Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body
Question 1 is in the name of Susan Deacon. She is not in the chamber, but I am told that she is about to arrive. [Interruption.]
Public Contact
I apologise for my late arrival in the chamber, Presiding Officer. I only just found out about the change in timings for this afternoon's business.
The short answer is that there are no plans at present to do so. Of course, we recognise the great deal of work and range of activities that members of the Scottish Parliament undertake, but we take the view that that business is between the MSP and their constituents. It may not therefore be appropriate for the SPCB to commission research in this area.
Given the amount of information that the SPCB publishes on other matters, will the corporate body at least give consideration to the ways in which it could provide a better picture of the range and scale of work that MSPs carry out in the Parliament, their communities and other areas of public life? Does the member agree that we need to provide that better picture in order to show people what MSPs do and not just what they cost?
I think that all MSPs would support that sentiment. The SPCB can and should ask the Scottish Parliament information centre to prepare a briefing paper in which some of the issues could be explored. We can provide a description of what MSPs do in and around the parliamentary complex, but it is more difficult to monitor their activities in their constituencies. I give Susan Deacon the assurance that the SPCB will discuss the issue with SPICe to see how best we can take forward the matter.
Parliamentary Appointments
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will clarify the procedure that is being considered for the appointment and reappointment of commissioners and the ombudsman. (S2O-8979)
Standing orders set out the procedure for the appointment of Crown-appointed and SPCB-nominated commissioners and ombudsmen. On reappointments, we have invited the Procedures Committee to consider a suitable administrative process for the reappointment of Crown appointees. We have given written and oral evidence in support of a non-competitive administrative process and have been invited to give further evidence to the committee on 8 February.
I have looked at the correspondence between the Procedures Committee and the SPCB and yet I remain unconvinced that the procedures as recommended satisfy the Parliament's requirement for transparency. My reading of the situation is that the SPCB would hire, assess and recommend for reappointment a commissioner without any professional independent assessment of the quality of the work that the commissioner has done. That seems to me to be bad practice. Will the SPCB give its attention to the way in which an independent evaluation of a commissioner's work could be made available to members in advance of the chamber being asked to endorse the corporate body's recommendation to reappoint or, indeed, not to reappoint?
There were at least two questions there. We will give further evidence to the Procedures Committee on 8 February and that committee will have further discussions on the matter. A further letter, which, I dare say, the member has not seen, has been sent from the corporate body to the Procedures Committee. It will be in the public domain shortly; indeed, it is probably available now.
Automatic reappointment would be a total absurdity. Will all members be consulted before the corporate body gives evidence to the Procedures Committee on that issue? Will the rest of us have an opportunity to debate the principles before we are bounced into making reappointments?
The Procedures Committee will meet on 8 February, as I am sure the member is well aware. He would be most welcome to give evidence at that meeting if he feels as strongly as he appears to do about the issue.
Members' Expenses (Publication)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what future plans it has for the publication of MSPs' expenses and when they will next be published. (S2O-8981)
As previously announced, for the financial year 2005-06, an electronic spreadsheet of expenses information will be published, together with supporting claims and appropriate receipts. The information for quarters 1 and 2 of this financial year is scheduled for publication around the end of February 2006; the information for quarter 3 is to be published around the end of April; and that for the final quarter will be published in July or August. A joint working group of MSPs and officials is considering the allowances processes and may make recommendations to the SPCB. Any recommendations from the group will inform the SPCB's consideration of how best and cost effectively future publication of allowances might be undertaken.
The member will be aware that the way in which the allowances were published the last time so severely misrepresented the finances of the Green group that the Parliament had to issue a correction or clarification later that day. Will she give an assurance that the explanatory comments that are issued the next time will be accurate, clear and prominent? Will she also assure me that Green group in the Parliament will from now on be represented on the working group to which she referred?
I do not believe that the current arrangements led to unfair comparisons. A large number of MSPs from throughout the political parties choose to pool costs for the employment of staff, although the proportions differ according to party arrangements. An explanatory note to that effect was produced. However, we intend to revise the explanatory notes to improve understanding of the information.
