Chamber and committees

We thank Amber Roberts and regret that there seems to be nothing more of a practical nature that we can do.

That seems a sensible proposition. Are we content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1961, which seeks to make it a specific offence to assault, threaten or abuse a private hire or taxi driver while at work, has been lodged by Edward Grice on behalf of the Scottish Private Hire Association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to expand the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021 to include private hire and taxi drivers by creating a specific criminal offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing private hire or taxi drivers while they are engaged in private hire or taxi work and by considering such offences as aggravated when the offence is committed while the driver is enforcing a licensing or operational condition. The SPHA highlights the 2021 act and the creation of a new offence for situations whereby a retail worker is assaulted, threatened or abused while engaged in their work. The SPHA believes that a similar offence is required to protect private hire and taxi drivers while they are at work.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government notes that there are a range of common-law and statutory offences to protect everyone, including private hire and taxi drivers, from abuse and violence. Those include the statutory offence of threatening or abusive behaviour, as well as common-law offences of assault and breach of the peace. Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions?

I was struck by the Scottish Government pointing the finger at Daniel Johnson in relation to the development of the 2021 act. I am not quite sure what they thought Mr Johnson’s remedy might be.

Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

I am happy to write to the organisations that you have suggested, but we would do that instead of taking evidence from the petitioner, at this stage. As you suggested, we would write to the SPSO and the Scottish Government.

Are there any other suggestions, or are members content for us to proceed in that way?

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.

At the risk of recycling an answer, the corporate body is committed to supporting members’ staff with the cost of living and is actively considering a suite of measures to support staff. The corporate body believes that that is the right thing to do at this very difficult time, and it recognises that that is an urgent priority for staff.

I remind members that, should they require their staff to work from home, they may qualify for tax relief and that, in such circumstances, members should advise their staff to contact HM Revenue and Customs directly.

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.