Official Report 661KB pdf
Non-Government Bills Unit
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider increasing the resources and staffing available to the non-Government bills unit. (S6O-05645)
The NGBU is a clerking team that is supported by Parliament’s lawyers and external drafters. It provides impartial and confidential support to members of Parliament who are not Government ministers who wish to take forward a proposal for a member’s bill. The unit provides support on a first-come, first-served basis. The corporate body seeks to ensure that, as far as possible, access to the NGBU is provided to members in an equitable way. However, the NGBU is a finite resource and it is also required to support committee bills, private bills and hybrid bills.
The staffing complement of the unit was increased by one member of staff at the beginning of the parliamentary session to reflect the high level of demand that was being experienced for NGBU support for the large number of members’ bills in the session.
As the member will know, NGBU’s procedural advice and guidance is provided impartially to any member. There are circumstances in which full support is neither provided nor needed. I can go into more detail on that if the member would like, but now I look forward to his supplementary question.
I have no skin in this game, because I will not be returning to Parliament after the election. However, I feel—as other members have said that they felt during the session—that we have not been particularly well served by the non-Government bills unit. That is not because the staff are not excellent—they are excellent—but because there are too few of them. That has meant that we are all having to deal with a backlog of members’ bills now, which, frankly, is not good enough.
Could we have a question, please, Mr Stewart?
I would like the corporate body to look at the matter very seriously, and I would like assurance that that will be done so that we can have an NGBU that works for members in the future.
The corporate body has produced guidance on members’ bills for all members for session 7. In doing so, we have sought to ensure that the system is as equitable and efficient as it can be.
In addition, the corporate body is not directive as to the specific number of posts or grades of posts in individual teams within any area of the Parliament. There is always opportunity to flex across the clerking team if the NGBU is facing particularly high pressure at certain times of year.
The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee has also recommended changes to standing orders that would require an introduction deadline for members’ bills that is six months earlier in the parliamentary session than it currently is. That recommendation was intended to give more time for scrutiny and to work through the bill process, and we hope that it will ease some of the bottlenecks that some members have faced.
Parliamentary Business (Scheduling)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will initiate a review of how the scheduling of parliamentary business during the current session has impacted on parliamentary resources, particularly in light of the large volume of stage 3 proceedings in the final weeks. (S6O-05683)
The corporate body is responsible for resourcing parliamentary services, but the programme of parliamentary business is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau. Agreement to business motions is a matter for the whole Parliament. Individual members are able to seek to amend business motions, to speak against them or to speak about other items that they would wish the bureau to consider, including future programmes.
I know that the bureau is very mindful of the challenges of balancing the need to ensure that Parliament has the necessary time to scrutinise legislation against the impact that increased sitting time has for members and the Scottish parliamentary service.
That said, the corporate body is concerned that extended business creates unsustainable pressures on member and staff welfare, as well as on resourcing. I can confirm that, at the conclusion of the session, officials will review the impacts of the scheduling of parliamentary business. It will be for the incoming corporate body and bureau to work together to ensure that Parliament has a sustainable operating model.
I was banned by the Parliament from using the words “chaotic” and “avoidable” in my lodged question, but I can and will use them in my supplementary question, because the past few weeks have been chaotic and the situation has been entirely avoidable. I understand that that has been the responsibility not of the SPCB but of the Parliamentary Bureau and the Government. Although I welcome the review and discussions that will take place at the start of the next parliamentary session, can Maggie Chapman assure me that that work will include encouraging the Government, whoever is in it, not to waste vital parliamentary time on issues that the Parliament has no say over, but to focus on the issues that are devolved to this Parliament and ensure that those issues are prioritised in the next session?
I advise members that the chamber office staff process questions in accordance with standing orders, which are agreed to by the Parliament. Where appropriate, they advise on edits to allow questions to be put, which I understand is what happened in this case.
I can say to Douglas Ross that, although the scheduling of business is, as he acknowledges, not down to the corporate body, the corporate body and the bureau have worked—and we expect, in session 7, will work—closely together on that. I have already referred to some of the changes that have been made to the members’ bill process that should help with the bottleneck at this point in the next session, but it is absolutely the responsibility of the Parliament as a whole to determine the business that happens in here. The first point for discussions on that is the Parliamentary Bureau and not the corporate body.
