Back to the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee Report
Archive Home

Business Bulletin 1999-2011

Minutes of Proceedings 1999-2011

Journal of Parliamentary Proceedings Sessions 1 & 2

Committees Sessions 1, 2 & 3

Annual reports

SP Paper 308

FI/S3/09/R4

4th Report, 2009 (Session 3)

Report on Public Sector Pay

CONTENTS

Remit and membership

Report
Introduction
The Public Sector Pay Policy

Key elements of the policy
Sanctions
Key issues on the pay policy
Local government

The process for approving pay proposals

Issues with the process

Negotiating machinery
The Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments

Level of salary for senior appointees
Senior appointments – delays
Bonuses for senior appointees – level of bonus
Bonuses for senior appointees – criteria for paying bonuses

Overall conclusions and recommendations

Annexe A: Extract from the minutes of the Finance Committee

ORAL EVIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Please note that all oral evidence and associated written evidence is published electronically only, and can be accessed via the Finance Committee’s webpages, at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/finance/otherIssues.htm

30th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 9 December 2008

WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Scottish Government
UNISON
Prospect

ORAL EVIDENCE

Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance, Scottish Government;
Lesley Doherty, Assistant Head of Pay Policy, Scottish Government;
Jim Caldwell, Scottish Secretary, FDA;
Malcolm Currie, Negotiations Officer, Prospect;
Eddie Reilly, Scottish Secretary, PCS;
Jimmy Farrelly, Regional Organiser, Unite;
Alex McLuckie, Senior Organiser for Public Services, GMB;
Dave Watson, Scottish Organiser, Policy, UNISON.

SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Scottish Government

1st Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 13 January 2009

WRITTEN EVIDENCE

COSLA

ORAL EVIDENCE

Councillor Michael Cook, Spokesperson for Strategic Human Resource Management;
Joe di Paola, Head of Employers Organisation, COSLA.

2nd Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), 20 January 2009

ORAL EVIDENCE

John Swinney MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth,
Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance, Scottish Government,
Nicola Patterson, Head of Finance Pay Policy, Scottish Government.

SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Scottish Government

8th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 24 March 2009

ORAL EVIDENCE

Richard Ackroyd, Chief Executive, Scottish Water,
Ronnie Mercer, Chair, Scottish Water;
Alistair Brown, Head of Expenditure Policy Division, Scottish Government,
Lesley Doherty, Assistant Head of Pay Policy, Scottish Government;
Richard Leonard, Scottish Organiser, GMB;
Dave Watson, Scottish Organiser, Policy, UNISON;
Gordon Weir, Director of Corporate Services, Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care.

Remit and membership

Remit:

1. The remit of the Finance Committee is to consider and report on-

(a) any report or other document laid before the Parliament by members of the Scottish Executive containing proposals for, or budgets of, public expenditure or proposals for the making of a tax-varying resolution, taking into account any report or recommendations concerning such documents made to them by any other committee with power to consider such documents or any part of them;

(b) any report made by a committee setting out proposals concerning public expenditure;

(c) Budget Bills; and

(d) any other matter relating to or affecting the expenditure of the Scottish Administration or other expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund.

2. The Committee may also consider and, where it sees fit, report to the Parliament on the timetable for the Stages of Budget Bills and on the handling of financial business.

3. In these Rules, "public expenditure" means expenditure of the Scottish Administration, other expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund and any other expenditure met out of taxes, charges and other public revenue.

(Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament, Rule 6.6)

Membership:

Jackie Baillie (Deputy Convener)
Derek Brownlee
Linda Fabiani
Joe FitzPatrick
James Kelly
Jeremy Purvis
Andrew Welsh (Convener)
David Whitton

Committee clerking team:

Clerk to the Committee
James Johnston

Senior Assistant Clerk
Mark Brough

Assistant Clerk
Allan Campbell

Committee Assistant
Jennifer Bell

Report on Public Sector Pay

The Committee reports to the Parliament as follows—

Introduction

1. The Committee agreed that it wished to take evidence on the issue of public sector pay – both for chief executives/senior staff and all other staff. On 9 December 2008, the Committee took evidence from the Scottish Government’s Pay Policy Unit officials, and from some of the main unions involved in both central and local government and Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and agencies. On 13 January 2009, the Committee took evidence from COSLA as the local government employers’ organisation. On 20 January 2009, the Committee took evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, in terms of his role both in setting public sector pay policy and in representing the central government employer. The Committee then held a further evidence session – focussed on the process for approving pay remits for public bodies - with representatives from the Pay Policy Unit, Scottish Water, the Care Commission, Unison and the GMB on 24 March 2009.

2. It should be noted that the Committee took evidence on the Public Sector Pay Policy 2008-091and the corresponding Policy for Senior Appointments 2008-092. Following the evidence-taking sessions, but prior to the publication of this report, the Scottish Government published its Public Sector Pay Policy 2009-103 and corresponding Policy for Senior Appointments 2009-104. The documents are similar in many respects. However, where there are differences these have been noted.

3. This report is structured as follows—

  • the current public sector pay policy and the extent to which the aims of the policy have been achieved;

  • the processes for approving pay remits and the pay unit itself;

  • the negotiating machinery across the public sector; and

  • the pay policy for senior employees, with a particular focus on bonus arrangements.

The Public Sector Pay Policy

Key elements of the policy

4. The Public Sector Pay Policies for 2008-09 and 2009-10 set the parameters for public sector pay increases for those public bodies whose pay requires the approval of Scottish Ministers – the Scottish Government and its associated departments, agencies, NDPBs, public corporations and NHS Executive and Senior Managers. In total, the policy covers 48 bodies that employ 30,000 staff, accounting for around 6% of public sector employees in Scotland, with an aggregate pay bill of around £1 billion. The policy does not include the remainder of the NHS nor local government staff including teachers, police and fire services, or civil servants who work for UK departments, for example the Department for Work and Pensions.5 The separate policy for Senior Appointments covers chief executives and the chairs and members of Scottish public bodies. The policy for senior appointments is discussed later in this report.

