Postage Provision
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body for what reason there has been no uplift in capped postage provision since 2009 given the increase of 59 per cent and 77 per cent in stamp costs, and whether it considers that this reduces members’ ability to correspond with their constituents. (S4O-04092)
We considered the issue fairly recently. There has not been an uplift in the postage and printing provision, which is £5,500. For a couple of reasons, we consider that sum to be sufficient to enable members to correspond with their constituents adequately. First, new technologies allow members to correspond in different and more effective ways, including via email. Secondly, in each of the past five years, more than 60 per cent of members spent less than the capped postage and printing provision.
I cannot speak for other members, but I know that I have run out of my provision. The capped limit at Westminster, which has been uplifted every year, is more than £8,500; there is also a staffing budget of £137,000, which is double our budget of £61,000. That concerns me not just because of the number of staff that we can employ—I can employ 1.75 staff—but because of the level of payment for our staff. This has nothing to do with MSPs’ salaries.
Will the SPCB look at the funding that we have to do our job properly and pay our staff properly?
Obviously, I cannot comment on what happens at Westminster; I can comment only on the management that we in the SPCB take of our Parliament in Scotland.
I want to make it plain that the question concerns a completely separate issue from that of the members support allowance and that of staff salaries. All that we are talking about today, relative to the question, is the capped printing and postage provision. As I said, we discussed the issue recently and feel that there is no reason to upgrade that particular provision at present.
School Visits (Remote and Rural Schools)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what assistance it gives to school pupils from remote and rural areas to visit the Parliament. (S4O-04061)
I know that the member will acknowledge that it is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that we maximise every opportunity for everyone, including young people, to see their Parliament in action, no matter where they are based.
Before I address the specific point, it might be helpful if I update members on what the Parliament is currently doing in this area. In addition to webcasting and the archiving of the business of Parliament online, staff liaise with schools about how they can best get involved. That might involve a visit to Holyrood, but it can also be delivered in the local community. For example, visits by staff and MSPs to schools are an important part of the successful Parliament days initiative, and we have also offered travel subsidies for schools to see committee meetings in action in local towns and cities.
Our outreach programme of education sessions in school as an alternative to a visit here is a very popular option. Between 10,000 and 11,000 pupils each year come through the outreach programme, and a similar number of visits come into Holyrood through the inward programme. The outreach programme is taken up across the country, but particularly in areas where it is more difficult to arrange travel, such as the Highlands, the west of Scotland, Aberdeenshire and so on. The SPCB has improved the range of resources that are offered to young people, particularly online but also through a series of colourful and imaginative publications and games that are all available free of charge.
On the member’s specific point, in relation to the meeting in Inverness at the start of February of the Public Audit Committee—a committee in which I know that the member takes an interest—local schools were offered a contribution towards their travel costs along with a school visit, should they wish to attend the meeting.
Subsidised travel has been offered for specific events that take place in Holyrood, such as on Friday, when 42 pupils attended a day-long event for higher English students, which examined the use of language in the Scottish Parliament.
I hope that the member will understand that extending the subsidies to many more schools is a complex issue and would, obviously, involve considerable extra costs.
I thank Liz Smith for that very comprehensive answer.
I remind the corporate body that the committees of this Parliament visited the rest of Scotland much more in the first and second sessions of the Parliament than they do now. In fact, as a member of the Public Audit Committee, I know that when we visited Inverness in February, a committee had not sat in Inverness for 10 years. We invited the pupils from Wick high school to Inverness, but they were in the middle of their prelims.
Neil Mackintosh, the modern studies teacher from Wick high school, tried unsuccessfully to get pupils to visit the Parliament last year, at a cost of nearly £70 per person, not to mention five hours of travel each way. That was prohibitive, which made this Parliament inaccessible to pupils from Caithness.
I appreciate what is happening with webcasts and online, but given the exceptional costs in money and time, will the corporate body continue to monitor this issue and perhaps even consult remote and island schools to see what can be done to further improve their access to this Parliament?
Yes, absolutely. The member makes a very important point about that. In one sense, we have been the victim of our own success. More and more pupils want to come to the Parliament, which in itself is a very good thing, but at the same time there are complexities when it comes to the criteria by which we decide what to pay and what not to pay. We undertake to monitor the situation.
Lobbying Register
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it will engage on the proposal to establish a register of lobbying. (S4O-04093)
I thank the member for a question that has particular importance at the current time. The member will be aware that the Scottish Government responded to Neil Findlay’s member’s bill proposal for a lobbying register by committing to legislate to give effect to the proposal in this parliamentary session under rule 9.14.13 of the standing orders.
The member will also know that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recently published its lobbying inquiry report, which sets out a model for a register of lobbying activity and recommends that that is the basis for the Government’s legislation.
The SPCB has taken a keen interest in the potential resource implications of a register for both the Parliament and the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland. As a result, the SPCB has emphasised to the Scottish Government the importance of closely consulting the SPCB and its supporting officials throughout the process of assessing the additional work required and estimating the associated costs.
Can the member clarify how the monitoring of the proposed register of lobbying is intended to be administered, thus ensuring that there is a maximum level of transparency of the register for the public, so that they can have confidence in any register that is established within this Parliament?
Let us be absolutely clear about this. There are really two issues here. One is the political issue, which is a matter for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. That is an important matter and the committee will take advice from the member who proposed the original bill and the Scottish Government. The second issue is the implications for things such as information technology and the costs of parliamentary officers’ time, which is a slightly different issue. The SPCB is very clear that we have an obligation to advise on that basis but not to get involved in the political debate.
The member makes a good point about transparency. It is up to the SPCB to be utterly transparent when it comes to our advice on the administration of this, but it is entirely a matter for the committee and its convener to consider the political implications.
It is almost two years since the Scottish Government took over my proposed bill, and despite my continually asking when the legislation will come forward, there is no legislation as yet. I wrote to Joe FitzPatrick a few weeks back and asked for the timetable for the bill, but no timetable was forthcoming.
Will the corporate body now approach the Scottish Government and ask for a timetable for the bill? Clearly, there are implications for the corporate body.
The answer is no, because I do not think that it is a competent matter for the SPCB. Our role is to ensure that the administration of the process is undertaken correctly. The political issue must go through the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The matter that is relevant to Neil Findlay’s question is for the committee members to decide.
That concludes questions to the SPCB. I thank all those who took part.