Official Report 1117KB pdf
MSP Staff Cost Provision
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consult MSP staff trade unions before deciding on uprating the staff cost provision in the 2025-26 financial year. (S6O-04046)
I thank Paul O’Kane for that question, which is similar to ones that we have received in previous years. The SPCB will not consult the trade unions, because it is not the employer of members’ staff. The SPCB is responsible for funding the members’ expenses scheme and for determining which indices are used to uprate the overall provisions, including staff cost provision. That arrangement is set out in the scheme as agreed by the Parliament.
Our responsibility is to set the framework within which salary increases can be agreed, but it is for individual members, as the employers, to determine any salary increase within the overall budget that is available, either on their own or in concert with colleagues.
I remind colleagues of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a member of the GMB union.
The parliamentary staff unions are a large and active body and have worked year after year to deliver fair pay consideration for their members. Although I recognise what Jackson Carlaw said, which is that they are not negotiating bodies due to the parliamentary staff structure, does the SPCB agree that those who determine pay and conditions for staff should be in some form of formal communication with staff whose decisions they affect? Will he say what inflation index the SPCB intends to use to calculate the pay uplift this year?
On the second point, that will become apparent in near course. The SPCB is required under the expenses scheme to agree an index to uprate the staff cost provision. We agreed, in March 2020, to index according to a mix of average weekly earnings and the annual survey of hours and earnings—ASH, as it is commonly known. That move to a basket of indices was considered to prove a steadier basis for the calculation. However, for the budget in 2023-24 and 2024-25, the SPCB chose average weekly earnings for the staff cost provision, because the ASH index became quite erratic and, in consequence, the staff cost provision would have risen by significantly less than it did as a result of us adopting AWE.
We have to pick an index. The analogy that I have used is that it is not for the SPCB members to perform as though we are bumblebees in a bottle, bouncing about erratically. There has to be an integrity behind the process. Therefore, suggestions that are made to us that we should just look, on an annual basis, to see which of those indices is going to deliver the largest uplift do not have a substantive integrity pinned to them.
Although I am not, at this stage, going to confirm which index we have used, it is important that there is some consistency and continuity in the process. I am confident that the index that the SPCB has adopted is the one that has proved consistent and favourable to all members.
I would just say, finally—
Very briefly, please.
—that it is the case that, this year, a considerable number of members will be well short of using their actual staff cost provision, and that, therefore, an uprated index would not make the difference to the provision that they have.
Chamber Visitor Experience Working Group
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on the output of the working group that was established to review the visitor experience in the chamber. (S6O-04043)
Since September, the head of security has visited the chamber regularly to observe the period between the end of First Minister’s questions and the commencement of members’ business, to understand how the movement of visitors is handled by security staff. Initial findings have shown that the changeover has been swift—within four minutes—and that those visiting were able to access the chamber for the start of members’ business. The changeover is, however, being kept under review.
I am not talking about First Minister’s questions. Despite my raising concerns about the seating arrangements for visitors in the chamber, guests in the Scottish Parliament are still being positioned at the back of the gallery, even when there are empty spaces at the front. That does not afford them the best viewing experience, and many have travelled significant distances to be able to watch proceedings.
We should not be letting constituents down, particularly when they have travelled such a long way to see us, their MSPs, speaking on their behalf. Please could I have reassurances from the SPCB that expedient action will be taken to improve the visitor experience in the chamber?
I very much sympathise with the member’s point. The matter was raised at the corporate body this morning, and we are looking into it.
Scottish Parliament App
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what progress has been made on the development of a Scottish Parliament app. (S6O-04039)
I know that the member will be disappointed when I tell him that there are no plans to develop a Scottish Parliament app. We do not have the capacity to develop an app, and the cost of commissioning an app externally is not proportionate to any perceived benefits.
The member may be interested to know that the Scottish Parliament TV supplier has developed an app that gives access to live and archived Parliament broadcasts, but it is limited to that purpose.
I am disappointed to hear that answer, but I am not entirely surprised. I am enthusiastic about wanting to see the development of an app, because I believe passionately in making Parliament accessible to the people of Scotland—not just the Parliament’s televisual representations through the SPTV app, but the business of Parliament. I recommend that the corporate body look at the United Kingdom Parliament’s apps. Why should the UK Parliament have those excellent apps while we do not?
I make another plea to the corporate body: please make our Parliament accessible to the people of Scotland by giving them the means by which they are most likely to access it, namely an app.
I know that the member has an interest in the Scottish Parliament having an app, as he had a positive experience of an app at Westminster—although the electorate decided that that would be short lived. He can still see the app if he wants to follow the business of the new Government, however.
As I said, our capacity in the Scottish Parliament is limited and does not compare to the resources available to the UK Parliament. Our website has been tested and optimised for use on all mobile devices, including mobile phones and tablets.
Legislation Team (Resourcing)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review whether the Parliament is providing sufficient resourcing for the legislation team to support MSPs to lodge amendments to bills. (S6O-04053)
As with other parts of the parliamentary service, the staffing of the legislation team was reviewed as part of the strategic resources review at the beginning of this session. Staffing levels in this and other areas are monitored on an on-going basis, in response to demand. As necessary and, where possible, within budget, resources are flexed to meet changing demand.
There are more and more MSPs seeking to lodge more amendments, which is great to see and is a testament to our desire to create robust legislation. The dedicated, hard-working team that supports us is very small, however—and I put on record my thanks to them this week in relation to our emergency legislation.
The last 18 months of a parliamentary session are always busy, with bills making their way through. What more can be done to increase the team, ensuring timeous support for MSPs and, therefore, the efficient passage of legislation?
