Chamber and committees

I call Fergus Ewing.

Megan, will you take the lead on that question?

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.

As a faithful attendee of these corporate body sessions, I am sure that Mr Bibby will recall the substance of the answer that I gave to Pam Duncan-Glancy when she asked that question in November last year. To summarise, there is no employment relationship between the corporate body and the MSP staff; it would not, therefore, be appropriate for the SPCB to meet with the GMB in its capacity as the representative of staff who are employed by MSPs.

The corporate body’s role is to apply appropriate indices to ensure that provisions that relate to staff costs, which are contained in the members’ expenses scheme, are uprated annually. Thereafter, it is a matter for MSPs, as individual employers, to determine the salaries for their staff.

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.

Although ministerial appointments follow this corporate body session, I am not living in hope. However, I thank Mr Bibby for the attribution. [Laughter.]

It is open to MSP staff to speak with the representatives on the corporate body from any given party in order to allow our deliberations to be informed.

Although it would not be appropriate for the corporate body to meet with trade unions that represent MSP staff, Mr Bibby is correct, in that I understand that the chief executive has indicated his willingness to do so in advance of the corporate body submitting its budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Although he has indicated his willingness to do so in order to be informed of the views of the representatives of MSP staff, the corporate body is clear that that is not the equivalent of entering into a formal negotiation.

The petition raises important issues. We will write to the minister and to the Scottish Social Services Council, as suggested, and consider the petition again when we consider the responses that we have received from them.

I am very concerned that I have now planted the word “capture” in your vocabulary, Mr Stewart. You are now capturing everything in every petition. I encourage you not to be led down such a dangerous path, but I fully support the sentiments.

That round-table discussion, however, was 14 months ago, and I will tell you what struck me. First of all, this Parliament has a duty to try to ensure that, although the composition of its membership is not youthful, we understand and respond to issues that are of direct concern to many young people, and this clearly is one such issue. In my ignorance, I had assumed that a urine test was probably a fairly routine process, but I was struck by the issue of there being possible reputational damage done to the individual in question, who was thereafter unable to evidence that their drink had been spiked, that was the issue, and that, as a consequence, it was open to others to suggest that they had just been irresponsible or reckless in their behaviour. That was very damaging, and it would be avoidable if processes were in place to try to properly identify the experience that people had been subject to. I think that we are all minded to pursue the petition further and to make inquiries. Mr Ewing suggested contacting Police Scotland, which is perfectly sensible.

Thank you. I note the reference in the briefing that we received to the October 2021 case that was heard in the High Court in respect of the UK Secretary of State for Health, in which an effort to strike down section 1(1)(d) of the 1967 act was dismissed. At that time, the court dismissed the argument that that section of the act perpetuated negative stereotypes of people with disabilities as it focuses more on the rights of the pregnant person and their medical treatment. I found the briefing interesting in presenting different sides of the argument that the petitioner was seeking to represent, which, in itself, was well expressed.

We have heard Carol Mochan’s position. Do other colleagues have any suggestions? It appears not. Carol Mochan proposes that, in this instance, particularly given the Scottish Government’s position that it does not intend to amend the Abortion Act 1967, there is nothing that the committee can meaningfully do to pursue the petition and we should therefore close it. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I agree. Do we have any other suggestions? As there are none, are we content to keep the petition open and proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has advocated?

Members indicated agreement.