Official Report 224KB pdf
14:31
MSP Staff (Employer Pension Contributions)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it considers it equitable that staff employed by MSPs receive lower employer pension contributions than staff it and the Scottish Government directly employ, and what action it is taking to address any such disparity. (S7O-00298)
The members’ staff pension scheme has an employer contribution rate of 10 per cent of pensionable earnings. The SPCB has benchmarked staff pension schemes with similar arrangements that are available to staff employed by members of other United Kingdom legislatures, and the employer contribution for all such pension schemes is consistent with that.
The SPCB is an admitted body of the civil service pension scheme, which is managed by the Cabinet Office. That is a historical arrangement dating from the formation of the Scottish Parliament. Initially, the Parliament was staffed by civil servants who were seconded to the SPCB. In order to protect their pension entitlements when those staff were transferred over to the employment of the SPCB, the SPCB was then admitted to the civil service pension scheme. The contribution rates for the scheme are set by the scheme manager and are not subject to SPCB control.
Does the SPCB recognise that MSPs’ staff undertake an essential role in supporting constituents and the work of Parliament? If so, how can it justify MSPs’ staff receiving an employer pension contribution of only 10 per cent, which is substantially lower than the 28.97 per cent contribution that is available to SPCB staff and more favourable arrangements that are available to Scottish Government employees? Will the SPCB commit to reviewing the current arrangements to ensure that MSPs’ staff are treated more equitably and to help to improve recruitment and retention across MSPs’ offices?
The SPCB agrees that members’ staff play a very important role in serving members and members of the general public. There are no current plans to review the pension scheme for members’ staff. However, as Colin Beattie has raised the issue with the corporate body today, I will give him a commitment to take it away for further discussion.
MSP Staff (Job Families and Pay Scales)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it developed the four job families and pay scales for MSP staff, including the criteria used to weigh different functions within and between families, and when these will next be reviewed. (S7O-00293)
The current job families and pay ranges were developed following a comprehensive review of the members’ staff cost provision in 2020. The review considered the range of functions commonly carried out by members’ staff, the flexibility needed by individual members who are direct employers, and the need for fair and transparent pay arrangements. The job families were designed to reflect the principal types of work undertaken in members’ offices. The associated pay ranges were informed by the levels of responsibility, knowledge, skills, autonomy, complexity and accountability that are normally required for roles at different levels in each family.
The pay ranges were reviewed last year, at which point they were benchmarked against similar roles in other organisations, including Parliaments, in the United Kingdom. The benchmarking confirmed that the pay ranges remain proportionate and competitive. However, the SPCB will continue to keep the arrangements under review and will have regard to forthcoming changes that are planned in other legislatures.
We hear from regional and constituency MSPs alike that, in some offices, levels of correspondence and casework have doubled but the resource and training have not. That leads to caseworkers, who are usually on the front line of offices, burning out. Will the SPCB consider ring fencing, to allow offices to expand casework teams to address that?
I am not sure what the member means by ring fencing. However, I will undertake to look at the issue. Perhaps we could have a discussion offline so that I can hear what she wants, and I will then discuss it with the corporate body.
Facial Template Authentication
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, regarding its proposed facial authentication security access system, when it is due to be introduced and whether MSPs and parliamentary staff will be permitted to opt out of its use. (S7O-00297)
The corporate body has approved an upgrade from fingerprint template to facial template authentication on card. That should provide quicker and more reliable access, while retaining two-factor security. A phased roll-out will begin on 7 October and members will be the final group to be enrolled. It is expected that the roll-out will be completed by February 2027.
The corporate body sets the security arrangements for the Parliament as part of its responsibilities under the Scotland Act 1998, which include access control arrangements. All passholders are required to comply with the security arrangements set by the corporate body. However, the corporate body previously agreed that MSPs can opt out of the two-factor authentication arrangements if they so wish. Although we encourage all members to enrol, for those who wish to opt out pedestrian access will be available through the main public entrance.
The Parliament has committed to ending public-sector procurement from companies that are complicit in genocide in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. I understand that the corporate body is not aware of any links between the Parliament’s security systems contractor and Israel. However, can the corporate body confirm that full human rights due diligence checks have been made on the facial recognition technology firm? Can it offer absolute assurance that the proposed technology has not been developed for use by Israel or by any company that provides support or technology to Israel or the Israeli military?
The work is being delivered through the corporate body’s current security systems contract with Pointer Ltd, which is a United Kingdom company that is incorporated in Scotland. The corporate body is not aware of any links between Pointer Ltd, or any of its subcontractors, and Israel. I will get back to Kate Nevens in writing about the other points that she raised.
