Chamber and committees

Thank you for patiently answering my questions. I will open up the evidence session to other colleagues.

In that case, it might be a couple of years before we can analyse that in any great depth.

Jackson, you and I were both list MSPs before being elected as constituency MSPs, and I am sure that you will agree that there is no comparison in terms of workload. How much longer will the SPCB pretend that there is no difference between the workloads of list and constituency MSPs, and will future assessments of staffing costs reflect that reality?

That is helpful. That takes us up to 625 staff—is that correct?

I will not repeat my earlier questions, because they lead on to a similar question. In the budget submission, you say that the SPCB is

“committed to enhancing the scrutiny function of Parliament, including promoting citizen participation, to enable our legislature and its members to perform their roles.”

You also talk about the

“scrutiny challenges arising from Brexit”

and say that

“these complex issues will create significant ongoing scrutiny challenges for the Parliament, and its committees, throughout session 6”.

You continue:

“we now need to move towards a more stable and sustainable staffing structure to best support scrutiny in this new, more complex environment.”

Both you and Jackson Carlaw have touched on that. You went on to talk about the “huge challenge” of net zero.

For the record, how long do you expect the uplift in scrutiny work that has been caused by Brexit to last? You say that it will be “throughout session 6”. Will that work peak at any point or will it continue at the same level? How do we quantify the huge challenge of monitoring progress on net zero and how do we estimate the additional staff required to assist MSPs in that work?

I asked specific questions about how the requirements have been quantified, because the budget bid, at £112.161 million, is very specific. If additional staff will be required, either to look at net zero or Brexit, or to enable committee scrutiny by strengthening committees, it would be helpful to know what has been decided with regard to staff numbers and the additional budget that would be required for those staff.

Good morning, and welcome to the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 15th meeting in 2021. I thank Daniel Johnson for chairing the pre-meeting briefing.

We are meeting remotely today, and we have a single item on our agenda, which involves taking evidence from two panels of witnesses as part of our scrutiny of the Scottish budget for 2022-23. First, we will hear from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on its budget bid and then we will take evidence on the budget from Kate Forbes, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy.

I welcome our first panel of witnesses. Jackson Carlaw MSP, the SPCB lead on governance issues, is joined by three Scottish parliamentary officials: David McGill, chief executive; Michelle Hegarty, deputy chief executive; and Sara Glass, group head of financial governance.

We have around an hour for this discussion and should direct questions to Mr Carlaw in the first instance. If he would prefer for an official to respond to a question, I ask that he make that clear to our broadcasting team who operate the microphones.

I remind members that broadcasting will also operate their microphones and that they should allow a few moments before speaking to ensure that they are heard. I plan to bring members in to speak in the order that we discussed previously but, if anyone would like to come in to follow up another member’s question, for instance, they should type R into the chat function.

I will begin the questions. Paragraph 9 of the SPCB’s submission says:

“greater scrutiny capacity within the existing committee structure was needed to address the substantial increase in committee workloads arising from the impact of Brexit.”

The following paragraph goes on to say that

“additional staffing investment in respect of Brexit-related scrutiny”

has

“been provided over the preceding three years”.

What is the level of that investment and what are the continuing cost implications?

Towards the end of the session, I was going to ask a range of questions on the KPMG and Fraser of Allander Institute productivity dashboard, so Liz Smith has saved the committee from hearing those questions.

We move on to questions from John Mason.

That takes us up to a complement of 625. Is that correct?

The reason why I am asking is so that people can put the bid into perspective. It is always good to have numbers.

Paragraph 12 notes that, in session 6, MSP staff cost provision increased from £93,000 to £133,200. Jackson Carlaw has advised us that that figure is now going up to £139,200. For comparison, this year, members of the Westminster Parliament have a provision of £177,500. What use has been made of the increase from £93,000 to £133,000? I realise that the current financial year is not yet complete, but there must be some indication as to what the uptake has been.

I open up the session to colleagues’ questions.