5. Although the policy does not apply to local government, discussions on the size of the local authority pay bill inform the negotiations between COSLA and the Scottish Government on the overall size of the local government settlement.6

6. Scottish Government officials explained that the strategic aims of the pay policy are—

  • that pay increases should be affordable and sustainable;

  • to provide flexibility for bodies so that pay and reward systems suit their business needs; and

  • to support pay that is fair and non discriminatory.7

7. Officials went on to outline the key objectives that flow from these strategic aims,8 which include—

  • allowing public sector employers to address low pay;

  • ensuring that public sector employers can recruit, retain and motivate suitable staff; and

  • ensuring that staff receive pay increases when they are due.9

8. These aims and objectives are replicated in the 2009-10 Policy.

Pay Metrics10

9. The pay policy uses what are termed “three key metrics” in assessing pay remits. For both the 2008-09 and 2009-10 pay policies, the key metrics are—

  • increase for Staff in Post (ISP) – this is the cost of the increase in pay and benefits for staff within a public body as a percentage of the baseline paybill (ie, the total paybill immediately prior to the relevant pay round);

  • the basic award percentage – this is the consolidated across-the-board increase in pay. It does not include progression payments to enable staff to go from the minimum to the maximum of the pay scale nor does it include any consolidated performance pay; and

  • the new money or headline cost of the pay remit – this is how much new money will be required to fund the cost of the pay package.

10. The key metrics are described in more detail below.

The Increase for Staff in Post percentage

11. The Increase for Staff in Post limit was 3.75% in 2008-09 and is 3.00% in 2009-10. This only applies to the standard remit elements of all pay proposals. This includes—

  • progression;

  • the basic award;

  • non-consolidated payments over and above the non-consolidated pot that is included in the baseline paybill;

  • consolidated performance payments; and

  • increases in the costs of overtime, allowances, employers pension contributions and National Insurance that result from the increases in pay and benefits proposed.

The Basic Award percentage

12. An absolute Basic Award limit of 2.00% applied for 2008-09. This will be 1.50% for 2009-10. While in 2008-9, the Basic Award could be averaged over a multi-year deal, for 2009-10 in multi year deals the limit of 1.50% will apply to each year. For 2009-10, it must be delivered within the absolute standard remit Increase for Staff in Post limit of 3.00% in any year. For 2008-09, a Basic Award below 2% applied to those grades where the maxima or target rates are more than 5% above the market maximum medians. This is not mentioned in the 2009-10 policy.

The new money or headline cost of the pay proposals

13. This is how much the paybill will increase by as a result of the total package of pay proposals for which approval is being sought. It can be less than the Increase for Staff in Post percentage where recyclable or other savings in the paybill can be delivered to reduce the cost of proposals to the organisation.

14. An absolute headline cost limit of 4.50% applied in 2008-09 to the total remit package (standard remit plus measures targeted at addressing the key priorities) in any year(see below). However, for 2009-10, the policy states that this total must not exceed 3.00% of the baseline paybill.

15. Increases targeted at the key priorities will fall into the following categories:

  • Increases in benefits or non-pay rewards, for example reduction in working hours or additional leave. Such proposals have notional cost benefits for staff but do not add actual costs to the paybill;

  • One-off increases, for example buying out terms and conditions of employment that are now outdated. These are actual costs to the paybill but are limited to a single year;

  • Increases with ongoing cost implications, for example:

    - addressing inequalities by reducing progression journey times;

    - addressing particular issues such as low pay and recruitment, retention and motivation of staff by adjusting pay range minima, maxima or target rates. Recruitment was an issue if there was evidence of starting pay above the median of the existing salaries for that pay range for more than 25% of new staff for the 2008-09 policy. In the 2009-10 policy, recruitment is considered “difficult” if posts have been vacant for more than six months despite a recruitment campaign. Retention will be an issue if there has been turnover of more than 10%;

    - restructuring of pay and reward systems: these costs usually relate to the assimilation of staff onto a new structure in the first year. As a result such proposals will be assessed against the headline cost limit of 3.00% for 2009-10 (it was 4.50% for 2008-09) and the future projected costs for the standard remit elements (see below). If proposals do also include the costs of progression and/or a basic award then the policy limits will apply.

16. Proposals must not result in pay range maxima being more than, or extend further from, 5% above the relevant labour market maximum median. The relevant labour market is expected to be the public sector labour market in Scotland for most staff, and this market data is being provided by Finance Pay Policy. This data will be used to assess proposals in the first instance.

17. In exceptional cases, where a more specific or specialist labour market is appropriate, public bodies may provide additional market data. Such data should reflect who public bodies actively compete with for staff and should be accompanied by an explanation setting out why it is a more relevant labour market. There should also be a clear link, based on job weightings, between the posts being compared and comparisons should be made on a like for like basis.

Multi-year remits

18. During 2008-09 and for 2009-10 public bodies may negotiate and put in place pay awards for one or more years. Knowing the level of pay increases for future years brings certainty for employers and staff, but the length of any pay deal is a matter for each public body and its recognised trade unions. Public bodies are expected to set out their plans in their business case and, if not proposing to enter into a multi-year pay deal, provide a short explanation.

Sanctions

19. If a public body significantly exceeds its approved remit or has materially moved away from the basis of the remit, then under policy an explanation will be sought and the Remuneration Group may refer the outturn and current remit to Ministers. Where the explanation is not deemed to be adequate then action may be taken. This may require the sponsor team in the Scottish Government and accountable officer to justify the matter to the Portfolio Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. This referral could result in further action being taken, such as capping future pay remits or a governance review of the body.

