Chamber and committees

Does the Government have any override function, in terms of decisions that are made?

Right.

Yes. Specifically on that, although the letter from the SPF is a matter of public record, it is worth saying on the record that the SPF feedback on section 37 of the constitution states:

“There seems to be scope for either of the Sides to prevent such a matter going to arbitration or for the Chairperson to decide not to refer a matter to arbitration and this could lead to a deadlock.”

On section 42, the SPF states:

“It is hard to envisage the Board failing to make recommendations based on an arbitration award. It seems to open the door for either Side to delay or block a PNB agreement based on an arbitration award and this would be highly unsatisfactory.”

I guess that I am looking for feedback on that.

Thank you for that clarity.

Finally, what role would the Scottish ministers play in any of these proceedings?

You supply the resource budget, so you have to sign off the cheque.

Good morning, cabinet secretary and other guests.

I apologise if I have not explained myself properly. I just want to ensure that the very specific comments that the SPF has made will be taken into account by the PNBS as it finalises the wording of the constitution.

Yes, it would. In doing so, perhaps the officials could refer to the issues that the SPF has raised. It has clearly pre-empted scenarios that might be problematic and that it feels need to be addressed to avoid any future deadlock.

You are right. The SPF requests the following wording:

“Sides may nominate persons who are not”

necessarily

“representatives to serve on subcommittees and working groups with the permission of the”

chair. I presume that that permission will be carried forward in the new set-up.

This is important, given that, in the past year or so, we have seen disagreements over pay settlements and, as the cabinet secretary has said, the police cannot take the same type of strike action that other public services have taken or have threatened to take. However, they have taken industrial action of a different type, which has clearly had an effect on their ability to carry out certain functions. As we have already seen, they have, for example, resorted to principal statutory duties, withdrawn good will and so on.

Given the knowledge that there is a history of disagreement over pay, is the new scenario more or less likely to produce agreement? Will there be any alterations to the action that the police can or cannot take in the event of a dispute or, indeed, deadlock?

To follow on from the convener’s opening line of questioning, the submission from the SPF is dated 24 May 2023 and is addressed to the committee. Has the cabinet secretary had sight of it and does the Government intend to respond formally to its content? The SPF has made a number of very specific suggestions for changes that it would like to be made to the constitution. I am happy to go through those in public if that is helpful, but it would be quicker and easier if the Government just responded to the suggestions en bloc. Does the cabinet secretary propose to do that?