���˿���

I give my apologies for not notifying Mr Marra that I was coming along to the meeting.

My involvement in the petition came when my constituent Julie Love contacted me and made me aware of it—it was remiss of me not to know about it until now. Julie and I campaigned on the issue ahead of the Cullen review, which led to a change in the law for fatal accident inquiries so that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office have the discretion, in exceptional circumstances, to make deaths that happen abroad subject to an FAI. My constituent and I have an interest in making sure that the system works as it was intended to at the time.

I offer my sympathies to the family that Mr Marra is representing. Julie lost her son, Colin Love, several years ago now, but I know that it still feels as if it was yesterday. She wishes that there had been a fatal accident inquiry at that point.

My only observation from a quick look at the evidence is that, although we might not need to define the term “ordinarily resident” in legislation, I want to know that the term is not restrictive and that, if the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office deemed someone not to be ordinarily resident, they would still be able to investigate appropriately and, ultimately, to have a fatal accident inquiry if it was in the public interest to do so.

I totally understand why that term is in the legislation. Back in 2016, we did not want to see—I hate to sound glib; that is not my intention at all—the thousands of expatriates who have made their lives in Benidorm, Spain and elsewhere being subject to fatal accident inquiries when they passed away. That was one of the reasons why the term “ordinarily resident” was placed in law. However, that was clearly not the case with the family that Mr Marra is supporting.

I want to make sure that the law is working as it should be. I also want an assurance that the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office have the discretion and flexibility to action investigations should they wish to do so, and that they are not duty bound to follow a definition of “ordinarily resident” that is restrictive.

I thank Monica Lennon for exploring a lot of these issues. I found that incredibly helpful, and it is important to examine the bonus structures. For a bit of context, I note that Welsh Water was paying its chief executive a pay and bonuses package of £892,000 in 2021; in 2023 it was £792,000. It still does not sit comfortably with me that we are talking about having to be competitive to pay the best. It is reported that, in England and Wales, water companies got £9.1 million in 2023—not in salaries; that is bonus-specific.

My question is for Deirdre Michie. I am not at all comfortable with that level of bonus, but is it symptomatic of a market that is broken across the UK, in which Scottish Water feels that it has to be competitive? Is it a race to the top, if you like, whereby others are paying eye-watering amounts of money and Scottish Water is following suit? Would you like there to be reform across the UK, simply so that, in the market more generally, it is not possible for companies to pay such huge bonuses?

Peter Farrer could be going into pay discussions saying, “We will give you more for better performance”. That is potentially a—

Before we come to an informed view on this, would the deputy convener’s suggestion preclude an oral evidence session at a later date, depending on the Scottish Government’s reply?

I thank Monica Lennon for exploring a lot of these issues. I found that incredibly helpful, and it is important to examine the bonus structures. For a bit of context, I note that Welsh Water was paying its chief executive a pay and bonuses package of £892,000 in 2021; in 2023 it was £792,000. It still does not sit comfortably with me that we are talking about having to be competitive to pay the best. It is reported that, in England and Wales, water companies got £9.1 million in 2023—not in salaries; that is bonus-specific.

My question is for Deirdre Michie. I am not at all comfortable with that level of bonus, but is it symptomatic of a market that is broken across the UK, in which Scottish Water feels that it has to be competitive? Is it a race to the top, if you like, whereby others are paying eye-watering amounts of money and Scottish Water is following suit? Would you like there to be reform across the UK, simply so that, in the market more generally, it is not possible for companies to pay such huge bonuses?

Only for clarity, rather than as a follow-up question, is that subject to the on-going pay discussions?

I appreciate your answer, Deirdre, but I was not giving you a bit of wriggle room over why you have paid those bonuses. My question was more about whether you believe that reform in relation to the water market elsewhere in the UK—including reform of the eye-watering level of bonuses—would give Scottish Water better value when it comes to the recruitment and retention of the best senior executives. I think that the unions that are watching will still feel deeply uncomfortable with such levels of pay and bonuses for senior executives. Would UK-wide reform to cap a lot of that be beneficial?

I appreciate that Scottish Water is trying to strike a balance in responding to what I see as a flawed marketplace. Ofwat has recently been given additional powers, but we will see whether that does what it says on the tin. Perhaps I have a few doubts about that.

I have one final question, convener. Workers and union members will follow this exchange primarily through Monica Lennon’s line of questioning. What are the bonuses for ordinary workers on the ground in Scottish Water, who do an exemplary job, separate from whatever the pay increase award is? Do ordinary workers get a suite of packages, measures and bonuses?

I am listening carefully to you, Mr Balfour, and I am not sure what I feel about your amendment, but my question is about something that is not in it. A lot of survivors of domestic abuse are under threat of losing homes in the private rented sector. There are some landlords who are not working at scale and have just one or two registered properties, but there are many large, almost industrial, landlords and letting agencies out there. Do you feel that this should also be a requirement on private landlords and letting agencies?

I am sorry—I thought that you said the opposite. So, we would be nudging £1 million.