Key issues on the pay policy

The UK context

20. As outlined above, in 2008-09 the Scottish Government’s pay policy included a strict 2% “basic award” increase (this is 1.5% for 2009-10). The overall impact of the 2% limit and the use of incremental pay scales is discussed at paragraphs 22-26 below. Trades unions expressed concern during evidence around the level of increase and its inflexibility, and noted that the UK Government has not imposed such a limit for its departments.11 In a letter to unions on 1 December 2008, Sir Gus O’Donnell, Head of the Civil Service, stated that “it is worth reiterating the Chief Secretary [to the Treasury]’s earlier assurances that there is no 2% limit on public sector pay.”12

Opportunities for negotiation

21. Although unions were invited to talks with the Cabinet Secretary ahead of the pay policy being published, both parties recognised during evidence that these were in no way formal negotiations.13 When pressed on the issue, the Cabinet Secretary stated that, although not involved in direct negotiations, he and other members of the Government ensured that they were aware of the trade union perspective, and that if there was particular concern in a certain area he had been willing to meet with those involved.14 Similarly, in terms of local government, unions stated that they were not invited to take part in discussions between COSLA and the Scottish Government on pay when it was being discussed as part of the discussions on the local government settlement at the start of the current spending review period.15

22. The Committee notes that whilst the opportunity for the trade unions to discuss matters with the Cabinet Secretary is welcome, there is no formal negotiating machinery with the Scottish Government.16

Comparison with the private sector

23. A key objective of the pay policy is to enable public sector employers to recruit, retain and motivate suitable staff. However, concerns were raised by trades unions that public sector pay, in the round, does not compare favourably to private sector pay. They cited a report that placed the Scottish Government within the bottom 25% of employers in the public and private sectors.17 The Cabinet Secretary responded that the issue of comparability with the private sector was a key factor in the formulation of public sector pay policy, although affordability always had to be a key consideration.18

Addressing low pay and structural issues

24. In terms of the wider aims and objectives of the policy, much of the evidence heard by the Committee focussed on the issue of low pay. Trades unions suggested that, despite addressing low pay being a stated objective of the policy (and relating to the Scottish Government’s strategic objectives for the economy), not enough is being done to tackle the issue.19 One area of particular concern surrounds the use of incremental pay scales. While unions consider the maximum of the pay scale as the rate for the job, evidence suggests that the Scottish Government (and the previous Scottish Executive) count the movement to the next point in the pay scale as a pay increase.20 This, the unions imply, leads to civil servants being “paid on the cheap” and can mean that they receive pay increases under the rate of inflation, which has a greater impact on those in lower-paid jobs.21

25. Another area of concern for unions linked to the use of pay scales is age discrimination. In pay terms, this can have an impact where particular features of a pay system are service-related. Many areas of the public sector have examined their pay scales to determine whether they should be shortened (a point echoed in evidence by the trades unions22) with a view to avoiding possible legal action on age discrimination. This is potentially very costly for the public sector, but the converse is, as has been seen with Single Status, that if action is not taken there is potential for significant costs from cases being taken to employment tribunal. The pay policy states that, if employers want to amend their pay arrangements, they must provide evidence of the extent of the inequality and include in a full risk assessment, the likelihood of claims and the extent of the potential liability as well as the costs of dealing with the issue.

26. Unions raised concerns that any costs for addressing equalities issues are included in annual pay bargaining agreements, along with any one-off harmonisation costs related to organisational mergers as a result of the Government’s agenda for public services reform, and suggested that these costs should be separate from the annual pay bargaining agreements.23

27. However, the Cabinet Secretary made clear that, given the current financial climate, and the anticipated small real-terms increase for the Scottish Budget in this and future years, it is necessary for the Scottish Government to keep a tight control on pay and pay increases in the public sector.24 Despite this, the Cabinet Secretary stressed that the Government has focussed its attention on improving the position of low paid employees as much as possible within the current financial settlement.25

28. Whilst the Committee notes the Cabinet Secretary's comments about affordability in the current financial context, the Committee welcomes the focus on addressing low pay. Accordingly the Committee believes that the Cabinet Secretary should demonstrate how low pay is being addressed in policy and in practice. The Committee further believes that, following best practice, the Scottish Government should make clear to NDPBs and agencies that pay increments should be separated from pay increases; that a review is carried out of pay systems that are service related to avoid age discrimination; and that the cost of addressing equalities issues and mergers as a result of public service reform are separated from the annual bargaining agreements.

Local government

29. Although the Scottish Government’s pay policy does not apply to local government, and pay in local authorities is a matter for individual authorities, pay is taken into account during negotiations between COSLA and the Scottish Government on the local government settlement. However, apart from the recommendations arising from Sir Neil McIntosh’s report which only apply to senior local government employees,26 it appears from evidence with COSLA that local authorities do not currently operate a policy-based pay structure equivalent to the Government’s pay policy, although one is currently being developed.27 COSLA stated that, at present, the key issues for local authorities when considering pay are “affordability, stability and continuity of services to communities.”28

30. Despite the fact that the Government’s pay policy does not apply to local government, trades unions representing staff in local authorities are of the view that the policy has limited the abilities of the local authorities to pay.29 The unions have particular concerns over low pay and stated clearly that, in their view, low pay has not been addressed and cited an example of an individual working in local government who has “to work three jobs to make a living.”30 They also gave practical examples of ways in which low pay could be tackled in local government through greater flexibility, as has happened in the NHS in Scotland, which from next year will remove the two lowest bands in its pay structure.31

31. Unions consider the key to the problem to be a perceived unwillingness on behalf of COSLA to recognise that low pay is an issue in local government.32 When questioned on this specific point, COSLA stated that, while they were aware of the unions’ views, they did not necessarily accept that there is an issue of endemic low pay.33 However, they did state that they were willing to set up a “short-term working group”, with union involvement, to examine the issue.34

32. The Committee commends the suggestion from COSLA of a short term working group, involving the trade unions, to examine the question of low pay in local government. In addition, the Committee looks forward to COSLA developing a policy-based pay structure.

