Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I will pick up on that point about the public perception of politicians’ salaries. Cabinet secretary, do you think that there is any more that we can do as a Parliament—across the parties, as you mentioned—to educate the public a wee bit more? I think that MSPs and MPs are very well paid, but—let us be frank—councillors are not. I am not sure that the public always understand that. I have seen many criticisms about councillors’ massive salaries, both on social media and from people who come into my office. When they are told what the salary is, it often comes as a surprise. I am sure that everybody in this room has experienced that.

Do you think that there is anything more that we can do? I think that you are right that it will not be a popular move—I can already write the headlines for the next stages, although we might all be agreed. Is there anything that can be done so that people know what councillors get paid and that they do not get paid the same as us?

I would probably disagree with some of the commentary from the previous panel of witnesses. In my opinion, the situation cannot be described as SLARC saying that there was a breakdown in communication with the Scottish Government. One of the earlier witnesses commented that they noticed a tailing-off of attendance at meetings around a specific time. This is my first day as a member of the committee, and when I picked up this piece of work, I got the impression that it was a good piece of collaborative work with more or less everybody being on the same page. The only contentious issue, which has been the focus of discussion with both panels this morning, is around where the funding will come from. As I say, that is just my opinion.

On that note, do you think that there is any risk of some councils choosing not to pay the increase? COSLA said that that was a possibility, and we obviously do not want a postcode lottery situation. What more can we do to work together to avoid that? Does the main opportunity to do that come through the budget negotiations, as you have already said?

Good morning. I want to ask about the work that was done for the recommendation on the uplift or the reassessment—whatever we call it. I am in a similar position to Willie Coffey on that. I declared my interests earlier. The recommendation on increasing councillors’ pay is very welcome and overdue, as councillors’ pay has increased only minimally since I first became a councillor in 2012. Therefore, I welcome it.

I want to ask about an issue that has occurred to me while the discussion has been on-going. What did you find out in your investigations about the role of councillor being a second job? Often, that is the case through necessity. Most councillors I know have another job. Whether they say that their job as a councillor or the other job is their second job is neither here nor there. They usually have two jobs. Did you undertake any analysis of what impact the uplift or reassessment might have on that?

There are two sides to that coin. The first aspect is one that we have already talked about. Do you think that the uplift or reassessment will take away the aspect of low pay being a barrier to being a councillor, with the result that more folk will be able to go for the role of councillor? Conversely, do you think that the reassessment will mean that councillor pay will go up to what we could call a high enough level, whereby it more represents a fairer or a “normal” wage, with the result that some people might feel unable to do their other job, and that it might therefore act as a barrier in that way?

I hope that that question makes sense. That thought came to me today. Did that issue come up in any of your discussions?

Thank you very much for those answers. I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks: I very much welcome the proposed uplift, which makes a lot of sense and is well overdue.

Jane, you mentioned in answer to other questions and, I think, in your opening statement the possibility of people in the same council being pitted against one other on the issue. I want to take that a bit further. Is there a risk, depending on the final decision on how the uplift will be paid for, that we could be left in a situation in which—I do not think that we are set up for this just now—local authorities end up making individual decisions, which could mean that X local authorities agree to the uplift and Y do not, or do you think that that will not happen and that the uplift will go ahead across the board or not at all?

I am okay, convener. The questions that I wanted to ask have been covered.

That was a good answer.

You have started to answer my next question, because I was going to ask whose responsibility it is to initiate debriefs. Is it the responsibility of the management or the individual officer? What would happen if an officer who had dealt with a death, for example, said, “I’ve dealt with a really difficult situation this morning. I do not want to go out to anything else that’s potentially difficult or traumatic this afternoon”? What sort of response would that officer get from management?

The other side of it is the number of incidents that the police are dealing with, which is hard.

I have one more question, convener.

I do not know whether any of the witnesses caught the previous part of the session when I asked about thresholds for police officers’ daily work, and at what point such a threshold would kick in for management to say that a police officer had done too much that day—that is, that they have had to deal with too many things that could be considered to be traumatic—or for a police officer to say that. I got some good answers on that. Where would the line be for you and your management staff in saying that you cannot expect officers to do any more until they have had time to decompress?

Good morning. We are hearing, and there are indications, that staff absences because of psychological disorders are rising. Do you have any idea what the reason for that is? Has the nature of policing changed in recent years?