Good afternoon, colleagues. The first item of business this afternoon is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body questions. I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.
There are quite a number of questions and I am keen to get through as many as I can, so I request brief questions and answers when possible. I advise colleagues that, in relation to questions 4 and 5, I will take supplementaries after question 5 has been answered.
GMB (MSP Staff Branch)
I refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a member of the GMB trade union.
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it will next meet with representatives from the GMB trade union MSP staff branch. (S6O-02095)
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 recognise what Mr Carlaw has said about the formal arrangements. I believe that it is important for the corporate body to fully consider the views of the GMB, which represents many Labour and other MSP staff, both before the staff cost provisions are set in process for 2024-25 and on other issues. The GMB has warmly welcomed—as I have—the fact that the chief executive of the Parliament indicated his willingness to be informed by those views.
Does the minister agree that that is a welcome development and that it is important for the corporate body to hear from the GMB on staff pay and other significant issues that affect its members, before decisions are made?
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.
Translation Services
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what discussions it has had in relation to access to translation services for cross-party groups. (S6O-02098)
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is committed to providing accessibility support to enable members of the public to engage in parliamentary business. However, as the member is aware, cross-party groups are not a formal part of parliamentary business and, as such, the corporate body is not responsible for providing resources for them.
Nevertheless, as is set out in the members’ code of conduct, cross-party groups may use the Parliament’s facilities where those are available for public use. That means that MSPs and CPGs can access the interpretation infrastructure of our meeting rooms, which includes a portable set of equipment and headphones They can also access the advice and guidance on language support that is set out on the cross-party groups page of the Parliament’s intranet.
In addition, we are aware of a facility in Microsoft Teams to support remote interpretation for informal meetings. We are developing guidance for MSPs and committees on that facility, and we will also place the guidance on the CPG pages of the intranet.
I thank the corporate body for that helpful response.
As the convener of the cross-party group on migration, I recently asked whether our CPG could access translation services, as the group has a number of non-English-speaking members. I was told that the group would have to cover the cost of a translator. However, as a CPG with a number of members who are seeking asylum without the right to work, we do not charge membership fees, nor do we have cash to cover translation costs.
I appreciate that the standing orders state that CPGs are not part of formal parliamentary business. However, will the corporate body commit to reviewing its policy on access to translation services, specifically, for all meetings in the Parliament, whether formal parliamentary business or not, so that we can ensure that this Parliament is accessible to all?
I thank Paul Sweeney for his supplementary question. I think that we are prepared to review the policy. However, with regard to cross-party groups perhaps having greater access to support, that would be a matter to put to the Parliament through the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee in order to assist CPGs in engaging with the members of the public they bring in. That is worth looking into.
Pay Negotiations (Scottish Parliament Staff)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on pay negotiations with trade unions representing Scottish Parliament staff. (S6O-02099)
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.
I welcome the pay offer that has been made, in particular the £15 per hour minimum wage that the PCS union and others have campaigned so hard for and won. The Scottish Parliament is setting a really good example to other employers in providing a £15 per hour minimum wage.
However, the reality is that not all staff who work on the parliamentary estate will receive £15 per hour. As Jackson Carlaw will be aware, MSP staff whose jobs are in the administration and office management job family can have a minimum annual salary of £20,855, which equates to £11.46 an hour. Case workers are paid the equivalent of £14.03 an hour, and jobs in the communications job family are paid £26,717 a year, which equates to £14.68 an hour. Given the £15 an hour minimum wage for Scottish Parliament staff, will the corporate body now consider amending the job families for MSP staff and uplifting the staff cost provision to ensure that MSP staff, too, receive a minimum wage of £15 an hour?
I made a request earlier for brief questions and responses.
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.
Deposit Return Scheme (Preparations)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on what preparations it has made for the launch of the Deposit Return Scheme. (S6O-02028)
The SPCB is continuing to review the requirements under the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Regulations 2020 and how they apply to the restaurants, coffee bar and shop on the Holyrood site. As part of the preparations, the Scottish Parliament has registered as a producer with Circularity Scotland, because we sell Scottish Parliament-branded whisky in the shop.
At the moment, this Parliament’s waste is collected by a Scotland-based small or medium-sized enterprise that follows the highest environmental standard in waste management. However, when the deposit return scheme eventually launches, the contract to collect empty containers will be handled by a large, multinational company that has been fined for illegally dumping waste abroad. Has the minister in charge of the scheme raised any concerns about that with the corporate body? What will happen to the existing contract with the SME provider?