The process for approving pay proposals

Obtaining approval for a pay remit

33. In order to obtain approval for a pay remit, public bodies must—

  • make sure that proposals are in line with the details of the policy set out in the published policy documents;

  • demonstrate that the level of basic award is no more than 1.50% in any one year;

  • demonstrate that the standard remit elements do not lead to an increase for staff in post percentage greater than 3.00% in 2009-10 (was 3.75% in 2008-09);

  • demonstrate that proposals above a staff in post percentage of 3.00% (3.75% in 2008-09) are targeted at the key priorities and do not lead to a headline cost for the pay remit package greater than 3.00% (4.50% in 2008-09);

  • support proposals with a business case that takes account of the requirements and expectations of the policy;

  • make sure that proposals are affordable within existing budgets and that the business case clearly sets out how the proposals will be funded; and

  • demonstrate that proposals are sustainable by providing a 3 year projection that shows that after addressing any particular issues, the resulting standard remit will be deliverable within a 3.00% Increase for Staff in Post limit (on a basic award of 1.50% assumption) for 2009-10 (figures were 3.75% and 2.00% in 2008-09).

The assessment/approval process

34. The Finance Pay Policy Team assesses both the outturn figures for the year or years covered by the public body’s previous pay remit and the current proposed pay remit. For both, an assessment of “red”, “amber” or “green” is given. Full details of what constitutes the relevant levels of assessment can be found below and at pages 25-28 of the 2009-10 Pay Policy.

Outturn figures

35. In terms of outturn, a body’s figures will be rated as “green” if the outturn is fully in line with the approved remit, i.e. the limits of the remit were not exceeded, all changes to pay structures were implemented as approved and all conditions placed on approval were met.

36. Outturn will be rated as “amber” if—

  • outturn exceeds the percentages approved by less than 0.1% or £10,000 (whichever is greater), but all other changes have been implemented as approved and appropriate conditions met; or

  • outturn cannot be provided or incomplete, but the increase to the paybill and the increase in the paybill per head indicates that proposals were implemented as approved.

37. Outturn will be rated as “red” if—

  • outturn exceeds the percentages approved by more than 0.1% or £10,000 (again, whichever is greater); or

  • the implemented pay award differs materially from the basis of the approved remit (e.g. the approved pay structure was not implemented) or

  • the body did not comply with conditions placed on approval.

Current remit figures

38. To be rated as “green”, proposals must be in line with the policy limits and fully supported by a robust business case.

39. Proposals will be rated as “amber” if—

  • the market comparison is based on a particular labour market but there is limited evidence that the data represents active local labour market competitors; there is no clear link between the posts being compared based on job weightings or comparisons are not made on a like for like basis;

  • there is limited provision of evidence to support proposals to change existing arrangements for progression; non-consolidated payments; or any consolidated performance payments;

  • there is no supporting evidence from the results of the comparison with the public sector labour market or the particular labour market previously discussed with the Finance Pay Policy Team;

  • the body proposes to address inequalities in pay and reward systems without providing evidence of such inequalities through the results of an equal pay review; a risk assessment; or through setting out the steps proposed to address any inequalities over time;

  • the body proposes to address issues impacting on its ability to deliver outcomes without providing evidence of the impact on outcomes if the issues are not addressed as proposed;

  • the body proposes to address issues impacting on its ability to deliver outcomes without providing evidence of issues recruiting, retaining or motivating staff, or that evidence is not in line with paragraphs 5.15 to 5.19 of the policy; or

  • the body’s business case does not support the proposals set out in the remit proforma.

40. Finally, proposals will be rated “red” if they breach an absolute requirement of the policy. Such proposals are those which—

  • do not include the costs of all proposed increases in pay and benefits;

  • do not clearly set out how proposals will be funded, including details of projected savings and are not confirmed as realistic, affordable and sustainable by the body and supported by the Portfolio Finance Team;

  • propose a basic award that exceeds 1.50% in any year;

  • include an average Increase for Staff in Post percentage for the Standard Remit Elements above 3.00%;

  • seek approval for proposals with a Net Paybill Increase above 3.00% in any year;

  • are not sustainable; they do not project that a standard remit is deliverable within the current ISP limit of 3.00% in each of the 3 years following the approved remit;

  • do not set out how bodies intend to resolve an existing contractual or legal commitment to pay elements of the pay award or the time frame involved to resolve the issue;

  • seek approval for proposals outwith the Standard Remit Elements that are not targeted at the Key Pay Policy Priorities for 2009-10; or

  • seek an increase above the Basic Award limit which results in pay range maxima being more than 5% above the medians of the maxima in the relevant labour market.

Approvals

41. For 2009-10, officials can approve proposals where the current remit is assessed as green and the outturn figures are either amber or green. For an NDPB, this means approval by the Director of the sponsoring Directorate. For an agency, this means approval by the Director General or Director of the sponsoring directorate, and for an Associated Department this means the Permanent Secretary. The deputy director of Finance Expenditure Policy also approves all proposals in addition to the official stated above.

42. All other proposals will be considered by the Remuneration Group (the 2008-09 policy explains that the group consists of the Director General of Health & Wellbeing, the Director of Finance, Director of Change and Corporate Services and a portfolio Director and chaired by a non-Executive member of the Scottish Government’s Strategic Board).

43. The Remuneration Group decides whether proposals need to be brought to the attention of Ministers. This could happen when, for example the outturn is rated as red and the group consider the explanation to be inadequate. In addition, the main Scottish Government pay remit has to be approved by Ministers.

Issues with the process

Delays

44. A stated aim of the pay policy is to pay increases when they are due. However, trades unions representatives stated that a major problem with the current process is the sometimes “ridiculous” delays in pay bargaining, that appear to be particular to those remits that involve the pay unit (i.e. they do not appear to be a problem to the same extent in local government or the private sector), although it should be noted that delays are not always the fault of the unit.35 In written evidence, Unison explained that most settlements for 2006 were imposed only after two years of delay.36 During evidence, officials did recognise this to be an ongoing issue for the Scottish Government, but noted that the 2008-09 pay round saw an improvement and that the eventual aim is to ensure that all bodies follow the timetable set out in the pay policy in future years.37 During the evidence session on 24 March, officials were able to confirm that, as of 24 March, 34 out of 42 remits in the 2008-09 pay round had been agreed. Of these 34 remits, eight were agreed within the seven week target set by the pay policy, 19 were agreed within 10 weeks, and the remainder took longer.38

45. Unison accepted that the process is not normally too problematic if a pay settlement is straightforward. However, it suggested that public sector pay has not been straightforward recently, and that issues of equal pay, harmonisation and organisational reform will continue to complicate the process.39 The GMB made the contrast between the private and public sector in terms of pay negotiations, stating that in the private sector decisions “are invariably turned around within a week or two”, compared with the public sector where, as has been shown, pay remits can take years to be signed off.40 The Care Commission stated that its pay settlement for 2006-08 was paid in May 2008 – 25 months late, while its 2008-10 settlement is not yet agreed and will be paid 13 months late at the earliest.41 All witnesses agreed that they would like to see pay settlements agreed closer to the expiry of previous awards, and suggested that that would encourage good industrial relations.

