Chamber and committees

It is a difficult situation. I understand the underpinning motivations of those who have lodged the petition, and I sense that they want the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee to keep the issue alive in the mind of Parliament, notwithstanding the intractable issues that sit around it. The Scottish Government indicated that there would be a substantial A83 project update in early course. I note Mr Torrance’s recommendation, but I wonder whether it is appropriate to find out when that update might be and what is said in relation to that, and to keep the petition open meanwhile.

We cannot keep the petition open for a further six years in the way that the previous committee did with the earlier petition, because I am not sure what that would achieve. However, we are in a new parliamentary session and it would useful for us to at least see what the position is and whether we can shed any further light on the situation. I sympathise with Mr Stewart’s view that a public inquiry may not ultimately be a suitable way forward.

The suggestion of a public inquiry is the principal difference between the petition and, as David Torrance mentioned, the previous petition on which the committee heard extensive evidence over a number of years. Notwithstanding Mr Torrance’s recommendation, I am minded to hold the petition open while we clarify when Transport Scotland will give its strategic update and hear what it has to say.

I indicate to the petitioners, who might be watching, that, on the basis of the submissions that we have heard and the engagement that is already in place, I do not know whether the committee is altogether persuaded by the public inquiry route.

Does that approach have the support of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

I associate myself with those remarks.

A course of action has been recommended to the committee. Are members content with Ruth Maguire’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that comprehensive contribution. As no other member wishes to come in, I think that we want to thank Wendy Dunsmore for her petition, which we are going to keep open. Mr Sweeney identified a series of stakeholders from whom we will seek views on the issues that are raised in the petition. Do members agree to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Our penultimate new petition is PE1914, lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms in secondary schools. The petitioner sets out several reasons why he believes that that should happen, including the fact that uniforms are uncomfortable and costly and that they interfere with students’ ability to express their individuality.

The Scottish Government’s submission makes it clear that

“there is no legislative requirement in place in Scotland which legally requires the wearing of school uniform”,

and that, instead, school uniform policy is a matter for local authorities and individual schools. The Scottish Government states that it

“would not support a proposal to ban school uniforms at any school within Scotland.”

The submission sets out a number of perceived advantages to wearing school uniform, which include reducing competition between pupils in respect of expensive clothing brands; reducing bullying; creating a positive image of a school in a local community; and improving school security by allowing staff to easily identify anyone who does not belong to the school.

The Scottish Government acknowledges the petitioner’s concerns about buying school uniforms and recognises that

“this can be one of the most significant ... costs for families”

and

“can be a source of anxiety for low income families.”

The submission explains that the Scottish Government recently increased the amounts that are paid for school clothing grants.

The submission also states that the Scottish Government has

“committed to introducing statutory guidance on uniforms for schools and local authorities during the lifetime of this parliamentary session”,

which will cover the affordability of school uniforms, the consideration of equalities issues when deciding school uniform policies and considerations for physical education classes. The Scottish Government concludes by highlighting a public consultation on proposed school uniform guidance, which is due to be launched in the new year.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I would go directly to David for a response to that specific question.

I would in the first instance say that we operate to indices that have been agreed by Parliament and to which we have adhered since we decoupled our members’ salary costs from those at Westminster some years ago. At that point, we agreed to adhere to the ASHE index, which, last year, would have produced a 5.1 per cent increase in MSPs’ salaries. Given the circumstances in that year, the corporate body took the view that it would suspend the arrangement and cancel the increase.

With regard to staff cost provision, again, that relates to the index that we have established. Of course, what salary increases are passed on to members of staff are a matter for each MSP, but the move protects the integrity of the sum that it was agreed was necessary for MSPs to be able to fulfil their function and to have the complement of staff at their disposal to achieve that aim. It would be wrong to remove ourselves from those two indices without very careful consideration.

Thank you, convener. I would ordinarily have made an opening statement. Were you expecting me to do that?

Mr Johnson, the radical shopkeeper in you is advocating the privatisation of our parliamentary estate.

That is a difficult question to answer at this stage, because in the first year of a new parliamentary session, it takes considerable time to engage staff, particularly for the new members. There will be some members of this committee who are new and who have not yet fulfilled their staff commitment or have taken several months to do so. It is probable that there will be an underspend in the first year because members will have been recruiting staff, some of whose start dates will not have been until the autumn. We will probably not get the full answer on that until the next year.

Michelle Hegarty is monitoring such things and will be able to give the committee an indication of our utilisation. We are probably sitting at about four fifths in relation to the typical capacity in other sessions.

As you say, I have been both a regional and a constituency member. I noticed a considerable change in the nature of my workload when I changed function. However, I also acknowledge that, with the additional fiscal powers of the Scottish Government, the overall responsibilities of the Parliament have changed significantly since I was a regional member and I am now less convinced of the variance in workload between regional and constituency members.

There is a difference in the nature of the workload. However, from the work that the corporate body did when liaising with members across the Parliament during the whole Covid period, I know that the increase in members’ workloads and the demands on them as a result of the pandemic has been considerable. As people have discovered Zoom and the whole nature of online inquiry, there has been a considerable increase in the ways in which people approach us and in the volume of those approaches.

There is also an obligation in that, at the heart of the entire scheme under which we operate, there is the principle of equality between all members of the Parliament. It is fundamentally important, notwithstanding how workloads have evolved, that all members of the Scottish Parliament are equal and are treated as such.