safeguards that are in place, such as the right to independent advocacy and the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. The minister states that other interventions should be considered before restrictive practice is proceeded with, as such action should be a last resort. He notes that the Scottish Mental Health Law Review’s report proposes reforms to help to drive reductions in the use of coercion, including restrictive practices, while recognising the potential need for it in certain circumstances.

I should have recorded David Torrance’s apology for the meeting earlier. I do so now. I feel that, if he was here, he would recollect some of these themes being raised in petitions on such issues before, as I do. Do colleagues have thoughts as to how we might proceed?