Seòmar agus comataidhean

Absolutely. We should congratulate the petitioner again. When writing to the cabinet secretary, we might point out that, although Mr Isted is not an ageing individual, unlike me and other members of the committee, he is set to leave primary school eventually, so it would be nice if we were able to take forward, to some extent, the aims of his petition.

Do we agree to take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1941, on stopping the destruction of headstones in community cemeteries, was lodged by Councillor Andrew Stuart Wood and calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to monitor and regulate actions taken by local authorities when undertaking their statutory duty to ensure health and safety in our cemeteries.

We previously considered the petition on 19 April 2023, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Its response states that, once they are finalised, the new burial regulations will set out minimum standards for all burial authorities in Scotland and will work alongside existing guidance and a burial code of practice. Regulations will also be brought forward to introduce inspection for burial, cremation and funeral directors, with inspectors inspecting against the legislation, guidance and codes of practice. Two public consultations have taken place in relation to that work.

The committee has also received a written submission from David Brunton outlining specific concerns about Scottish Borders Council’s cemetery improvement programme. He states that the guidance has not been followed in practice and that the use of individual notices for signalling planned works in cemeteries needs to be enforced. He raises concerns about listed building consent not being obtained prior to works being carried out and about poor communication when people seek information from councils about their rationale for taking stones down.

Colleagues will remember our evidence session on the petition, when we were provided with quite graphic illustrative examples of the way in which headstones had been routinely destroyed in cemeteries without reference to any of the families concerned. However, the Scottish Government appears to be making progress in that regard. I am aware that the petition throws up a number of issues beyond the ones that we are considering here.

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

I think that there is still widespread interest—represented by colleagues from all around the country, in all parties—in how the matter progresses.

We could ask that, but I think that the evidence suggests that such information is very fractured; it depends on individual practice. I do not think that there is a national database on such matters.

Are colleagues content with the suggestions that have been made?

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue but, clearly, the committee can keep a petition open only if we think there is an opportunity to advance its aims. I think that the direction from the Scottish Government is quite clear.

The aims of the petition will therefore be achieved. In light of that, are members content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2057, which was lodged by John McMaster, aims to promote shared parenting and prevent the separation of children from their parents. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that the frequency and duration of parental contact are equal; to promote the use of parenting arrangements; to require that the evidence of accusations from one parent to another is provided within 14 days of any civil action; and to raise public awareness of the importance of both parents in a child’s life. The petition states that its purpose is not to take any of the necessary protections away, but to prevent abuse of the current systems, which are knowingly abused to alienate children.

The SPICe briefing provides information about the Children (Scotland) Act 2020, most of which is not yet in force. The act says that the court must look at the impact of any court orders on the child’s relationships with their parents and other important people in their life.

The briefing notes that, in its stage 1 report on the Children (Scotland) Bill, the Justice Committee stated that it was not persuaded by a presumption in favour of shared parenting, as that could cut across the key principle of the welfare of children being the paramount consideration. The Scottish Government’s response reiterates that view and adds that, where parents cannot agree, it should be for the courts to decide what parental contact arrangement is in the best interests of the child on a case-by-case basis.

The submission also refers to “Your Parenting Plan”, which is a guide for parents with a joint agreement to structure and record discussions about the future care and welfare of their children. In addition, it is noted that the Government provides funding to Relationships Scotland, whose network provides family mediation services, and to Shared Parenting Scotland.

Work is also under way to improve judicial case management, which will lead to court cases being resolved more quickly. Under section 30 of the Children (Scotland) 2020, the court will be required

“to have regard to any risk of prejudice to the child’s welfare that delay in proceedings would pose.”

An important issue has been raised, and we have received some quite informed responses. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

PE2061 is the final new petition that we are considering this morning. This is the petition that you focused your attention on, Mr Choudhury. The petition, which was lodged by Laura Johnston-Brand, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to prevent coercion of vulnerable, frail and debilitated individuals by requiring solicitors to have a medical professional co-sign legal documents confirming the capacity of the individual.

I have been aware that a couple has been with us in the gallery all morning. They have stuck it to the end, so I will conclude that they are here for this petition. Thank you for joining us.

The petitioner has explained that, while terminally ill in hospital, her father was asked to sign legal documents affecting the value of his estate. The family raised their concerns with the Law Society of Scotland, and a solicitor was thereafter found guilty of misconduct and fined.

The SPICe briefing notes that, although there is no general requirement under common law to have someone assessed before they enter into a legal agreement, the Law Society’s guidance on meeting the needs of vulnerable clients makes it clear that solicitors cannot simply rely on the presumption of capacity.

In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government stated that it is already best practice for a solicitor to obtain a medical opinion if there are doubts about a client’s capacity. The response went on to note that the question of a “golden rule”, similar to that which operates in England and Wales, has been considered by the Scottish courts, which ruled that such a strict requirement is not necessary.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner that responds to the Scottish Government’s view. The petitioner remains concerned that the Law Society’s rules are insufficient in deterring solicitors from taking actions that they should not take, and notes that the complaints procedure can be a long and distressing one and that it is challenging for members of the public to navigate, with solicitors facing minimal consequences even when complaints are upheld.

We have had notes of interest in the petition from Alex Rowley and Liam McArthur, and representations have also been made to me by Claire Baker and Finlay Carson. Therefore, there is quite a wide range of interest among colleagues on the issues that the petition has raised.

Colleagues exchanged views during our period of consideration ahead of looking at these matters today. Some important issues have been raised, and I believe that we want to keep the petition open at this point.

Are there any suggestions on how we might proceed? Maybe Mr Choudhury would like to offer a suggestion to us now.