I appreciate Ms Whitham’s comments about the way in which the legislation team works. It has supported three pieces of emergency legislation since May this year, and that has put considerable demand on their time.
The corporate body will undertake to ensure that we are making the best use of resources, with that flex that I mentioned in my initial answer. Some bills have been subject to significant delays, and that causes some issues in how we plan and prioritise resources and in where they are. However, in the next few months we should have a clearer idea of exactly when different pieces of legislation will be going through stages 2 and 3, and we will hopefully be able to plan accordingly.
I hear Ms Whitham’s comments, and we will take the matter back for further discussion.
Staff Recognition
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it ensures that parliamentary staff are properly recognised and compensated for all of the work that they do for the Parliament, including any specific project work that is over and above their normal responsibilities. (S6O-04051)
The corporate body is mindful of its duty to ensure that the workload of its staff is carefully managed, and that staff are recognised for the valuable contribution that they make, including to project work.
The SPCB’s performance management approach ensures that staff objectives are set, reviewed and updated so that staff are well supported in their roles. The corporate body operates pay policy arrangements that ensure that staff are appropriately compensated for additional overtime work that they are required to carry out.
The Parliament has given its support to the gender-sensitive Parliament project, but it has not adequately resourced the work. Clerking staff and others are expected to do the work essentially as volunteers, over and above their core work. In addition, most of those volunteers are women. Does the SPCB consider that it is appropriate that women have to work as volunteers to improve equality in their workplace? Will Mr Carlaw and the corporate body work to ensure that such projects, which are aimed at improving inclusion in Holyrood, will be resourced appropriately and that staff will be compensated accordingly?
A number of SPCB staff have volunteered to support the implementation of the recommendations of the gender-sensitive audit, including a number of male colleagues, while other staff have been allocated roles. Decisions on the allocation of resources to support the project have been based on the skills and experience of the individuals involved, as well as the substantive roles that they hold. Gender has not, in itself, been a deciding factor. In all cases, in accordance with the SPCB’s performance management approach, staff have taken on roles to support the work of the gender-sensitive audit board on the basis that they have sufficient capacity and expertise to do so. The SPCB keeps that under constant review, as would be expected, to ensure that the correct level of staffing support is available to the board and that staff workload is properly and effectively monitored.
Car Park
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on the access and exiting arrangements for the underground car park. (S6O-04049)
I am sure that the member will appreciate the importance of security for the building and of the changes that were made to the car park, which was identified as a weak spot. The two layers of security have resulted in longer waits to enter and exit the car park, but that has to be balanced with our security requirements. The system is working as designed.
I am by no means the only member who has considerable concerns about the length of the waiting time to which the member referred. In my case, I had to wait 16 minutes some months ago, when there was a queue of seven vehicles inside the car park. The problem can be mitigated when the system is operated manually and staff carefully allow several cars to exit at the same time. What is the SPCB doing to try to speed up the process and avoid the interminable delays that often make us late for other engagements?
I hear what the member says, and I am concerned about the length of time that she identified. It is not an experience that I have had, but the corporate body is looking at the matter seriously. A range of vehicles access the building through the security system, and the waits need to be balanced against security measures. We use the members priority exit and we are adjusting the times that suppliers can access the building. For security reasons, suppliers need to access the loading area through the car park. The corporate body intends to observe the operation of the system, and we will consider any suggestions about how the process can be improved.
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (Training)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on the training of MSPs and staff on duties under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. (S6O-04055)
Members are designated as prescribed persons under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, following its amendment in December 2022. To support members in that role, the corporate body issued guidance on handling disclosures to all members and their staff. The guideline outlines the circumstances in which protected disclosures might be made to individual members, how they should manage those disclosures and the legal implications of that. We also arranged training that was offered by external experts in early 2023. Those sessions offered some practical advice on handling cases.
MSPs have been prescribed persons under the act since 2022, and with rights come responsibilities. I ask the corporate body to re-establish in-person training and refresher courses for all MSPs and their staff before the end of quarter 1 in 2025.
Richard Leonard makes a reasonable case. The corporate body has asked officials to review the training that is offered to members to ensure that it covers all aspects of their roles and to consider whether further training might be provided to help to refresh their knowledge and understanding of their roles. Officials are also considering whether the training needs to be added to the members’ staff training plan in line with normal practice. The members’ staff forum will be consulted to ensure that it meets their needs.
External Engagements (Support)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what support is provided to MSPs when representing the Parliament at external engagements. (S6O-04045)
Where members are officially representing the Parliament at external engagements, full support is provided by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body staff to assist with planning and delivering the engagement. That includes making logistical arrangements, providing briefings, accompanying members to engagements and providing communications support. The exact nature of the support will vary, depending on the nature of the engagement.
Representation, in particular in other countries, with other Parliaments and other parliamentarians, is very important for the Parliament’s reputation around the world. Can Christine Grahame give specific examples of how members are supported when they travel abroad?
I listed them in my first response. Before departure, the international relations office actively confers with delegates on how the visit will be publicised—for example, asking members to sign off any social media content and whether to tag them personally. It also offers robust comms and support for committees.
As I said in my first reply, what support there is really depends on the nature of the visit. If some extraordinary support needs to be provided by the SPCB, that would be considered.
Regarding communications, the IRO, ahead of external visits, will discuss any proactive or reactive comms that may be required; I am aware that sometimes bad publicity that is undeserved is conferred on some of those visits.
Apologies to those members whom we did not manage to reach during this question time; it is a busy afternoon of business, and we have to move on to the next item. There will be a brief pause to allow members on the front benches to change before we do so.
Air adhart
Portfolio Question Time