46. The Committee acknowledges that improvements have been made in the time taken to process and approve pay proposals. However, while recognising the complexities, the Committee believes that there is further scope for improvement. The Committee recommends that the Cabinet Secretary brings forward proposals to address this issue.

The Finance Pay Policy team in the Scottish Government

47. The role of the pay policy team is to ensure that pay proposals from affected bodies are in line with the pay policy. The unit contains six generalist Scottish Government staff. Officials confirmed during evidence that, while staff in the unit do have finance and statistical qualifications, they do not have Human Resources (HR) qualifications.42 Questions were raised as to whether it might be helpful for the unit’s future development to introduce HR professionals, to assist the unit in implementing job evaluation schemes. In response to this point, the Cabinet Secretary indicated that officials had access to relevant expertise through the Government’s own HR department and that, given the generalist basis on which the civil service operates, it would not be an appropriate step to take.43 During the session on 24 March, officials confirmed that the structure for the pay policy unit within the Scottish Government follows the model that operates in the UK Treasury.44

48. Despite this, the Committee is strongly of the view that HR provision must be a core part of the pay policy unit.

49. Particular issues were raised as to whether a job evaluation scheme (Job Evaluation and Grading Support – “JEGS”) had been appropriately applied by the pay policy unit with regard to the Care Commission. In supplementary evidence following the meeting on 20 January, the Cabinet Secretary stated that “the JEGS methodology provides a useful, consistent framework that can be used to arrive at a view of the broad comparability of roles in different organisations.”45 He went on to state that he was content for JEGS to be used for comparison, but that public bodies were free to provide any additional, relevant comparator information about grades and level of pay in other organisations to the pay unit if they so wished.46

50. During the additional evidence session on 24 March, Unison stated that, in their view, the issues with the Care Commission stemmed from the use of civil service benchmarks for staff transferring to the Commission, rather than using social service or health service benchmarks.47 The Care Commission agreed with this, citing difficulties over benchmarking as a key factor behind the delays in agreeing its pay remits.48 Related issues are discussed in the section on Negotiating Machinery below.

51. The Committee is persuaded of the difficulty in benchmarking and recommends that the Cabinet Secretary looks further at proposals in this regard.

Flexibility

52. Several witnesses expressed concern that the pay policy is not sufficiently flexible. The Care Commission highlighted the example of its staff who run a shared services organisation for two bodies, but technicalities of budgeting for the pay deals meant that the agreed remit of one organisation was not permitted to be applied to the other.49 This was eventually resolved with no actual change to the costs, and the Care Commission stated that a little flexibility for local discretion in the pay process could have allowed it to be dealt with much more quickly. Scottish Water also stated that it would like to see the management of organisations given a bit more flexibility to fit their own circumstances.50 Unison highlighted the position in local government which it said “involves a core set of negotiations with core terms and conditions, but that does not mean that every local authority is paid the same. We can therefore reflect different circumstances and have job evaluation schemes that reflect need.”51

53. The Committee recommends that the Cabinet Secretary explores what flexibility or discretion can be given to reflect local circumstances, within the context of affordability and equality.

Negotiating machinery

54. A major area of concern for all trades unions with the current negotiating machinery in Scotland is the number of separate bargaining units. Although the precise number of such units was the matter of some debate,52 all unions were united in the view that the current number was too high, especially given that a lot of jobs across different bargaining areas are, in their view, directly comparable. The 2008-09 pay policy states that 55 remits were to be agreed in 2008-09. In 2009-10, 28 remits are to be agreed. In addition, trades unions raised particular concerns about the opportunity for meaningful local negotiation on pay. In terms of NDPBs, Unison stated that no meaningful negotiation was taking place at a local level despite the NDPB management being formally responsible for the negotiations and the Scottish Government saying that it was a matter for local agreement. NDPBs would often state that they were not in the position to negotiate as it was ultimately the Cabinet Secretary’s responsibility to sign off pay remits.53

55. PCS proposed that a far preferable system would be to have a common grading and pay system across all areas covered by the pay policy and a single bargaining point,54 which in its view would allow public sector workers to move freely between the Scottish Government, NDPBs, the Scottish Court Service etc.55 In addition to offering better career development, they stated that this approach would result in savings for the Government, which could, in their view, “go towards funding a proper rise for our members.”56 While other unions did not necessarily see a move to one bargaining area as an attainable goal, they were supportive of reducing the number of areas substantially.57

56. When these points were put to the Cabinet Secretary and COSLA, both were sympathetic to the idea that the number of units could be rationalised to some extent.58 The Cabinet Secretary went on to state that the work that the Scottish Government is taking forward to reduce the number of public bodies should help in this regard.59

57. An alternative put forward by Unison in terms of NDPBs was for each individual organisation to be wholly responsible for negotiating pay for their own area, with no oversight from the Scottish Government.60 However, Unison indicated that the Cabinet Secretary had already stated that he was not in favour of this approach, “as he is accountable to Parliament for the bodies.”61 Unison refined this idea further during the session on 24 March, explaining that, in their view, the problem was with those NDPBs where staff did not come from the civil service and so had no connection with civil service pay and conditions, being levered into the civil service structure.62

