Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. Apologies for the delay in getting here—my train was so delayed that I just gave up and found a different way to get to Edinburgh.

To follow up on the point about deferring the block grant adjustment, that is presumably a lever that can be pulled only once—you cannot keep delaying it in perpetuity.

If I recall correctly, that was an Scottish National Party conference announcement this time last year. Have you had any discussions with the Government since then, and has it given you any indication of how it is progressing with that policy, or whether it is still doing so?

To clarify, is your suggestion with the point about using scenarios in planning that, at budget time, the Government should indicate that, if it spends more than it has allocated on public sector pay as a result of negotiations, the likely excess will have to be drawn from X, Y and Z areas of other spend?

To follow up on John Mason’s line of questioning about issuing bonds, I recognise that we have not done that before, so it would be uncharted territory. Do you have any expectations about the relative value for money in issuing bonds versus going through the national loan fund?

That is a useful point. Thank you.

I have a question on public sector pay transparency. Going back to the discussion that we had last week, Graeme, I will put some of that on the record and follow up on Michael Marra’s line of questioning. You mentioned recognising that the Government cannot be completely transparent without beginning to undermine its negotiating position with the unions, which is perfectly understandable—the more transparent the Government is, the more the unions will see whatever figure is there as the floor from which to work up, which just takes the Government back into that space of having to find money from elsewhere.

You mentioned, though, the benefit of illustrative scenarios. Could you detail what you mean by that? Is it essentially to say that the Government can put one sum up front and say, “This is what we are looking at in terms of the cost of public sector pay,” or, “In terms of the pay strategy, we are looking at 3 per cent, plus 1.5 per cent for pay progression, but if it were to be more than that, here are the areas where that money would have to come from?” Are you talking about that kind of scenario, where there is a list of other areas of public spending that would be the first up for announcements like this afternoon’s?

That is a good point, thanks.

Finally, on a point of process, you are aware of our inquiry into the wider commissioner landscape. Would it make sense for Parliament to consider the report and the recommendations that the committee produces before moving ahead with not just your bill but the range of proposals for the creation of new commissioners? Would it make sense for Parliament to consider what this committee ends up recommending before proceeding further with any of the range of individual commissioner proposals, to avoid a potential mismatch between what we end up agreeing for the landscape overall and what we do on a case-by-case basis over the rest of this parliamentary term?

I appreciate that and I realise that this is somewhat going back to ground that has been covered. There are already, as has been mentioned, a range of third sector organisations and charities that advocate effectively on behalf of disabled people and particularly those who find it most difficult to do that for themselves. They lobby us and give evidence very regularly—there are some very effective organisations. What you are proposing would add something new to the landscape.

I get the logic that, if there was not that landscape of organisations that are already advocating for disabled people, there would be a very clear case for having somebody to do that and to gather those voices and experiences and bring them to Parliament. However, I am not sure why there is a case for that when we already have that wider landscape of people who do that. That is where my question comes from. Is Parliament not responding to them effectively enough?

Thanks—including for that distressing reminder of how close our next election is.

Good morning. I will follow up on Jamie Halcro Johnston’s initial question about an individual MSP advocating for a disabled constituent. I will move the discussion to a whole-Parliament level and touch on some of the points that you have made. I understand entirely what you said about the difficulties that disabled people face in advocating for themselves and using their own voice in settings such as the Parliament, but there is a question for us as an institution. In our inquiry into the wider commissioner landscape, we touched a few times on wider issues relating to effective parliamentary scrutiny and questions of reform 25 years into devolution.

I presume that part of your motivation for bringing the bill forward is that Parliament, as a whole, has not been effective enough in, for example, advocating and legislating for disabled people. Why do you think that that is? If we can move from Jamie’s example of the individual MSP level to that of the institution as a whole, what is holding the institution back from effectively fulfilling that job—and what is holding it back so far that there is a need for an independent commissioner?

On a similar line of questioning, Professor Gillespie, your university funding situation is obviously different. Universities are not in the public sector, so fair work applies a bit differently. How are universities evaluated for their commitment to fair work in so far as it relates to the public funding that they receive?