MSP Staff (Travel Expenses Scheme)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider reviewing the MSP staff travel expenses scheme to ensure that it takes account of the differences in travel distance and costs between geographically smaller parliamentary regions and larger ones, such as the Highlands and Islands. (S7O-00290)
There are no plans to review MSP staff travel expenses within the scheme. In previous schemes, staff travel was limited by a set number of staff journeys per member each year. However, the corporate body recognised that that disproportionately affected members with larger constituencies and regions, and that it limited the ability to have staff travel for members’ staff, who are entitled to claim reimbursement for all constituency, regional and parliamentary travel, based on the actual costs or mileage incurred.
The travel expenses office will support members and their staff to travel around Scotland by booking trains, flights and ferries, meaning that travellers do not need to be out of pocket for high travel costs.
I thank Maggie Chapman for that answer, which provides much-needed clarity given the conflicting advice that I have received previously.
Does the corporate body undertake to review MSP staff accommodation, given the disparity between regions that I have outlined, and given that it also makes sense, when members are travelling greater distances, to maximise the level of local engagement that can be carried out during a full day or two?
If any staff travel and accommodation is to support the member on regional or constituent business, that travel and accommodation will be covered by the scheme, which is uncapped, as I previously outlined.
However, travel to a main workplace for staff is considered commuting travel by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and we are required to follow its rules and guidance. The guidance states that commuting travel is considered a personal journey, and that if the cost is reimbursed by an employer through the staff cost provision, it is taxable. The travel and expenses office will work with members and staff to establish working patterns and plans to check against HMRC criteria, should that be helpful.
Alternatively, if the work is done solely to provide constituency support, such costs should be fully reimbursable through the scheme.
MSP Staff Trade Unions (Memorandum of Understanding)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will develop a memorandum of understanding with MSP staff trade unions concerning the matters for which it is responsible. (S7O-00250)
As my colleague Paul Sweeney will recall, at the end of the previous parliamentary session, the SPCB accepted in full the recommendations of a dignity at work review, which was carried out as part of the inclusive Parliament programme.
That included a commitment to strengthen constructive engagement with MSP staff trade unions to ensure that they offer an important route to enabling the SPCB to understand employment issues that are faced by members’ staff, to promote early dialogue and to improve clarity in areas where SPCB decisions can affect members’ staff. The SPCB remains fully committed to implementing that recommendation.
The SPCB will surely recognise that, although MSPs remain the legal employers of staff, many issues that affect our staff are outwith members’ direct control, whether that is contract terms and conditions, security, facilities or access. If the corporate body recognises that reality, it should put in place mechanisms to engage staff trade unions directly on such matters.
The GMB Westminster branch—I note my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the GMB—is in the final stages of concluding a memorandum of understanding with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority at the House of Commons to cover those matters and to formalise engagement for Westminster staff that it represents.
Will the corporate body look at following that example to improve direct engagement with staff trade unions? Will it instruct the senior executive team at the Parliament to engage with the GMB branch and develop a formal mechanism of engagement and negotiation?
I reassure my colleague Paul Sweeney that the SPCB agrees that it is important to have constructive engagement with trade unions; that will be set out more clearly in the coming year.
The SPCB will consider the matter in November, at which time it intends to agree a remit for the next phase of that work, as part of which we have commissioned senior officials to review proposals that were made by the MSP staff trade unions during the dignity at work review. We have informal engagement at the moment, but it is important to set out clearly how that engagement should be constructed. As Paul Sweeney said, MSPs are the legal employer, but the staff are affected by decisions that are made in the Scottish Parliament by the corporate body and therefore, such engagement is only right. I hope that Paul Sweeney is reassured by that answer.
I appeal for succinct questions and answers.
MSP Employer Pledge (Consultation)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it consulted MSP staff trade unions on the contents of the employer pledge that MSPs were asked to sign up to. (S7O-00300)
The dignity at work review formed part of the inclusive Parliament programme and was endorsed by the SPCB and party leaders in March this year, following evidence gathering and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including MSP staff trade unions.
One recommendation from the review, which the SPCB accepted, was the introduction of a Parliament-wide employer pledge. All employers based at the Parliament have been invited to sign that pledge, with the aim of ensuring that they join together in a shared commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment. MSP staff trade unions were listened to and their input shaped the recommendations, including that pledge.
Will the corporate body confirm that there are no mechanisms for enforcing the principles contained in the employer pledge and would the corporate body look favourably on the idea of engaging with the trade unions to co-design a revised employer pledge given the need for action due to the pledge not being enforceable?
