Chamber and committees

In the interests of time, I refer Ms Duncan-Glancy to the answer that I gave in response to Mr Sweeney’s supplementary question.

The SPCB has had detailed and robust discussions on all the issues affecting the indices that will be applied when we uprate salaries in the next annual budget. However, it is the case that we are not an employer, and the scheme—which was agreed by Parliament—is quite clear that it places a responsibility on us to uprate the scheme annually, using a relevant index, as part of the budget setting. I repeat that individual MSP employers can, of course, consult trade unions and agree any cost of living award that they wish, as long as it is affordable within the overall capped provision. In fact, the SPCB is aware that many members made awards that exceeded the inflationary uplift in the scheme itself.

I might anticipate a question that is coming later, as it is relevant to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s question, by saying that the SPCB is currently considering what financial assistance can be provided to members’ staff. That includes the sort of one-off non-consolidated payments that other employers, including His Majesty the King, have made recently. We have had a constructive discussion about that today, and we will communicate our intended course of action as soon as possible after our discussions conclude.

I think that this touches on the subject matter of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question, too, but I have to tell the member that the answer is no. The SPCB will not meet the trade unions, because it is not competent for us to do so. We are not the employer of MSP staff; MSPs themselves are the employers. Our responsibility is to set the framework within which salary increases can be agreed, but it is for individual members, either on their own or in concert with colleagues, to agree the level of increase.

The SPCB is responsible for funding the members’ expenses scheme and for determining which indices are used to uprate the overall provisions, including staff cost provision. Individual MSPs, as employers, determine any salary increase for their staff within the overall staff cost provision.

As part of the annual budget cycle, the SPCB considers the indexation for uprating of all provisions, including staff cost provision. Although the basket of ASHE and AWE indices has been adopted in recent years as a steadier basis for any increase, that is a matter for SPCB judgment rather than automatic application, as we thoroughly consider all factors for financial year 2023-24.

The SPCB will submit its 2023-24 budget for consideration at the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 10 January. A bit like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I might know but I am not able to say what the conclusion of our deliberations might be, but we will be determining the indices for all provisions in the coming weeks.

As I said in response to an earlier question, we are considering that very issue at the moment. We have had constructive discussions over a number of meetings of the corporate body and I hope that we will soon be able to communicate the outcome of those discussions to members. In addition to those arrangements, the corporate body is considering other measures, which include independent financial advice, financial wellbeing workshops, and providing links to organisations that can provide further advice and support. However, the particular item to which Mr Bibby refers should be communicated to members in early course.

You are just here to speak to the petition. Do colleagues have any recommendations for how we might proceed?

I would certainly be willing for the committee to try to tease out an explanation. Transport for London deals with tens of millions of people using the system. The Glasgow pilot is referred to as being useful but not necessarily cost-effective on a commercial basis, which may reflect the numbers involved in relation to the cost of setting it up. I do not know. Any citizen of Glasgow who travels abroad is surprised at how far behind the smart technology is in the largest city in Scotland. There is more that we could tease out in relation to that.

It strikes me as peculiar that we have introduced barrier technology at a series of stations but that we cannot programme the barriers to be pay as you go. I would not have thought that that was impossible.

Who should we try to pursue these issues with? Meanwhile, we should write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether Scottish Rail Holdings Ltd is covered by the consumer duty legislation. If it considers that SRHL is not covered, we should ask what action it proposes to take to ensure that it is. It would be a deficiency if it is not.

I was also struck by what Mr Eckton said in his latest submission about how easy it is to miss the advertising on fares. We should ask SRHL about the action that it is taking to ensure that people can easily identify that. I would be very interested to know what advertising it does and how it evaluates whether that advertising has been successful.

Are there any other thoughts or comments?

That is a perfectly fair observation. The actions that we have discussed can be linked back to the actual aim of the petition, but I agree that we have to be careful. Although I welcomed everything that Monica Lennon had to contribute, it invited us to stray slightly beyond, in a number of areas, the specific ambition of the petition.

We are always willing to receive an additional petition from another party on all those other matters. If we opened up an inquiry in the broadest possible terms in relation to every petition, we would—to extend your metaphor, Mr Ewing—be trawling very deeply.

Are members content to proceed on the basis of the various recommendations that we have had?

We can see if that works. Ultimately, the project would have to be taken forward by others, but I take the point that it would have to include a much wider range of views to be certain that it was viable, in addition to any capping proposal that might proceed.