Seòmar agus comataidhean

As you say, I have been both a regional and a constituency member. I noticed a considerable change in the nature of my workload when I changed function. However, I also acknowledge that, with the additional fiscal powers of the Scottish Government, the overall responsibilities of the Parliament have changed significantly since I was a regional member and I am now less convinced of the variance in workload between regional and constituency members.

There is a difference in the nature of the workload. However, from the work that the corporate body did when liaising with members across the Parliament during the whole Covid period, I know that the increase in members’ workloads and the demands on them as a result of the pandemic has been considerable. As people have discovered Zoom and the whole nature of online inquiry, there has been a considerable increase in the ways in which people approach us and in the volume of those approaches.

There is also an obligation in that, at the heart of the entire scheme under which we operate, there is the principle of equality between all members of the Parliament. It is fundamentally important, notwithstanding how workloads have evolved, that all members of the Scottish Parliament are equal and are treated as such.

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 will personally take that suggestion back to the corporate body, Mr Johnson. As a former customer of your former shopkeeping empire, I am happy to encourage that suggestion.

I am happy to pursue that. I can see us taking evidence with a bird of prey in the room. That would add a bit of novelty to proceedings.

Yes, I am happy to do that. The Parliament has a proud record of support for wheelchair users. In my first parliamentary session, Trish Godman led on the subject of bespoke wheelchairs. At that stage, Scotland provided a very poor service, but the Scottish Government introduced significant additional funding, which has transformed the lives of many people. However, sometimes, we forget that those better, bespoke wheelchairs have to be able to be deployed in a practical way in order for the individual to get the additional access. Some things are out of sight and out of mind. We have previously heard about issues relating to taxi access for people with wheelchairs, but there is something here for us to hear about as well and I would welcome any evidence that our colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy might be able to give to the committee. I suggest that we hold the petition open on the basis that we hear from her, and see whether that stimulates anything further that we might be able to do. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. As colleagues have no other suggestions, I think that we all agree with that. In the first instance, we will write to the teaching unions and get their parallel evidence in relation to the evidence that we already have and see where that takes us. It may well be that it leads to our agreeing to take further evidence on the petition at a forthcoming committee meeting.

Members indicated agreement.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. I make it clear to anybody who has lodged a petition and who may be looking in this morning that we have, as a course of practice, sought the Scottish Government’s views on the petition and sometimes also considered a range of other submissions that have been sought or received. We therefore come to the discussion not blind but having had the opportunity to read some background material in relation to petitions that have been submitted.

PE1904, which was lodged by Christina Fisher, seeks to change Scots law to disqualify estranged spouses from making claims on an estate. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to define in law the difference between a legally married cohabiting couple and a legally married non-cohabiting couple for the purposes of ensuring that an estranged spouse cannot inherit their spouse’s assets.

The SPICe briefing accompanying the petition sets out the current legal position in relation to inheritance law in Scotland. It notes that section 1 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 2016 sets out that, where a person has made a will, when that person gets divorced or their civil partnership is dissolved, any provision in a will benefiting their former spouse or civil partner ceases to apply. However, there is no equivalent statutory provision in section 1 covering the situation where the person is estranged from their spouse or civil partner, but there has been no divorce or dissolution of the civil partnership. There is also no provision covering where a person has made a will benefiting their cohabitant, but the cohabiting relationship later breaks down.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it has carried out consultation to keep the law of succession under review, with the most recent consultation analysis published in May 2020. It notes that

“while the law of succession affects everyone it can also divide opinion”,

and that

“there must be some degree of consensus on what reforms will deliver outcomes that are appropriate for the majority of people in Scotland.”

The petitioner’s anomaly is actual. In light of that, what comments might colleagues wish to make?