Chamber and committees

Are you happy about the cost, though? Three hundred thousand pounds per committee room seems to be an awful lot of money.

Right. Let us go on to office-bearers, which I know is always the most exciting part of the session in some ways. Thank you for providing us with some detail on that, albeit in four-point, which must be the smallest typeface that I have ever seen in the Parliament. Nevertheless, I got my magnifying glass out and was able to read some of the detail.

I take on board a lot of what you have said about the Electoral Commission for next year. Let us look at other office-bearers: there is a 9.4 per cent increase for the Standards Commission for Scotland, a 6.2 per cent increase for the Biometrics Commissioner, an 8.9 per cent increase for the Scottish Commission for Human Rights and a 7.1 per cent increase for the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. We know fine well that, when the draft budget comes out next week, it is unlikely that any area of front-line service will get anywhere near those kinds of increases. One or two might—one never knows—but it seems to me that, yet again, increases for those office-holders are well above inflation.

For some of those organisations, staff salaries account for about 80 per cent of spend. In future years, it would be interesting to see detail on what has been rejected and why they need additional funding, as we see only the bare figures.

The cost of salaries at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman went up from £6.437 million to £6.770 million. I looked at how many staff it has, and found that it has a whole-time equivalent of 80 staff. That means that the average salary is £80,000 per year. I do not know who is employed there, but some folk will be doing fairly mundane jobs and some will be in senior positions. That seems like an awfully high average salary for such an organisation.

Incidentally, it deals with about 5,000 cases per year, so, looking at its total budget, that means it costs about £1,500 per case. Some of the cases might be detailed, but when I think about the myriad cases that members’ offices deal with daily—and there are dozens every day, never mind how many we get each week or in a year—I wonder at the huge staff complement that it has to deal with a relatively small number of cases; it deals with 1.5 cases per week, per person.

I am picking at that organisation, but it seems that one organisation each year has an inflation-busting increase in its budget, and most of the costs seem to be related to salary. The cost of that organisation is now going to be £8.5 million.

The budget proposal lists salaries as costing £130,000, which includes 1.33 of a G2 post, at between £30,000 and £32,000 a year. Incidentally, the budget line is for “direct salaries”, not employer costs and so on. The amount includes a manager’s pay as well as overtime costs. I am wondering when there is overtime work, because the shop does not seem to be open that much; it is not open seven days a week or anything like that.

That is only three days a week.

Yes, a wee bit, but they are really only for members. They do not apply to the public, and it is about the public knowing about the shop; I do not think that there is any marketing of the shop at all. Hot water bottles and thermals, for example, might be a good marketing item at this particular moment in time.

Thank you for providing a more detailed report than we have had in previous years. It is very much appreciated. I saw a wee glint in your eye when you first mentioned office-holder costs, which no doubt will be touched on as we progress, and, despite your extensive labours in that respect, I am not convinced that the MSP salary increase will be put into its true context when it is reported.

I want to start on a positive note. From the Auditor General for Scotland’s report, I note that, by 2024-25, the Parliament had achieved a 68 per cent reduction in carbon emissions compared with the 2005-06 baseline, exceeding its interim target. That is something to be welcomed. Moreover, the outturn for 2024-25 was £2.1 million lower than was anticipated, and it is also important to point out the high level of member satisfaction in the services and facilities that are provided to support participation in parliamentary business—it stands at 90 per cent—and the fact that there have been no complaints under the culture of respect policy, reflecting a positive workforce environment and commitment to staff. It is important that those are put on the record, and I commend everyone on the SPCB and Parliament staff for those magnificent achievements.

It is reported that the Parliament welcomed 175,686 visitors in 2024-25. How does that compare with previous years—before the pandemic, for example?

Yes, indeed.

Let us move on into the report. One of the things that you highlight is

“continuing to apply a 5% vacancy”

rate, which you say improves efficiency. How does it improve efficiency? I would like you to explain how that works. Is it 5 per cent across the board? Is it just the first 5 per cent of vacancies that occur? There must surely be certain circumstances in which a vacancy must be filled. It seems odd to me; if you can work with a 5 per cent vacancy rate, you surely have 5 per cent more staff than you really need. Will you talk us through how the vacancy rate works and how it makes the Parliament more efficient?

But there is no ability to quantify the gain that one would hope to secure in terms of employment, additional taxation, additional revenue or whatever.

I am sorry, but over what time period?