I have deep concerns about the language that members of the Parliament and of the press use on the matter. They talk continually about expenses, although in fact it is allowances that are made available to members. I ask that the corporate body refrain from using the word "expenses" in future, because we all know that there will be no reimbursement of allowances without a receipt, even if the claim is for 1p.
The member makes a fair point. As I said, a working group is considering the allowances processes and it will take that point on board in making its recommendations.
The corporate body will know that the Scottish Socialist Party group employs its staff collectively. We are keen that that should be reflected when information is made public. It is in the public interest to know what MSPs are like as employers, what MSPs pay their staff and whether those salaries are fair. Will the corporate body ensure that information about salaries is published equally consistently and transparently—without naming names—to ensure that MSPs are abiding by equal pay legislation, for example? Further, will the corporate body consider—as the unions have asked—separating salaries, and where salaries come from, from allowances as a whole and publishing information about when salaries are forced to compete with other expenses and when people may suffer detriment because MSPs decide to prioritise other spending?
I can say unequivocally that we will not publish information that would enable the salaries of individual members of staff to be identified. That is why we do it in the way that we do it.
Flour City Architectural Metals (UK) Ltd
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it has (a) sought and (b) obtained legal advice on whether the construction managers in the Holyrood project are legally responsible for the losses, or any part thereof, arising from the award of a trade package to Flour City Architectural Metals (UK) Limited and the subsequent non-performance of the obligations under that package; what the present estimated losses are arising from that contract, and whether the SPCB will make a statement to the Parliament on this matter. (S2O-8980)
The corporate body takes legal advice on a wide variety of matters and is actively engaged in bringing all outstanding Holyrood building project matters to a conclusion.
That response managed to avoid giving out any information whatever. I congratulate Mr MacAskill on his debut.
I can assure Mr Ewing that that is not the case. The corporate body appreciates his long-standing interest in the matter. It has provided what information it can. It is alert to various legal issues, including the quinquennium that he has correctly flagged up—I refer to the more than four years that have passed to date. However, the project is extremely complex. Nothing can be considered in isolation and resolving such issues takes time. We can assure Mr Ewing that we are on the case. However, nothing more can be said without—as he and I know, as previously practising agents—disclosing information that would be prejudicial, not to the interests of the corporate body but to the interests of the Scottish Parliament in pursuing any matters that, legally, we will require to pursue in the interests of members.
Question 5 is withdrawn.
Oral Questions (Selection)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it is satisfied that the ballot for the selection of questions to ministers provides a random opportunity for MSPs who submit their names to ask a question and that the initial name drawn is determined randomly. (S2O-8971)
As Stewart Stevenson will know, given his expertise in computing, no computerised selection process can be truly random, as the nature of any computerised generating process can only be deterministic. Having said that, the process for selection of oral questions uses a complex algorithm that is recognised to generate sequences of numbers that are virtually indistinguishable from a genuine sequence of random numbers. Therefore, to that extent at least, Stewart Stevenson can be given the assurance that he seeks.
The member will be aware that I accept that the distribution of members selected forms the appropriate Gaussian curve that follows from the use of the pseudo random number algorithm. However, given that the last time I had a question selected was 15 June 2005, I suggest that he consider further whether the genuine randomness of the selection of the initial name, which determines the Gaussian distribution that thereby follows, is working correctly. He has had no questions selected in the same period. My colleague, Mr MacAskill, and I have not had a single opportunity since the summer recess to fulfil our duties to hold the Minister for Justice to account. Is it time to consider distributing the randomness over more than a single week's selection?
Stewart Stevenson has indeed been less fortunate than a member might have expected to be on average. He has submitted 65 questions since April 2005 and, sadly, has been successful only five times, which is a ratio of 1:13. The average ratio for members is 1:8. That merely emphasises the randomness of the selection procedure. However, I will undertake to ask my colleagues, who are perhaps better equipped than I am, to look into the possibilities that he raised in relation to the Gaussian curve.
I am sure that all members are deeply disappointed that we have to move on to the next item of business.
Previous
Time for Reflection