Thank you very much, convener. It is a pleasure to be with you again. I want to take this brief opportunity to set the context for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s 2024-25 budget bid and to set out some key points.

This is the third of our medium-term financial plans for session 6 and it is aligned with the commitments made in the 2022-23 submission, which focused on setting up Scottish parliamentary services for the challenges of session 6. As with the 2023-24 bid, the key challenges that we face in the 2024-25 bid centre on inflationary pressures and establishing a budget that is fair and affordable and that takes account of continued high inflation.

In summary, the total proposed budget for 2024-25 is £126.5 million, which represents a £8.9 million—or 7.6 per cent—increase on the current financial year’s budget. It is also a £6 million—or 5 per cent—increase on the indicative 2024-25 budget that was advised to the Finance and Public Administration Committee last year.

That overall increase of 7.6 per cent is primarily driven by inflation, electricity prices at rates well above inflation, and increases in office-holder costs due to anticipated inflationary staff costs. Unlike the 2023-24 budget, where we were able to partly offset the inflationary impacts with just a 4.5 per cent increase at a time of double-digit price inflation, with more than 70 per cent of our cost base being made up of staffing—Scottish parliamentary services, MSPs, MSP staff and, indeed, office-holders, who, as you will recall, have been subject to recent reviews—there really are no additional material efficiency opportunities available for the 2024-25 budget that would not compromise our operational abilities, particularly the ability of MSPs to hold the Government to account. However, we are about to consider whether we need to adopt any services contracts at Holyrood in the light of changes in footfall and usage post the pandemic to ensure that we are operating efficiently. That will be considered at a high level by the SPCB during the course of this year.

With regard to MSP and ministerial salaries, I confirm that, since breaking the pay link with Westminster in 2015, we have consistently used the annual survey of hours and earnings—ASHE—as our index, as set out in the scheme. Last year, that resulted in an increase of 1.5 per cent, which was substantially lower than general inflation and all other wage inflation indices applied here in the Parliament and elsewhere. The scheme allows the corporate body to use the ASHE index or such other indices as the SPCB may from time to time consider or deem appropriate. This year, we intend to apply the average weekly earnings index at 6.7 per cent, as it would appear to us that the ASHE index has become misaligned with other wage inflation indices over the past few years, for reasons that we cannot properly understand and that we ourselves are investigating. We might well return to it.

It means, however, that an MSP salary will be £72,195 in 2024-25. Prior to breaking the link with MSP salaries at Westminster, MSP salaries equated to 87.5 per cent of an MP’s salary; as of 2023-24, they equate to 78.1 per cent. It is also worth noting that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the independent body that recommends salary increases at Westminster, has recommended an increase of 7.1 per cent for MPs in 2024-25.

Moreover, following the last triennial review of the members’ pension scheme, the Government Actuary’s Department—the GAD—recommended an increase in the sponsor contributions to the scheme, and the corporate body has accepted that advice. That is reflected in the 2024-25 members’ budget.

I turn to staff cost provision. For the 2023-24 budget, the corporate body chose to use the AWE index to uplift the staff cost provision in a move away from the basket approach of indexing staff cost provision annually using a mix of the AWE index and the ASHE index, to which I have referred and which appears to be slightly out of alignment. That had been adopted since 2021-22. General inflation was 10 per cent, the basket was 4.1 per cent, and the AWE index was 5.6 per cent at the time.

In selecting the 2024-25 uprating index, the corporate body has expressed a preference to continue with the AWE index for one further year and to avoid the greater volatility reflected by the ASHE index during this continued period of inflationary volatility. Applying the AWE index for staff cost provision is consistent with the index selected for members’ pay, at a rate of 6.7 per cent. That would mean a rate of £156,900 per member. The budget submission includes that assumption.

The Scottish parliamentary service staff budget maintains the staffing baseline agreed in 2022-23, with the 2024-25 budget uprated to take account of anticipated inflationary wage pressures. We have also reflected revised increased My Civil Service Pension contribution rates within our costs for 2024-25.

Following a prioritisation exercise, the total amount incorporated in the 2024-25 budget for revenue and capital projects is £5.3 million. That is a marginal inflationary increase from 2023-24. In our submission, we highlighted a number of major projects in schedule 3 that are under way or are due to commence in 2024-25, such as the on-going building and energy management system, or BEMS, which is driven partly by green issues and obsolescence issues—I referred to that last year—and the corporate systems programme, which encompasses the business-critical applications for finance, people services and payroll. As well as being fundamental, those systems are organisation wide. The projects include the official report digital transformation project, which will replace the system that is used to produce Official Reports and aims to address technical obsolescence, improve editing, production and publishing processes, and deliver efficiencies in the operation and maintenance of the information technology system; Business Bulletin replacement, which aims to deliver a new streamlined Business Bulletin production process and supporting application; and Windows 10 replacement, with support for our current Windows 10 operating system ending in October next year.

The office-holders’ 2024-25 budget submissions total £18.3 million, which is £1.7 million—or 10 per cent—higher than the current year budget. As the committee knows, the corporate body carefully scrutinises the office-holder budget bids and challenges if no clear justification for increase has been given. Above-inflation increases in 2024-25 are driven by anticipated staff costs across all the office-holders and additional functions added to the remit of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

We continue to include a contingency provision, but we have reduced that back to the 2022-23 level of £1 million this year to reflect a widespread expectation of reduced inflationary volatility during the course of the budget year. That was the reason why we built the extra contingency in last year.

That concludes my remarks. Some of that is obviously quite technical and some it is for the record. I thank members for their patience.