Oral Questions (Annual Staff Resource Cost)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what the estimated annual staff resource cost is to the SPCB of administering the random selection and processing system for oral questions that result in a “not lodged” status. (S6O-05646)
Administering the electronic random draw for portfolio and general questions that subsequently result in a not lodged status does not generate a specific cost to the corporate body.
The allocation of portfolio and general questions is done electronically by random draw each Monday after the midday deadline. Members whose names have been selected must lodge a question by midday on the Wednesday. If no question is received by that deadline, it is registered as not lodged.
There is no specific cost of administering the draw for a question that is subsequently not lodged and, as there is no question lodged, no resource is required to process it. If a question is not lodged, the chamber desk marks it as such and emails the member, recommending that they inform the Presiding Officer of the reasons for not lodging. That is the only resource implication for not lodged questions.
I did not think that there would be much of a cost, but the wasted parliamentary time is another matter. Since January last year, there have been 55 not lodged questions, 38 of which were from the Scottish National Party, with one former First Minister failing to lodge a question multiple times after voluntarily entering their name into the draw. There are members on the Conservative benches who want to be able to ask questions. I understand that occasional mistakes can happen, but the sheer number of not lodged questions from the governing party concerns me. It blocks other members from questioning. Would the corporate body support the Parliament if it decided that not lodged questions should be reballoted on Thursdays to MSPs who will bother to submit a question?
I think that we all share that frustration when such opportunities are lost. However, although I note that that frustration exists, there can be a whole range of reasons why questions end up not being lodged.
The running of portfolio and general questions falls under the practice and procedures of the Parliament in relation to its business, so it is not directly a matter for the corporate body. However, members can write to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee on such matters, and I note that there are members of that committee in the room as we speak.
Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether the Edinburgh accommodation allowance for MSPs will be reviewed, in light of the City of Edinburgh Council announcing that, from 1 April 2026, the premium applied to council tax on second homes will increase from 100 per cent to 300 per cent. (S6O-05647)
The corporate body has met the additional costs of the second home premium on members’ leased Edinburgh accommodation since it was first introduced in 2024. Provision of funding to cover the second home premium is provided in addition to the annual allocation. Continuation of that support has been built into the new members’ expenses scheme, as the need for on-going additional support was recognised by the corporate body during its recent review of the scheme, prior to the new session.
As there is no individual impact for members or call on their individual allocation, there is no need to review the Edinburgh accommodation allowance in the light of the City of Edinburgh Council’s decision to increase the premium that is paid on second homes from 100 per cent to 300 per cent. As I have already mentioned, on-going payment of the premium, regardless of the amount, has already been accounted for in the proposed new scheme. That scheme will be considered by the Parliament later today when I move a motion, which I hope that Douglas Lumsden will support.
In practice, any increase will be added directly to a member’s allocation, as per the scheme rules in paragraph 2.1.5. The SPCB’s view remains that those homes are second homes that are required for work purposes and, as such, should be exempt from payment of second-home premiums. We will therefore write to the council to reiterate that point.
I agree with Jackson Carlaw that those second homes are not holiday homes; they are for MSPs to do their work. If the homes are not to be exempted from the premium by the City of Edinburgh Council, will the corporate body consider having a separate budget line for council tax to be paid from that is not part of the Edinburgh expenses allowance, so that remote MSPs will not suddenly appear to be costing more money to the Parliament?
I understand the question that Mr Lumsden is asking. The members’ expenses scheme clearly states that the corporate body
“shall publish information on expenses reimbursed to members under the Scheme in such form and at such intervals as the SPCB may determine.”
As I have already said, we recently included the on-going support as part of the scheme rather than as a temporary position, in order to ensure that members’ expenses are not disproportionately affected by such premiums. As such, for transparency reasons, we believe that the support should continue to be published alongside other expenses that are incurred by members.
Council tax costs have always been part of our published data, and those figures have included the premium since it was introduced in 2024. However, the corporate body recognises that the level of increases that are now being introduced could be seen to disproportionately increase the overall expense level for members who are eligible for and choose to have accommodation in Edinburgh. We will therefore look at how that information is published to ensure that it is clear which element is the normal council tax and which is the additional premium that has been applied.
