Chamber
Plenary, 21 Mar 2002
21 Mar 2002 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Scottish Parliament Salaries and Allowances
I will vote for the SSRB's recommendation, but not because I particularly think that I am worth that amount of money. That is not what I am being asked to vote on; I am being asked to vote on the rate for the job, as agreed by an independent tribunal, which considered the matter with the agreement of the chamber. It is strange that now, when some members are sensitive about public opinion, they say that the valuation should be set aside. What will happen if an independent tribunal says that nurses, doctors, policemen or other public servants should receive an inflation-busting wage increase at some point in the future, because they have fallen behind their comparators in the public sector? It was agreed that the initial wage level for members of this Parliament was not commensurate with what members would get through service in the Westminster Parliament. There is a parallel in those situations.
Are we to say to a future arbitration body that we do not agree with its decision? The public are sensitive about the train drivers' demands for an inflation-busting increase that would raise their earnings above the average industrial wage. If we listen to the public, as my colleague Shona Robison urges, they might say that they prefer Tommy Sheridan's proposal. In that case, what will we say to the train drivers?
If we depart from the time-honoured tradition of paying the rate for the job, we will become involved in hypocrisy and double-dealing. Although I understand Donald Gorrie's wish to make a gesture towards people in the public sector who are underpaid, this issue is not gesture politics—it is the real thing. Whether members like it or not, they will have to vote every year for a budget, which will include our salaries and the salary of every person who works in the Parliament. The issue cannot be dodged. If members agree to either of the amendments, we will have to go through the procedure again and the time will never be right to set a wage that is almost what we think we should receive.
I believe—I know that most members agree—that our wages should be equal to those of MPs in Westminster. [Applause.] I am glad that that meets with approval. However, that is not what we will vote for tonight. Members are concerned about public opinion, but they must set aside all consideration of the Scottish Television opinion poll, because if it had asked, "Do you think all MSPs should be beheaded?" I think that 99 per cent of people would have said yes.
My final point is about events in my office today. As members know, I have spoken in various places around the town today, some of which were draughty and cold. People know that I support the motion—I do not support the exact figures, but I support the principle that the rate for the job should be determined by independent arbitration—and although I have been inundated with faxes, e-mails and phone calls in support of my comments about Alain Baxter, not one member of the public has contacted my office about members' pay.
Are we to say to a future arbitration body that we do not agree with its decision? The public are sensitive about the train drivers' demands for an inflation-busting increase that would raise their earnings above the average industrial wage. If we listen to the public, as my colleague Shona Robison urges, they might say that they prefer Tommy Sheridan's proposal. In that case, what will we say to the train drivers?
If we depart from the time-honoured tradition of paying the rate for the job, we will become involved in hypocrisy and double-dealing. Although I understand Donald Gorrie's wish to make a gesture towards people in the public sector who are underpaid, this issue is not gesture politics—it is the real thing. Whether members like it or not, they will have to vote every year for a budget, which will include our salaries and the salary of every person who works in the Parliament. The issue cannot be dodged. If members agree to either of the amendments, we will have to go through the procedure again and the time will never be right to set a wage that is almost what we think we should receive.
I believe—I know that most members agree—that our wages should be equal to those of MPs in Westminster. [Applause.] I am glad that that meets with approval. However, that is not what we will vote for tonight. Members are concerned about public opinion, but they must set aside all consideration of the Scottish Television opinion poll, because if it had asked, "Do you think all MSPs should be beheaded?" I think that 99 per cent of people would have said yes.
My final point is about events in my office today. As members know, I have spoken in various places around the town today, some of which were draughty and cold. People know that I support the motion—I do not support the exact figures, but I support the principle that the rate for the job should be determined by independent arbitration—and although I have been inundated with faxes, e-mails and phone calls in support of my comments about Alain Baxter, not one member of the public has contacted my office about members' pay.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2919, in the name of John Young, on the Scottish Parliament salaries scheme and the Scottish parliamentar...
John Young (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
At the outset, I make it clear that I speak on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, not on behalf of the Conservative group or any other poli...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
You should simply move the motion, Mr Young.
John Young:
Con
I will now move the motion. I move that the Parliament, in exercise—
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
It is not necessary to read the motion out, as it appears in the business bulletin. You should simply move the motion.
John Young:
Con
I was advised that it might have to be read out, but I shall simply move the motion and trust that everyone knows what it says. I move,That the Parliament—(a...
Shona Robison (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I should make it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity this afternoon. I begin by paying tribute to the business managers of the Parliament, who ha...
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Lab
Will Shona Robison accept an intervention?
Shona Robison:
SNP
No, I will not. My reasons for lodging the amendment are simple. First, I do not believe that we should be voting at all on our own salaries. That is a hideo...
Tommy Sheridan (Glasgow) (SSP):
SSP
I am sure that I was not the only member who received a Christmas card from the Lanarkshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust branch of Unison. That Christmas card h...
Alex Johnstone (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I am surprised to find myself speaking at this stage of the debate, but I will briefly take the opportunity to say something, as I was one of the business ma...
Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD):
LD
Will the member give way?
Alex Johnstone:
Con
Not at this stage.
Dorothy-Grace Elder (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member take an intervention?
Alex Johnstone:
Con
No. Not at this stage.I am suggesting that it is appropriate to move on those lines because I believe that it is the responsibility of Parliament to deal wit...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
We all find the subject very difficult and in no way do I criticise any member who comes to a different conclusion from mine. After a lot of swithering, I ha...
Irene McGugan (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I speak in support of Shona Robison's amendment. I am aware of the hard work and long hours that every member contributes and I am aware that elsewhere, whet...
Ms Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I will vote for the SSRB's recommendation, but not because I particularly think that I am worth that amount of money. That is not what I am being asked to vo...
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
I am sure that, for Ms MacDonald, the public of Scotland would make an exception on the beheading. I do not intend to make a long speech, but a couple of poi...
Dorothy-Grace Elder:
SNP
I am rather puzzled about why we are repeatedly hearing the mantra that things will be much better next time because the issue will not be publicly debated i...
Patricia Ferguson:
Lab
If Dorothy-Grace Elder's premise were correct, I would probably agree with her, but it is not correct. The motion will mean that in future the SPCB will have...
George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD):
LD
I will not support the motion for two reasons. First, there is a desperate need for the Parliament to rebuild confidence among the general public. Any member...
John Young:
Con
I shall be brief. As I said in my opening remarks, the role of the corporate body has been to facilitate the debate. A number of interesting comments have be...