Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are undertaking an initial survey of members, which is out just now, to help to quantify that. When we get to a certain stage in the roll-out, members may well take advantage of the opportunity to have an appropriate survey of domestic premises or whatever, with recommendations—as was the case with office security assessments—that they may or may not wish to take up.

There are a number of technical challenges and fiscal challenges, such as taxation challenges, on which we are having to liaise with representatives of other Parliaments, but we are investigating a number of different streams in relation to members’ security. I think that the best that we can do is come up with the contingency that we have. Obviously, we will have a far better understanding of that over the next 12 months, when we will be able to quantify the costs.

I am not sure whether Michelle Hegarty can add anything further to that. I think that I have pretty much summed up the position.

I will come to colleagues in a moment, but I fully understand and appreciate the question. It is difficult to be certain about that. Clearly, there has been a requirement for people to work at home for a large part of the pandemic, and as we move forward, that may vary in a number of ways.

We are acutely conscious not just of keeping people safe but of people’s mental health and wellbeing, and we are aware that although some staff will continue to work remotely, they may choose to work remotely from constituency offices so that they are in a smaller community but are engaging with others. That in itself might change the nature of the parliamentary function of constituency offices and require them to be a more obvious extension of the parliamentary process, in terms of the ability to engage reliably.

A considerable number of members prefer to be at Parliament if they can be. As we saw in an excellent debate in Parliament last week ahead of a committee inquiry into future working practices off the back of the hybrid arrangements that we have experienced, some members may go forward on a variable basis. They might work remotely when they do not need to be in Parliament and be in Parliament more regularly when they have a particular physical need to be present.

We will monitor all that as we go along. Obviously, we applaud the work that the Parliament has done on the hybrid working that we have, but that is not to say that I do not understand members’ frustrations. I can see my own party’s WhatsApp chat line as we navigate our way through the hybrid working process. The Parliament is looking at ways in which we can make that more robust and extend the functionality of hybrid working. One of the big frustrations is our inability at present to intervene during hybrid contributions.

Michelle Hegarty could probably provide more detail on process that officials are monitoring in relation to the themes that I have just discussed.

We have an understanding of the increase in staff numbers. We have had a number of part-time staff and temporary employees. On the overall number, David McGill will be able to give you a detailed view of the actual increase in staffing, if that would be helpful.

You are quite right. The underpinning to all that is complicated, and I believe that David McGill is the best person to answer your question in detail.

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?

The next petition, PE1866, which was lodged by Daryl Cooper, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation so that wheelchair users are able to face frontwards when travelling on a bus. The petition was previously considered at our meeting on 8 September—I am pleased that we have moved on from our meeting on 1 September.

At that meeting, we decided to write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on whether a requirement to provide forward-facing wheelchair-accessible spaces on buses could be addressed via non-legislative means. The Scottish Government had previously stated that the matter is reserved and, in its response, the Government reiterates that the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 are reserved legislation. The UK Government has committed to a review of the regulations by the end of 2023.

The Scottish Government notes that the provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019

“operate in such a way as to place the setting of any service standards for local bus services within the competence of local transport authorities”,

and that

“Whilst there is no provision for Ministers to intervene directly, we would expect local transport authorities and bus operators to work closely together to ensure that the required service standards meet the needs of local communities including people with disabilities.”

In the light of what we have heard, do members have any comments or suggestions for actions?

The next continued petition is PE1870, which was lodged by Edward Fowler. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that requires teachers of autistic pupils to be appropriately qualified, in order to improve educational outcomes. The petitioner states that he

“would like the education authority only to employ teachers with an appropriate autism qualification to teach pupils with autism.”

The petition was last considered at our meeting of 22 September. At that meeting, we decided to write to the Scottish Government to seek an update on progress that has been made against the “Additional Support for Learning Action Plan” and to write to key stakeholders to seek their views.

Since the petition was last considered, we have received a number of stakeholder submissions, which are summarised in the committee papers and make a number of suggestions for how teaching provision for children with autism could be improved.

Scottish Autism notes that

“There is currently a lack of alternatives for young people who cannot thrive in mainstream school”

and that

“inclusivity can only be achieved with a sound understanding of autism, comprehensive individual profiling, flexible teaching practice and low-stress environments.”

The National Autistic Society Scotland highlights a survey of over 1,400 parents, of whom 72 per cent suggested that

“staff having a better understanding of how their child’s autism affects them, including their communication needs, would have made a difference to their child.”

The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has provided a written submission that notes many of the developments that have taken place—or are planned—in relation to the petition’s aims. That includes new content for initial teacher education on autism. Earlier this month, the cabinet secretary shared with the committee a copy of an updated “Additional Support for Learning Action Plan” and progress report, and noted that the action plan is next due to be updated in spring 2022.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for actions?

Thank you. The clerks have noted those comments. Do members agree to keep the petition open and write as colleagues have suggested?

Members indicated agreement.