Chamber
Plenary, 12 Jun 2008
12 Jun 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Expenses Scheme
I agree with that. I was coming to that point.
The point that has been made about parity is the same as arguing that a head of history and a head of physical education should have the same resources at their disposal. They are both paid the same and have equal status, but would anyone seriously argue that a PE department can be run for the same money as a history classroom can? Where is the evidence for the argument that we should have parity in what is available to all MSPs? Assertion is no substitute for actuality. If there are questions about the conclusion that Langlands reached in respect of the staff allowance for list members, we should seek a review of that; we should not take money from the pay packets of constituency members' staff.
As Alex McLuckie of the GMB Scotland union says in support of his members who work in the Parliament,
"Why is the First Minister determined to see staff in the Scottish Parliament paid far less than comparable staff at Westminster … making us a second class Parliament in terms of staff pay and conditions"?
The Parliament staff who serve members so well in this place are rightly entitled to a proper salary scale, so is it not also right that members' staff should be afforded the same? However, what will be done today will remove that prospect. Trish Marwick made it absolutely clear that that is the intention.
A worrying precedent will be set if the crafty coalition opposite me gets its way at decision time. We will rip up an independent evidence-based report and pick the pockets of constituency members' hard-working staff. Rather than produce evidence that list members need more resources for their staff and then have the situation reviewed, as Langlands suggested, members will take apart an independent report without any evidence for doing so. Members should make no mistake—Parliament will be damaged if that happens. More important, the material wellbeing of constituency members' staff will also be diminished, which will shame us all.
I move amendment S3M-2092.2.2, to leave out from first "(a)" to end and insert:
"leave out from "ANNEX 2 TO THE RESOLUTION" to end and insert
"ANNEX 2 TO THE RESOLUTION
This is the Schedule of Rates referred to in the foregoing resolution.
SCHEDULE OF RATES
PARAGRAPH
DESCRIPTION
LIMIT
2.1.7
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of overnight accommodation or leased accommodation in Edinburgh
£11,900
3.2.1
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs for a constituency member
£62,000
3.2.2
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs for a regional member
£45,000
4.2.3
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of office costs for a constituency member
£15,600
4.2.4
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of office costs for a single regional member or for a non-aligned regional member
£15,600
4.5.1
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of telecommunications costs
£1,183
4.6.1
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of surgery advertising costs
£1,560
9.1.1
Overnight Accommodation in UK (excluding Greater London)
£133.87 per night
9.1.1
Overnight accommodation in Greater London, Brussels or Strasbourg
£156.36 per night
9.1.1
Overnight accommodation elsewhere outside UK
As determined by the SPCB
""
The point that has been made about parity is the same as arguing that a head of history and a head of physical education should have the same resources at their disposal. They are both paid the same and have equal status, but would anyone seriously argue that a PE department can be run for the same money as a history classroom can? Where is the evidence for the argument that we should have parity in what is available to all MSPs? Assertion is no substitute for actuality. If there are questions about the conclusion that Langlands reached in respect of the staff allowance for list members, we should seek a review of that; we should not take money from the pay packets of constituency members' staff.
As Alex McLuckie of the GMB Scotland union says in support of his members who work in the Parliament,
"Why is the First Minister determined to see staff in the Scottish Parliament paid far less than comparable staff at Westminster … making us a second class Parliament in terms of staff pay and conditions"?
The Parliament staff who serve members so well in this place are rightly entitled to a proper salary scale, so is it not also right that members' staff should be afforded the same? However, what will be done today will remove that prospect. Trish Marwick made it absolutely clear that that is the intention.
A worrying precedent will be set if the crafty coalition opposite me gets its way at decision time. We will rip up an independent evidence-based report and pick the pockets of constituency members' hard-working staff. Rather than produce evidence that list members need more resources for their staff and then have the situation reviewed, as Langlands suggested, members will take apart an independent report without any evidence for doing so. Members should make no mistake—Parliament will be damaged if that happens. More important, the material wellbeing of constituency members' staff will also be diminished, which will shame us all.
I move amendment S3M-2092.2.2, to leave out from first "(a)" to end and insert:
"leave out from "ANNEX 2 TO THE RESOLUTION" to end and insert
"ANNEX 2 TO THE RESOLUTION
This is the Schedule of Rates referred to in the foregoing resolution.
