Chamber and committees

I hear what Mr Macpherson says. As well as the scheme that I have identified—the members expenses scheme that was agreed in 2021—a central budget for MSP staff learning and development is in place to deliver all recurring training needs for MSP staff. That budget is managed by the SPCB’s learning and development team. The corporate body is keen to maximise the central budget to the benefit of all MSP staff, in order to realise economies of scale and value for money while ensuring equal and fair access. However, we will look further at Mr Macpherson’s suggestion.

Following a review in 2021 of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme, the corporate body delegated authority to the Scottish parliamentary service learning and development team to approve up to £500 per member annually through the incidental and ancillary employment cost provision to facilitate any additional ad hoc job-specific training needs, such as attending seminars and conferences.

Claims in excess of that amount have to be submitted to the SPCB for approval. However, current expenditure against the expenses scheme is extremely low. In 2023-24, there were just four claims against the scheme. Therefore, the corporate body’s view is that there is no current requirement to increase the provision.

As I indicated, there is the £500 dispensation. It is also possible for claims in excess of that to be made and for them to be considered by the corporate body.

More generally, the current corporate body has taken the decision to have a comprehensive review of the entire structure of membership expenses, with a view to making recommendations for the next parliamentary session. Obviously, we will learn from the experience of the provision that we have had during the current parliamentary session to see whether there need to be changes that would accommodate some of the concerns that are being expressed, specifically with regard to Beatrice Wishart’s constituency office as well as others who might be in a similar position.

The corporate body recognises the benefits that a diverse workforce can bring and takes immense pride in the values and culture of this Parliament by providing a positive, inclusive working environment where LGBTQ+ inclusion is embedded in everything that we do. As an employer, the corporate body takes an intersectional approach to diversity and inclusion to address the on-going legacy of historic prejudice and the continuing barriers to full inclusion. We will work in partnership with the recognised trade unions and LGBTQ+ staff to ensure that Parliament remains a visibly inclusive environment.

Finally, the commitment to LGBTQ+ staff members, visitors and the public is long standing and non-negotiable. As in previous years, the corporate body this morning agreed to a request to fly the progress flag this year to mark pride day in Edinburgh.

I was caught off guard, Presiding Officer. I did not think that we would get to number 8.

The corporate body recognises that MSPs’ staffing requirements can fluctuate over time in response to a range of circumstances. The SPCB seeks to operate arrangements that meet MSPs’ needs, while ensuring that the provisions of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme are met and that MSPs carry out their responsibilities as employers in accordance with employment law requirements.

Jackson Carlaw MSP has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 51, paragraph 1—

Original text—

That was the reason why the corporate body came to the position that it did.

Corrected text—

That was the reason why the director of people, communications and inclusion took the decision they did.

On that latter point, I agree with Mr Harvie. I hope that he will accept that my personal record on these matters is such that I would not be a party to a decision that was trying to promote the kind of conclusive outcome that some people might be trying to come to as a result of the decision.

However, political parties have political views; the institution of the Parliament does not. The Parliament is welcome, open and accessible to all visitors—it is rated as a five-star visitor attraction by VisitScotland and, in an assessment in June 2023, it scored 10 out of 10 for inclusivity—but it is important that people who visit the Parliament feel that the Parliament itself is not expressing any particular kind of view. That was the reason why the corporate body came to the position that it did. [Jackson Carlaw has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]

I note the point that Mr Mason makes. If it is possible for people services to be given advance notice of the potential arrival of a very short-term employee, it can facilitate a discussion with the member about how that might be progressed.

However, where, in effect, the individual has been employed and we are notified of that after the event, there is a requirement for us to abide by employment law provisions. I know that Mr Mason is an assiduous attacker of bureaucracy in those regards but, unfortunately, it is nonetheless a bureaucracy that is required as a result of the employment law by which we are bound.

That is why I am genuinely confused. If there is a presumption of truth and no evidence to suggest that there was parental consent, and they are saying that there was no parental consent, then why are they not believed, since that criterion would have made them eligible?

Thank you very much. That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again on the second-last day of the parliamentary term—Wednesday 26 June.