58. The Care Commission stated that the pay of its social work staff, recruited mainly from local authorities, had now drifted apart from that of former colleagues. However, when it has “tried to bring benchmarks like that back to the table, we have struggled to get a good hearing and to get any change put in place”.63

59. Unison proposed a “negotiating table” for the civil service and civil service-related NDPBs and a separate table for all of those NDPBs which have very little relation to the civil service.64 Having this approach to the core pay and conditions of non-civil service-related NDPBs would mean that individual organisations could still negotiate within the agreed structures on a local level. In addition, it would mean that negotiation could take place directly with the Scottish Government, which would, in their view, be hugely beneficial and would “be entirely consistent with Scottish Government policies around streamlined processes, efficient government and the Crerar review.”65

60. The Committee notes the frustration with the lack of meaningful negotiation at a local level given that the actual negotiation and approval process is with the NDPB and the Scottish Government. The Committee therefore recommends that the Cabinet Secretary explores ways of reducing the number of bargaining areas and the practicability of direct negotiations with other representative bodies involved.

61. The Committee further considers that it might be useful for the relationships between COSLA, the Scottish Government and trade unions in local government pay negotiations for there to be tripartite discussions when pay is considered as part of the local government settlement.

The Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments

62. The Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 66 sets the parameters for the remuneration of senior appointments as well as proposals for new appointments or reviews/changes to existing appointments. The policy covers the remuneration of chief executives and, in exceptional circumstances, directors as well as the chairs and members of Scottish public bodies. It also covers the non-executive directors of the Scottish Government and its agencies; chairs and board members of NHS bodies; the fees paid to judicial appointments and appointments to tribunals, appeals boards, royal commission and advisory committees and inquiries etc. The policy currently covers 38 senior employees, with a total pay bill of £3.6 million (2008-09). The policy does not include the senior civil service as that is reserved to Westminster.67

63. Much of the evidence heard by the committee focussed on the pay and bonus arrangements for senior appointments, particularly in certain NDPBs. However, the GMB also queried why a separate policy is required for senior appointments. It said that, “the case has to be made for having two sets of guidelines” that treat senior appointments as different from other staff who deliver public services.68

Level of salary for senior appointees

64. In terms of salary level for chief executives, the Cabinet Secretary indicated that he believed that the amounts being paid are “commensurate with their responsibilities”, and that salaries had been arrived at following careful research.69 However, concern was expressed during evidence that despite a significant reduction in the responsibilities of Scottish Enterprise (SE) and Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) following recent restructuring, it appeared that the salaries of those organisations’ chief executives remained at the same level. Although officials were unable to confirm during oral evidence whether a review of the chief executives’ job size and pay was taking place, in supplementary written evidence to the Committee, it was confirmed that SE was conducting a review at that point, and that HIE was planning to conduct such a review.70

65. The Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments for 2009-1071explains that, in terms of annual increases in salary, the policy mirrors the staff policy discussed above. For Chief Executives on “spot rates”, increase in remuneration is limited to 1.50%, limited to the ceiling of the relevant pay band. For those on “pay ranges”, the total increase is to be up to 3.00%, made up of an increase to the minimum and maximum of the pay range of 1.50% and a “progression increase”, limited to the maximum of the pay range.

Senior appointments – delays

66. During evidence, officials from the pay unit were questioned about delays in agreeing senior pay remits. In supplementary evidence to the Committee, officials were able to confirm that, as of 15 April 2009, eight Chief Executive pay proposals for 2008-09 were still to be received by the pay unit. However, officials went on to state that issuing the 2008-09 pay policy for Senior Appointments was delayed due to the late publication of the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) recommendations to the UK Government and that they were aware that the timetable included with the 2008-09 policy did not give much time for public bodies to consider the policy and develop their proposals. In addition, some senior management teams were “keen that staff pay remits are approved before their own proposals are put forward for approval”, which may also have contributed to delays.72

Bonuses for senior appointees – level of bonus

67. The Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments for 2008-09 and the policy for 2009-10 bothstate that the maximum potential bonus under the policy is 10% of base pay in the pay year to which performance related, but that in exceptional circumstances Ministers may approve a bonus above 10%.73 The Cabinet Secretary confirmed that three of the chief executives covered by the policy are eligible for a bonus in excess of 10%, and that the total amount of bonus payments to chief executives for 2007-08 was £190,000.74

68. In supplementary written evidence to the Committee, Scottish Government officials confirmed that the Scottish Water directors’ remuneration (including the chief executive) for the 2006-10 regulatory period includes a potential annual bonus of up to 40% of basic salary.75 Officials explained that this framework was agreed in 2006 by the previous administration, following the loss of several directors to better-paid positions, and is based on comparisons with a number of comparable bodies in England and Wales.76 In correspondence to the Committee, officials confirmed that the current chief executive of Scottish Water began work on 25 March 2008, and his appointment was agreed by Ministers on terms and conditions within the framework agreed in 2006.77 Scottish Water stated that a fixed performance-related bonus was payable to staff at the lower end of its pay scales, representing 4.5% to 5% of average salary and about 10% of the lowest salary bands.78

69. In supplementary written evidence, officials also confirmed that the other bodies whose chief executives are eligible for a bonus of in excess of 10% were Scottish Enterprise and VisitScotland. In terms of Scottish Enterprise, in 2005 the maximum bonus was reduced from 15% to 12.5%, with the expectation that, the next time the job size was reviewed, this should be reduced to 10%. For VisitScotland, a maximum bonus of up to 15% was agreed by Scottish Ministers in 2001, when the present chief executive was recruited.79

70. In terms of local government, during the evidence session with COSLA, it was noted that bonus payments are not available for senior staff across all Scottish local authorities.80

Bonuses for senior appointees – criteria for paying bonuses

71. The Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments for 2008-09 and the policy for 2009-10explain that bonuses should not be paid out “simply for meeting objectives, but for exceeding them or for other exceptional performance”.81 There was some debate during the oral evidence sessions on what exactly constitutes “exceptional performance”, during which the Cabinet Secretary stated that bonuses should only be paid for major contributions to the achievement of public policy,82 and that it was important to make the distinction between fulfilling the requirements of a post and delivering exceptional performance.