SCHEDULE OF RATES
PARAGRAPH
DESCRIPTION
LIMIT
2.1.7
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of overnight accommodation or leased accommodation in Edinburgh
£11,900
3.2.1
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs for a constituency member
£62,000
3.2.2
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs for a regional member
£45,000
4.2.3
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of office costs for a constituency member
£15,600
4.2.4
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of office costs for a single regional member or for a non-aligned regional member
£15,600
4.5.1
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of telecommunications costs
£1,183
4.6.1
Annual limit on entitlement to reimbursement of surgery advertising costs
£1,560
9.1.1
Overnight Accommodation in UK (excluding Greater London)
£133.87 per night
9.1.1
Overnight accommodation in Greater London, Brussels or Strasbourg
£156.36 per night
9.1.1
Overnight accommodation elsewhere outside UK
As determined by the SPCB
""
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson):
NPA
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2092, in the name of Tom McCabe, on the expenses scheme.
Tom McCabe (Hamilton South) (Lab):
Lab
I rise, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, to speak to the recommendations of an independent review panel on members' expenses.In light ...
Tricia Marwick (Central Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I record my thanks for the work of Sir Alan Langlands and the other members of the review panel, who presented us with a comprehensive report on a proposed n...
Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Tricia Marwick:
SNP
I have very little time.It is worth recording that every member of the SPCB agreed that the Langlands report used figures at the 2007-08 level and that all f...
Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab):
Lab
Lyndon B Johnson once said:"You've got to work things out in the cloakroom. When you've got them worked out, you can debate a little before you vote."Today, ...
George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):
Lab
Does the member agree that the study that was carried out on behalf of the Langlands committee did not examine a representative sample of regional and consti...
Michael McMahon:
Lab
I agree with that. I was coming to that point.The point that has been made about parity is the same as arguing that a head of history and a head of physical ...
Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
United we stand.
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
We do not need sedentary interventions between speeches, thank you.
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind):
Ind
I add my thanks to those that have already been recorded for the work that was done by the Langlands committee. My amendments rest on two propositions. The f...
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
I will establish the point and come back to the member.I agree completely with the report's identification of Sarah Boyack's office as the quality benchmark ...
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
Margo MacDonald says that the public do not care about the way in which members are elected. I suspect that she might be right in a way, but the fact is that...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
With all due respect to the member, I do not think that that point is proved.In list members' offices, which have proportionately lower numbers of individual...
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):
Lab
My amendment does not seek to deny our staff appropriate salaries. Does Margo MacDonald therefore regret that the SPCB removed any reference to pay scales fo...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
On the first point, I could not agree more: there should be salary scales. On the second point, I feel that the principle is either accepted or rejected. I r...
The Presiding Officer:
NPA
In closing, Ms MacDonald.
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
I feel that islands MSPs are particularly hard done to. I urge all my fellow members not to vote on party-political grounds. They should think of this as a P...
Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):
Con
I will try to keep my speech brief. I speak in support of Tricia Marwick's amendment, but I approve of and support the vast majority of what Tom McCabe said....
Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
Will the member take an intervention?
Alex Johnstone:
Con
No, thank you.The many members who have made representations on the need to ensure adequate office support have made good cases.Finally, I want to express an...
Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD):
LD
I speak in a personal capacity. The Liberal Democrats believe that this is an important matter for Parliament to decide, so we will have a free vote.I will c...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
Will the member give way?
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Ross Finnie:
LD
Let me make this point. I do not doubt for a moment that casework is, or could be, an issue, but I find it incredible that the review panel found no other ma...
Cathie Craigie:
Lab
I accept that the inquiry was missing detailed information on that point, but I can give Ross Finnie an example. "The Code of Conduct for Members of the Scot...
Ross Finnie:
LD
I am sorry that Cathie Craigie is not listening. I have not disputed that casework is an issue; I am saying that casework is not the only issue in comparing ...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
Will the member give way?
Ross Finnie:
LD
No.I thought that that was the review panel's remit, but it does not explain why, if it was so deficient in evidence, it did not pause for reflection and cal...