Chamber and committees

We will keep the petition open and progress on that basis.

So you and I are the only two who are left from that time. If you are happy to support it, I am quite happy to propose that, in the first instance, we write to the Minister for Victims and Community Safety to ask what actions the Scottish Government will take following the summit on youth violence in January 2025; to seek an update on the development of a collaborative plan for harm reduction and violence prevention; and to ask how victims are made aware of the “Standards of Service for Victims and Witnesses” document when reporting a crime.

More particularly, having taken evidence, gone on site visits and heard from a number of people, we are at the point at which it is time to invite the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and the Lord Advocate to give evidence. From experience, I know that, if we take one or the other, one will say that it is the other’s responsibility. Having them all here might facilitate the discussion. Anyway, we will ask them to come and give evidence on this and other petitions relating to serious crime committed by young people, although I think that we will want to get the update first, to inform that discussion.

PE2051, which was lodged by Dianne Youngson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to establish a consistent and transparent reporting mechanism for incidents affecting the health of pupils in schools; review and improve on the existing guidelines for schools in dealing with at-risk pupils; place in law monitoring of reporting mechanisms, with ultimate responsibility being placed with Scottish ministers and local authorities; and reform the exclusions procedure to include consideration of whether exclusions may cause further harm.

We last considered the petition on 21 February and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. We were keen to receive a timeline for the development and publication of the joint action plan on relationships and behaviour in schools, and information about how the Scottish Government expects its call for accurate recording of incidents in schools to be achieved.

The joint action plan on relationships and behaviour in schools has now been published and covers the period from 2024 until 2027. The cabinet secretary highlighted the Government’s review of the national anti-bullying guidance. She noted in particular that a sub-group was established to identify and consider changes to the supplementary guidance on recording and monitoring.

The submission notes that Education Scotland plans to publish a toolkit of good practice on recording and responding to bullying incidents.

In the light of the cabinet secretary’s response following the publication of the plan for 2024 to 2027, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

A number of SPCB staff have volunteered to support the implementation of the recommendations of the gender-sensitive audit, including a number of male colleagues, while other staff have been allocated roles. Decisions on the allocation of resources to support the project have been based on the skills and experience of the individuals involved, as well as the substantive roles that they hold. Gender has not, in itself, been a deciding factor. In all cases, in accordance with the SPCB’s performance management approach, staff have taken on roles to support the work of the gender-sensitive audit board on the basis that they have sufficient capacity and expertise to do so. The SPCB keeps that under constant review, as would be expected, to ensure that the correct level of staffing support is available to the board and that staff workload is properly and effectively monitored.

—that it is the case that, this year, a considerable number of members will be well short of using their actual staff cost provision, and that, therefore, an uprated index would not make the difference to the provision that they have.

I thank Paul O’Kane for that question, which is similar to ones that we have received in previous years. The SPCB will not consult the trade unions, because it is not the employer of members’ staff. 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. That arrangement is set out in the scheme as agreed by the Parliament.

Our responsibility is to set the framework within which salary increases can be agreed, but it is for individual members, as the employers, to determine any salary increase within the overall budget that is available, either on their own or in concert with colleagues.

On the second point, that will become apparent in near course. The SPCB is required under the expenses scheme to agree an index to uprate the staff cost provision. We agreed, in March 2020, to index according to a mix of average weekly earnings and the annual survey of hours and earnings—ASH, as it is commonly known. That move to a basket of indices was considered to prove a steadier basis for the calculation. However, for the budget in 2023-24 and 2024-25, the SPCB chose average weekly earnings for the staff cost provision, because the ASH index became quite erratic and, in consequence, the staff cost provision would have risen by significantly less than it did as a result of us adopting AWE.

We have to pick an index. The analogy that I have used is that it is not for the SPCB members to perform as though we are bumblebees in a bottle, bouncing about erratically. There has to be an integrity behind the process. Therefore, suggestions that are made to us that we should just look, on an annual basis, to see which of those indices is going to deliver the largest uplift do not have a substantive integrity pinned to them.

Although I am not, at this stage, going to confirm which index we have used, it is important that there is some consistency and continuity in the process. I am confident that the index that the SPCB has adopted is the one that has proved consistent and favourable to all members.

I would just say, finally—

The corporate body is mindful of its duty to ensure that the workload of its staff is carefully managed, and that staff are recognised for the valuable contribution that they make, including to project work.

The SPCB’s performance management approach ensures that staff objectives are set, reviewed and updated so that staff are well supported in their roles. The corporate body operates pay policy arrangements that ensure that staff are appropriately compensated for additional overtime work that they are required to carry out.

Members are designated as prescribed persons under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, following its amendment in December 2022. To support members in that role, the corporate body issued guidance on handling disclosures to all members and their staff. The guideline outlines the circumstances in which protected disclosures might be made to individual members, how they should manage those disclosures and the legal implications of that. We also arranged training that was offered by external experts in early 2023. Those sessions offered some practical advice on handling cases.

Richard Leonard makes a reasonable case. The corporate body has asked officials to review the training that is offered to members to ensure that it covers all aspects of their roles and to consider whether further training might be provided to help to refresh their knowledge and understanding of their roles. Officials are also considering whether the training needs to be added to the members’ staff training plan in line with normal practice. The members’ staff forum will be consulted to ensure that it meets their needs.