Seòmar agus comataidhean

I note the recommendation that you have made in addition to your suggestion that we close the petition. Do members agree with the suggested course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1883, which was lodged by Katrina Clark, is on the opening of all toddler and baby activities in tier 3 of Covid-19 and any future pandemic lockdowns. The petition, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow baby and toddler activities to be considered equally with other indoor activities in tier 3 of future lockdowns, was previously considered by the committee in November.

We wrote to the Scottish Government on a range of issues that are highlighted by the petition. In its response, the Scottish Government states that

“No formal analysis has been carried out in relation to”

baby and toddler groups, but that

“engagement took place with ... member organisations”.

It states that

“Small grant funds were set up ... to support smaller organisations”;

that children’s rights impact assessments and business regulatory impact assessments were undertaken at each stage of the pandemic; and that the Scottish Government and Public Health Scotland are working to understand what impacts from the pandemic there might be on children aged up to three and what actions could be taken to reduce those impacts.

The petitioner has subsequently highlighted that similar risks are associated with baby and toddler groups to those that are assessed for soft play centres, but that soft play centres were allowed to open in tier 3 and baby and toddler groups were not.

Do members have any comments?

Our colleague Collette Stevenson MSP has informed the committee that the petitioner, Mr Allan, has very sadly died since we last considered the petition. We are very sorry to receive that news. I pass on the committee’s sincere condolences to Mr Allan’s family. We thank them for the petition that Mr Allan brought to the committee’s attention, which I hope will receive appropriate consideration when the review is forthcoming.

I am happy for us to do that. For the reasons that Mr Stewart articulated, I think that a public inquiry is unlikely—that is my expectation—because it might prolong the more detailed discussions that are required and might exacerbate things. However, we can do what Mr Torrance suggests. Nothing that we have said diminishes the importance of progressing a solution, because we have been wrestling with the issue for a very long time.

Again, I thank everybody for their contributions.

I am genuinely reluctant for the corporate body to start interfering in that way. The decision not to take last year’s increase was a very considerable one on our part, and I point out that it applied only to MSPs’ salaries. Staff cost provision actually increased.

I am not sure whether the figure that you are using is correct, Mr Mason—Michelle Hegarty will be able to confirm that—but I have to say that I have always been uncomfortable with the responsibility for matters relating to our own pay resting with us. That is why I think that Parliament took the quite sensible decision that we would align ourselves with a particular index. Last year, the corporate body discussed whether we should change the index, and I was one of those who were reluctant to do so. Had we done so, in fact, a larger increase in MSPs’ salary would have been recommended. I am not sure whether you are requesting a hair shirt by unintended consequence, Mr Mason, but I am afraid that you will have to blame me for getting a lesser increase than you might otherwise have received.

It is important that there are whatever equalities can be achieved. At present, we are taking advice directly from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and members can be assured that all of that is under active consideration.

That is a legitimate question. Both Sara Glass, who has been with us but has not been able to contribute, and Michelle Hegarty might be able to come in on that. Sara can talk about the numbers. Michelle can talk about how we are trying to use the parliamentary estate in different ways, which might address the latter part of your question.

As Michelle Hegarty said, we are moving at pace. We will receive recommendations and requests will follow on from that. We are looking, for example, at whether there should be any national procurement to make it easier to deal with the issues—that might or might not be the route to go. There are a series of questions that we are currently exploring and investigating. We are taking advice from others who are going through a similar exercise, whether at Westminster or in Northern Ireland or Wales.

Clearly, there is a sense of urgency in relation to all of this, in terms of the reassurance that we want members to have. As and when we are able to make early progress, you can be assured that that is what we will be doing.

Thank you for the invitation to attend the committee. As you said, I am joined by David McGill, Michelle Hegarty and Sara Glass.

In this first budget of the new session, the corporate body is following up the commitment, given in February 2021 to the then convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, that we would undertake a review of staffing resources to ensure a more robust and sustainable baseline for session 6. That request was echoed in legacy reports from other committees, as well as by a large number of members from all the parties in the Parliament during a debate around this time last year. It follows on from the review of members’ staff costs as well.

Accordingly, our budget bid, which is based on robust analysis and planning, addresses our capability and capacity to support the work of members of the Parliament across the session. Following that proposed investment, we intend to steward our resources to manage pressures and uncertainties for the duration of the session.

Unfortunately, many uncertainties persist, most notably the continuing pandemic, which has placed significant challenges on how we operate and on our financial resources. However, the committee can be assured that the SPCB will continue to responsibly flex our resources to meet the demands that are placed on us, as it has done throughout the past 20 months. That remains our Covid assumption for the upcoming budget.

Excluding capital charges and non-cash items, the proposed budget for 2022-23 represents a net 1.4 per cent increase on the current financial year’s budget, which was a higher budget largely because of the Scottish elections, for which the Parliament is responsible. For the committee’s purposes, it is a 3.8 per cent increase on the previously presented indicative budget for 2022-23.

That is primarily attributable to three factors: first, the strategic review of SPCB staffing baseline for session 6, to which I have just referred; secondly, anticipated requirements for members’ personal security; and thirdly, inflationary increases in the Parliament’s running costs. Following the death of Sir David Amess, the corporate body has been reviewing the personal security support provided to members, and it is currently progressing a number of initiatives. However, it is our view that, until the requirements of and projected uptake from members are clearer, a prudent approach would be to create provision in contingency for this year, with actual financial amounts being baselined the following year.

The committee will be aware that inflation—the third area to which I referred—is now highly volatile, with forecasters predicting continued high levels in the medium term. Inflation impacts on all aspects of the corporate body cost base, and the current levels are driving cost increases ahead of the forecasts used in preparing the previous indicative budget. That additional pressure is captured in our budget bid for operational costs.

With regard to MSP and ministerial salaries, I can confirm that following the zero per cent increase in 2021-2022, the SPCB’s budget bid reflects a 3.4 per cent uplift consistent with the application of the annual survey of hours and earnings index as laid out in the members’ salary scheme. The staff cost provision uplift, using agreed indices, will be 4.5 per cent, which is in effect a provision of £139,200 per member for employed staff.

On running costs, the corporate body proposes to maintain a broadly similar level of investment, including projects to sustain our building facilities infrastructure and services. The pace of change in our operations is faster than it has ever been, as has been illustrated in the past 18 months by the addition of two new technology-dependent services—the hybrid parliamentary business platform and remote voting—about which members might wish to ask questions. We will continue to develop and support services to provide a secure and effective working environment online, at Holyrood and in local offices.

Convener, if you agree, I would like David McGill, the chief executive and clerk of the Parliament, to conclude the opening remarks with a brief overview of the staffing baseline bid, which you might want to ask about.

There are two important areas there. It is difficult to be certain about the long-term requirement for the scrutiny of issues arising from Brexit. We have modelled that as best we can. David McGill will touch on that. Net zero is similar. We have a sustained action plan for that. I am not sure whether you are talking about scrutiny in relation to net zero or about our scrutiny of ourselves and what we are doing to achieve net zero. Michelle Hegarty will be able to expand on that in detail. David McGill can comment on the Brexit aspect.