It is, of course, a pledge, but we are trying to achieve a wider consensus that we should be the best employers that we can be. I can give a commitment that there will be further engagement to ensure that the pledge is meaningful. To date, 43 MSPs have signed the pledge and we encourage more to sign it and to join in further discussion about what more can be done.
MSP Constituency Offices (Technical Standards)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether, with respect to the standards applied by the Parliament’s allowances office for MSP constituency offices, it will establish technical standards for fire detection, ventilation, heating, lighting and other safety and wellbeing factors that are recognised by surveyors and solicitors across the Scottish property sector. (S7O-00295)
The corporate body agreed to changes to the members’ expenses scheme from the beginning of this session, following its sessional review of the scheme. Those changes included the introduction of minimum standards for members’ offices, with those being explicitly stated in the scheme to ensure that all members understand their responsibilities under health and safety legislation and so that they could be supported to secure suitable offices.
Information about the relevant health and safety legislation and guidelines is available to members on the Parliament’s health and safety guidance for members intranet pages, where members will find short summaries of the main points they must address. For example, on workplace temperatures, the minimum temperature for working indoors should normally be at least 16 degrees and there is also guidance on ventilation, fresh air supply rates and a number of other matters.
The different sizes and styles of offices, along with their layout and the proposed number of people using them, will have an influence, but all the information is available on the intranet for members to view.
I am grateful for that clarification, because what was provided to my office by the corporate body and the allowances team was a set of nine vague bullet points that failed to specify minimal or technical requirements for ventilation, fire safety equipment, heating, space or adequate lighting, which meant that they were impossible to comply with, therefore creating a stooshie with allowances.
Does the SPCB recognise that any guidance it provides must be communicated clearly so that we can all have proper minimum standards for the safety and wellbeing of our staff?
The corporate body has had exactly those conversations about the issue. This is the first time that we have been through the process in that way and I guarantee the member that we will look to ensure that information is provided clearly and succinctly for all members in future.
First Minister’s Question Time (School Visits)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what assessment it has undertaken of the impact on school visits to the Scottish Parliament of the changes to the timing of First Minister’s Questions. (S7O-00291)
Without stating the obvious, most schools can now watch FMQs live in the chamber because there are more question sessions to watch.
Our schools programme restarted in September and early data shows that not only are more schools seeing FMQs, more are also staying to watch portfolio question time in its new Wednesday timeslot. The good news is that more pupils are learning about accountability by seeing more business in the chamber, which means that more are seeing the work of their Parliament at first hand and how that relates to their lives. We will continue tracking that closely by using evaluations and monitoring data.
To quote Mr Kerr back at himself, stating the obvious, that did not answer my question.
Like many others throughout the country, schools in my constituency are unable to attend the new sessions of First Minister’s questions and still be able to travel back in time for the end of the school day. That hugely disadvantages pupils who were previously able to attend and engage with that important scrutiny of the First Minister. How will the SPCB monitor and evaluate equity of access, particularly during sitting days on which FMQs takes place and what will it do to address that geographical inequality, which is exacerbated by changes to the Parliament’s timetable that were made without consultation?
The Presiding Officer has made it clear that the changes to the parliamentary week are necessary, from his point of view, to make the Parliament more topical and effective and to make the Scottish Government more accountable to the Parliament. Temporary arrangements have been put in place to enable that change. The Parliamentary Bureau has invited the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to consider those arrangements with a view to making recommendations on whether any permanent amendments to standing orders should be made. As part of the process, the member—indeed, all members who wish to do so—can feed into the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee any views on how the changes to FMQs impact on school visits and other considerations that they may have to offer.
MSP Staff Pay (Data Collection)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it collects data on MSP staff pay including data on the gender pay gap. (S7O-00294)
The SPCB holds data on MSP staff pay solely for the purpose of providing a payroll service in accordance with the provisions of the members expenses scheme. As the SPCB is not the employer of MSP staff, it is not required to gather and publish gender pay gap data.
That leaves rather a hole in data. Is it possible that that could be addressed to pursue the aim of reducing the pay gap?
It is clear that each MSP is an employer in their own right, so it is not a matter for the corporate body. However, the member could conduct her own research and I encourage individual parties, if they so wish, to conduct surveys of staff in their own groups. The member might feel that that is useful, but it is not a matter for the corporate body.
That concludes SPCB questions. I apologise to members who were not able to get their questions heard in the chamber. I am sure that they will write quickly to the corporate body for a response.
Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Creative Economy