I advise members that there are four more questions and there are four minutes available. I need much more succinct supplementary questions and responses.
Michael “Mick” McGahey Bust
I remind members of my voluntary entry in the register of members’ interests. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will reinstate the bust of Michael “Mick” McGahey previously displayed in the garden lobby. (S6O-05643)
There are currently no plans to reinstate the bust of Mick McGahey in the Scottish Parliament. The bust was loaned to the Parliament’s art collection to mark the 100th anniversary of Michael McGahey on the anniversary date of 29 May 2025, and it remained in situ until it was returned to the National Union of Mineworkers, as agreed by the terms of the loan.
It was wonderful to see the magnificent Ian Homer Walters bust on display for the centenary of Mick McGahey’s birth, but I express my dismay to see him replaced a few weeks ago by a white marble cube. Mick McGahey was a self-taught, working-class visionary and a catalyst who reignited calls for the creation of this Parliament as far back as 1968. His ashes are buried under this building, and his image should be displayed inside this building. That should be part of our legacy, and it should be permanent—
Mr Leonard, I need a question.
I simply ask, while there is still time, that this appeal be included in the corporate body’s legacy report to the next session of the Parliament.
I recognise Richard Leonard’s promotion of that proposal and the strength of support that was expressed during his members’ business debate, which marked the centenary of Michael McGahey’s birth. The most recent meeting of the corporate body took place this morning, at which we reviewed and agreed our legacy report, which covers a range of issues. However, the corporate body reviewed and agreed the memorial policy this February, and the position to not include permanent memorials remains the same.
World Cup Bank Holiday
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether MSP staff and Scottish parliamentary service staff will benefit from the new national bank holiday introduced to mark Scotland’s participation in the men’s football world cup. (S6O-05680)
In deference to your instruction, Presiding Officer, I say no.
Why?
The corporate body will not designate Monday 15 June as an additional holiday for its staff. However, the corporate body recognises that many staff will wish to mark the participation of Scotland’s men’s team in the world cup for the first time since 1998, and managers will be encouraged to look favourably on requests for leave from staff. MSPs, as employers of their staff, are free to award additional leave to their staff and may therefore designate 15 June as an additional holiday if they wish to do so.
Pastoral Support (Members)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its response is to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee announcement on pastoral support for MSPs that was made in the chamber on 10 March. (S6O-05682)
It is harder to be succinct in response to that question, Presiding Officer.
The corporate body noted with interest the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s announcement. The corporate body offers a wide range of pastoral support measures for members who are the subject of a complaint, including access to free individualised and confidential counselling services, access to specialist psychological services, and access to specialists who are trained in bullying and harassment complaints. Those services are provided independently by qualified practitioners who are trained to use a trauma-informed approach.
The corporate body is keen to engage with the SPPA Committee to understand what more it considers can be done to support members in such circumstances.
The pastoral element was the most important element of the support that the committee called for. The committee has received substantial evidence on the importance of pastoral support throughout the session. I welcome the corporate body’s offer to engage with our successor committee on the matter, but does Jackson Carlaw agree that specialist knowledge in respect of MSP complaints must be a prerequisite for anyone who advises members who are the subject of such a complaint, given that it is an almost unique situation?
Yes, I think that we can agree on that. I hope that such matters will be properly explored further when the corporate body is able to engage with the successor SPPA Committee on the issue.
We can squeeze in question 8, if the questions and answers are brief.
Lobbying Register
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, regarding its role in staffing and resourcing the lobbying register, what assessment it has made of the effectiveness of the register in its current form. (S6O-05644)
The Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed without division in this Parliament 10 years ago last week. In 2021, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee took evidence and provided a report on the operation of the 2016 act. Between March and September 2023, at the request of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, the Scottish Parliament information centre undertook a further partial evaluation of the act, which was published in October 2023.
The SPPA Committee has not been able to undertake a further, fuller review in this session, but it is expected to do so early in the next parliamentary session. That is the point at which the next corporate body would be engaged in relation to the SPCB’s role in providing the staffing and resources that are required for the lobbying register.
I thank the member for that answer, but does she agree that the lobbying register is a complete waste of money and that it serves no valuable purpose at all?
No.
I thank members for their helpful co-operation. That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time.
Air ais
Invasion of UkraineAir adhart
Portfolio Question Time