72. In response to questions on whether achieving the targets set out in an organisation’s operating plan was a sufficient level of performance to command a bonus, the Cabinet Secretary noted that an organisation's operating plan is not a “business-as-usual document” but will incorporate plans for development, change and improved performance.83 Scottish Water also stated that bonuses are “dependent on meeting targets that are linked to outperformance”, and confirmed that appropriate targets are considered by a remuneration sub-committee that consists of non-executive directors and achievement is confirmed by the regulator.84

73. The 2009-10 policy goes into more detail than the 2008-09 policy on the criteria for paying bonuses. The policy explains that examples of “exceptional” performance could be—

  • performance which exceeds routine objectives / targets (personal / corporate);

  • performance which delivers exceptional or priority objectives (which are in themselves challenging, stretching and beyond day to day objectives); or

  • performance by responding exceptionally to significant unforeseen events; for example, covering for a Director on long term sick, steering the organisation safely through a crisis, etc.

74. The 2009-10 policy goes on to explain that there must be a “robust justification” for the bonus being proposed and that there should be no presumption that a full bonus be awarded automatically. In addition, in light of the current economic climate, the 2009-10 policy encourages Chief Executives to consider waiving, on a voluntary basis, some or all of any bonus payment that may be due.

75. The Committee is of the view that the policy of paying bonuses to senior appointees should be reviewed; and as each of these particular appointments comes up for renewal, bonus arrangements should be altered or brought to an end in line with the outcome of the review.

overall conclusions and recommendations

76. The Committee notes that whilst the opportunity for the trade unions to discuss matters with the Cabinet Secretary is welcome, there is no formal negotiating machinery with the Scottish Government.85

77. Whilst the Committee notes the Cabinet Secretary's comments about affordability in the current financial context, the Committee welcomes the focus on addressing low pay. Accordingly the Committee believes that the Cabinet Secretary should demonstrate how low pay is being addressed in policy and in practice. The Committee further believes that, following best practice, the Scottish Government should make clear to NDPBs and agencies that pay increments should be separated from pay increases; that a review is carried out of pay systems that are service related to avoid age discrimination; and that the cost of addressing equalities issues and mergers as a result of public service reform are separated from the annual bargaining agreements.

78. The Committee commends the suggestion from COSLA of a short term working group, involving the trade unions, to examine the question of low pay in local government. In addition, the Committee looks forward to COSLA developing a policy-based pay structure.

79. The Committee acknowledges that improvements have been made in the time taken to process and approve pay proposals. However, while recognising the complexities, the Committee believes that there is further scope for improvement. The Committee recommends that the Cabinet Secretary brings forward proposals to address this issue.

80. In terms of the pay unit’s staffing, the Committee is strongly of the view that HR provision must be a core part of the pay policy unit.

81. The Committee is persuaded of the difficulty in benchmarking and recommends that the Cabinet Secretary looks further at proposals in this regard.

82. The Committee recommends that the Cabinet Secretary explores what flexibility or discretion can be given to reflect local circumstances, within the context of affordability and equality.

83. The Committee notes the frustration with the lack of meaningful negotiation at a local level given that the actual negotiation and approval process is with the NDPB and the Scottish Government. The Committee therefore recommends that the Cabinet Secretary explores ways of reducing the number of bargaining areas and the practicability of direct negotiations with other representative bodies involved.

84. The Committee further considers that it might be useful for the relationships between COSLA, the Scottish Government and trade unions in local government pay negotiations for there to be tripartite discussions when pay is considered as part of the local government settlement.

85. The Committee is of the view that the policy of paying bonuses to senior appointees should be reviewed; and as each of these particular appointments comes up for renewal, bonus arrangements should be altered or brought to an end in line with the outcome of the review.

Annexe A: EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

6th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Tuesday 30 October 2007

Work programme: The Committee agreed to hold a one-off evidence session and consider a further paper on public sector pay.

11th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Tuesday 4 December 2007

Public sector pay: The Committee discussed its approach to consideration of public sector pay policy. The Committee agreed to request research from SPICe on trends in public sector pay and to consider options at a future meeting for taking evidence on this matter.

7th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 11 March 2008

Public sector pay (in private): The Committee considered its approach to consideration of public sector pay and agreed to consider it further at a future meeting.

30th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 9 December 2008

Public sector pay: The Committee took evidence from—

Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance, and Lesley Doherty, Assistant Head of Pay Policy, Scottish Government;

Jim Caldwell, Scottish Secretary, FDA;

Malcolm Currie, Negotiations Officer, Prospect;

Eddie Reilly, Scottish Secretary, PCS;

Jimmy Farrelly, Regional Organiser, Unite;

Alex McLuckie, Senior Organiser for Public Services, GMB;

Dave Watson, Scottish Organiser, Policy, UNISON

1st Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 13 January 2009

Public sector pay: The Committee took evidence from—

Councillor Michael Cook, Spokesperson for Strategic Human Resource Management, and Joe di Paola, Head of Employers Organisation, COSLA.

2nd Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 20 January 2009

Public sector pay: The Committee took evidence from—

John Swinney MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance, and Nicola Patterson, Head of Finance Pay Policy, Scottish Government.

5th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 24 February 2009

Decision on taking business in private: The Committee decided to consider the evidence heard to date on public sector pay in private at a future meeting.

6th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 3 March 2009

Public sector pay (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard to date on public sector pay and agreed to take further evidence at a future meeting prior to consideration of a draft report.

8th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 24 March 2009

Public sector pay: The Committee took evidence from—

Richard Ackroyd, Chief Executive, and Ronnie Mercer, Chair, Scottish Water;

Alistair Brown, Head of Expenditure Policy Division, and Lesley Doherty, Assistant Head of Pay Policy, Scottish Government;

Richard Leonard, Scottish Organiser, GMB;

Dave Watson, Scottish Organiser, Policy, UNISON;

Gordon Weir, Director of Corporate Services, Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care.