As the member will recognise, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the debate that is on-going around the scheme. The contract is made with Circularity Scotland, not with the Scottish Parliament, so it is not for me to answer questions on that area.
The Scottish Parliament is striving to comply with the regulations. We recognise that it is essential that all businesses and organisations have clarity around some of the issues.
Deposit Return Scheme (Preparations)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on what progress it has made in preparing for the operation of the deposit return scheme. (S6O-02061)
I refer the member to my previous answer.
The Parliament has a public cafe and shop that will sell products that are subject to deposit return scheme legislation. How will the public return those items to the Parliament to redeem their deposit, especially when they cannot re-enter the building with empty glass bottles? Will there require to be a reverse vending machine outside Parliament? How much will that cost?
We are considering the need for reverse vending machines, which would be leased or hired. It is likely that such machines will be used initially for Parliament staff. We are still considering how we will comply with the regulations under our responsibilities as a producer in the public areas of the building. At the moment, the costs are estimated. Once we have further information, we will share it with members.
Family-friendly Environment
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it will take to create a more family-friendly environment. (S6O-02062)
The Scottish Parliament was founded with the ambition of being a modern, family-friendly Parliament, with—uniquely in Europe—a free crèche, in an effort to remove barriers to parents of young children engaging with democracy. The crèche will reopen in May. I can say more about that later, if the member would like me to do so. In addition, we have a sitting pattern that allows for Fridays and Mondays to be spent in constituencies or regions.
However, it is clear that our approach has not always worked. Given its responsibilities for providing staffing and services to support parliamentary business, the SPCB recently wrote to the Parliamentary Bureau to set out some concerns about the impact of late decision times, whether planned and unplanned.
We have asked the bureau to consider, among other things, providing improved notice of the anticipated decision time each day and of planned changes to decision times. We have also asked for its views on introducing a cut-off time for plenary business. We hope to have a meeting with the bureau in the near future to discuss those issues.
I remind members who are coming into the chamber to respect the fact that SPCB question time is on-going and to not engage in private chatter.
The SPCB has a responsibility for the staff in the Parliament. In correspondence, it has become apparent that the SPCB is seeking to obtain further information about the challenges to the Parliament’s family-friendly set-up. I politely suggest that there is plenty of information already available. With regard to the staff who are employed in the Parliament, the SPCB could take decisions that would not need input from the bureau. Would the SPCB consider reaching out to members of staff to get solutions to the problem, so that we can move forward, in anticipation of having—as the member rightly said—a family-friendly Parliament?
The member is right—the corporate body has responsibility for Scottish parliamentary service staff. For members who are not aware, some SPS staff are required to remain at work for at least two hours after Parliament has finished sitting, so it is clear that we have a responsibility and a duty of care. That is why we want to discuss matters with the bureau.
However, the member’s point is a good one, and we will take it up to ensure that we get the information that we need and that we set the parameters within which discussions and debates can take place, so that we live up to expectations when it comes to being a family-friendly Parliament.
I repeat the plea to members who are coming into the chamber not to engage in private chatter while SPCB question time is running.
Meghan Gallacher has a brief supplementary.
Members may be aware that I have been raising this issue for quite some time. Since my return to Parliament in January, I have found it challenging to balance life here and at home. Talented MSPs have stood down because of the way in which parliamentary business is structured. I know that that is an issue for the Government and the bureau, but we do not want to deter people, especially women, from choosing to enter public life. Therefore, in line with the request made by Martin Whitfield, I ask the corporate body to consider forming a group of MSPs, their staff and SPS staff to look at how we can make this Parliament more family friendly.
We can certainly consider that. However, the corporate body must first have a conversation with the bureau to ensure that we are all discussing the same thing and that we are all aware of the constraints on members and the different staff—members’ staff and SPS staff—we have. We must ensure that we understand what we are trying to fix.
With apologies to those I was unable to call, we have now reached the point at which we must move on to the next item of business.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hope that it is helpful to point out that there is something wrong with the microphones. I could not hear Brian Whittle and I struggled to hear both you and Meghan Gallacher.
We think that there may be an issue with the microphones and we are investigating that. I encourage members to tilt their microphones towards them, which should help in most instances. We will look into that and will make improvements, if possible.
There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.
Air ais
First Minister’s Question TimeAir adhart
Ministers and Junior Ministers