9th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 21 April 2009

Public sector pay (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard to date on public sector pay and agreed to consider a draft report at a future meeting.

10th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 28 April 2009

Public sector pay (in private): The Committee agreed to defer consideration of a draft report until its next meeting.

11th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 5 May 2009

Public sector pay (in private): The Committee agreed to defer consideration of a draft report to a future meeting.

13th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 19 May 2009

Public sector pay (in private): The Committee agreed to defer consideration of a draft report to a future meeting.

16th Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 16 June 2009

Public Sector Pay (in private): The Committee considered and agreed a draft report subject to specified changes being made, one by division.

Record of divisions in private:

Jackie Baillie proposed to insert paragraph 22. The proposal was agreed to on division: For: 5 (Jackie Baillie, David Whitton, Jeremy Purvis, James Kelly, Derek Brownlee), Against 2 (Linda Fabiani, Joe FitzPatrick), Abstentions 1 (Andrew Welsh).


Footnotes:

1 Scottish Government. (2008) Public Sector Pay Policy 2008-09. Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/224511/0060590.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2009]

2 Scottish Government. (2008) Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 2008-09. Scottish Government. Available as part of the Finance Committee papers for its 30th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/finance/papers-08/fip08-30.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2009].

3 Scottish Government (2009) Public Sector Pay Policy 2009-10. Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/272891/0081468.pdf [Accessed 26 May 2009]

4 Scottish Government. (2009) Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 2009-10.

5 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 861-862.

6 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 13 January 2009,Col 914.

7 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 861.

8 See Chapter B of Scottish Government. (2008) Public Sector Pay Policy 2008-09 for full information on the objectives of the pay policy. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/224511/0060590.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2009].

9 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Cols 861-862.

10 All of the information in this section is taken from Chapter C of Scottish Government. (2008) Public Sector Pay Policy 2008-09. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/224511/0060590.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2009] and Chapter 3 of Scottish Government (2009) Public Sector Pay Policy 2009-10. Scottish Government. Available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/272891/0081468.pdf [Accessed 26 May 2009].

11 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2009, Col 882.

12 UK Government. Letter from Sir Gus O’Donnell to Mark Serwotka, PCS General Secretary dated 1 December 2008. Available at: http://www.pcs.org.uk/download.cfm?docid=82EF5E95-E065-4A1B-A300F84A574E45C8 [Accessed 25 February 2009]

13 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 897 and Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 935.

14 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 935.

15 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 895.

16 At its meeting on 16 June 2009, this paragraph was agreed to on division. For: 5 (Jackie Baillie, David Whitton, Jeremy Purvis, James Kelly, Derek Brownlee), Against 2 (Linda Fabiani, Joe FitzPatrick), Abstentions 1 (Andrew Welsh).

17 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 889.

18 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 931.

19 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Cols 880-881.

20 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Cols 880-881.

21 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Cols 880-881.

22 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Cols 880-881.

23 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Cols 891.

24 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 925.

25 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 931.

26 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 13 January 2009, Col 908.

27 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 13 January 2009, Col 912.

28 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 13 January 2009, Col 913.

29 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 891.

30 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 894.

31 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 900.

32 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 900-901.

33 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 January 2009, Col 910.

34 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 January 2009, Col 910.

35 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 892.

36 Unison Scotland. Written submission to the Finance Committee.

37 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 876.

38 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1016.

39 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Cols 1018-9.

40 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1017.

41 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Cols 1019-20.

42 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 873.

43 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 892.

44 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1022.

45 Scottish Government. Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to the Convener of the Finance Committee dated 26 February 2009.

46 Scottish Government. Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to the Convener of the Finance Committee dated 26 February 2009.

47 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1026.

48 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1020.

49 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Cols 1039-40.

50 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1040.

51 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Cols 1037-8.

52 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 881-882.

53 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 897.

54 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 886.

55 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 890.

56 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 890.

57 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 884.

58 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 13 January 2009, Col 916, and Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 939.

59 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 939.

60 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 898.

61 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 898.

62 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1025.

63 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1037.

64 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1025.

65 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1027-28.

66 Scottish Government. (2008) Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 2008-09. Scottish Government. Available as part of the Finance Committee papers for its 30th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/finance/papers-08/fip08-30.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2009] and Scottish Government. (2009) Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 2009-10.

67 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 9 December 2008, Col 862.

68 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1018.

69 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 932.

70 Scottish Government, Letter from Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance to the Clerk to the Finance Committee dated 7 January 2009.

71 Scottish Government. (2009) Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 2009-10.

72 Scottish Government, Letter from Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance to the Clerk to the Finance Committee dated 15 April 2009.

73 Scottish Government. (2008) Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 2008-09. Scottish Government. Available as part of the Finance Committee papers for its 30th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/finance/papers-08/fip08-30.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2009], Paragraph 26.

74 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 938.

75 Scottish Government, Letter from Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance to the Clerk to the Finance Committee dated 7 January 2009.

76 Scottish Government, Letter from Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance to the Clerk to the Finance Committee dated 7 January 2009.

77 Scottish Government, Letter from Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance to the Clerk to the Finance Committee dated 19 January 2009.

78 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Col 1035.

79 Scottish Government, Letter from Alistair Brown, Deputy Director of Finance to the Clerk to the Finance Committee dated 7 January 2009.

80 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 13 January 2009, Col 908.

81 Scottish Government. (2008) Public Sector Pay Policy for Senior Appointments 2008-09. Scottish Government. Available as part of the Finance Committee papers for its 30th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), at: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/finance/papers-08/fip08-30.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2009], Paragraph 28.

82 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 932.

83 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 20 January 2009, Col 941.

84 Scottish Parliament Finance Committee, Official Report, 24 March 2009, Cols 1015 and 1028-9.

85 At its meeting on 16 June 2009, this paragraph was agreed to on division. For: 5 (Jackie Baillie, David Whitton, Jeremy Purvis, James Kelly, Derek Brownlee), Against 2 (Linda Fabiani, Joe FitzPatrick), Abstentions 1 (Andrew Welsh).