Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Lothians MSPs call for more cash to employ support staff

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 September 2007
LOTHIANS MSPs are calling for the inquiry into Scottish Parliament allowances to award them more cash to do their job and employ extra staff.
In evidence to the review panel, Edinburgh Central Labour MSP Sarah Boyack claimed the £49,300 a year Member's Support Allowance (MSA) - to cover staff, office, travel and other costs - "does not adequately fund the level of service which our constit
uents expect from us".

She said: "The way that the MSA is structured looks very flexible giving us maximum choice, but in reality we are tightly bound given the basic costs of staffing and office accommodation."

She said she employed one full-time and one part-time staff. "I pay my staff salaries which have not kept up with inflation, which makes life difficult for staff living in Edinburgh to rent, never mind buy.

"My view is that we should all be funded to employ three full-time members of staff - one to deal with casework and service the constituency office, one to service our parliamentary office and one to provide back-up on research and information."

Ms Boyack said she issued an annual report to constituents which she regarded as "an essential communication".

And she argued Holyrood politicians should have a dedicated budget for putting out such information, like MPs who recently voted themselves a £10,000 a year "communications budget".

She said: "Substantial increases in UK parliamentary allowances have only served to highlight how systemically under-funded we are in relation to constituency casework and community engagement."

In a separate submission to the review panel, East Lothian Labour MSP Iain Gray also argued for MSPs to be able to employ more staff. He said when he was MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands in the first term of the parliament, the MSA had allowed him to employ one full-time and one part-time member of staff.

"On returning to the parliament in 2007 I find that still to be the case. Not only is this inadequate for constituency work and supporting me in parliamentary business, motions, parliamentary questions, research for debates, etc, but I can only achieve this level of support by paying salaries which do not reflect the level of responsibility undertaken.

"What is more, the allowance makes it difficult to provide for those staff proper working conditions in the constituency."

He said the allowance for advertising his constituency surgeries was not enough - "especially when considered against the Westminster communication allowance".

And he said the allowance for winding up a constituency when MSPs are voted out was also inadequate, particularly in view of the politicians' personal liability for office leases. "As a result I found myself some £3000 out of pocket, several years after winding up my constituency office."

Linlithgow Labour MSP Mary Mulligan called for a proper pay scale for staff, reflecting their skills and qualifications.

• The most controversial aspect of the Holyrood allowances system is the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance, which allows MSPs who live well outside the Capital to claim mortgage interest payments on a second home and keep any profit on the property when they sell.

Scottish Nationalist MSP Michael Matheson suggested a trust fund should be set up and any profits be paid into that.



The full article contains 545 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

BLT,

26/09/2007 11:33:39

and £2.50 for lunch as well, dont forget

2

Doh,

26/09/2007 11:43:39

An MSP should not need more than 1 FTE staff member.

They should share secretarial and research staff at the parliament
and of course have a part time secretary / case worker in their constituency who could of course be also the part time parliamentary staff member (certainly for the Lothian MSPS).

This is just too much jobs for the boys to make the MSPs feel more important and of of course increase their chance of re-election.

3

GP,

26/09/2007 11:54:45

Given they work only 30 weeks a year I see no requirement for any staff. The use of a parliament memo, text, telephone answer services should suffice. A centralised offcie services providing letters etc. should be enough as well.
Let's face it most of them use this as an excuse to fund relative and friends.

4

eric,

Lothian 26/09/2007 11:58:43

Where can i get my hands on a Bottle of Scottish Parliament Sauce.?

5

Calum10,

26/09/2007 12:00:05

When Labour enjoyed 50 years of power they got used to civil servants, council officials, political advisors and numerous other members of staff to do their bidding without question. These were Labour's henchmen paid out of the public purse.

Now that they are out on their 'erses' Labour MSPs now bleat about not having enough money to do their work. Well tough, it's about time these whinging Labourites learned to lick stamps for themselves.

6

Porty Nat,

26/09/2007 12:04:09

#2 & 3 - apart from hairshirt populism, what are you actually basing your observations on?

If each MSP has 1 FTE, the logic is that their member of staff in the constituency is part-time. Could you run an office on your own in less than 35 hours a week, dealing with phone calls, people coming in off the street demanding that their case be dealt with instantly, dealing with a diary and trying to handle correspondence, both ingoing and outgoing?

If you could, I bet you'd be demanding an awful lot more than the wage of a part-time secretary for doing so... I also wager that if you were trying to get in touch with an MSP for any reason, you'd be less than happy at being told that the office was part time/or being bounced to voicemail and being told to leave your name and number after the tone.

7

Chris.J,

26/09/2007 12:27:28

#5 - Spot on. The Labour Party got too used to using money from Scottish taxpayers to do their work. I hear that the poor wee souls are also lost without publicly funded civil servants to develop policies for them... shame.
Still, I see that wee Wendy the Labour North British branch manager is already doing her bit for her party's finances by driving paid employess to resign within a month of starting!!!

8

Filled Rolls,

26/09/2007 12:37:08

MSPs asking for more cash?

Today's other top stories:

Pope Still Head of Roman Catholic Church
Bears Refuse to Use Pay Toilet Facilities

9

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

Newington Centre for Political Analysis 26/09/2007 12:42:22

"LOTHIANS MSPs are calling for the inquiry into Scottish Parliament allowances to award them more cash to do their job and employ extra staff."

These would be the same MSP's who are organising "pairing" arrangements so that MSP's from all parties can go on foreign junkets rather than stay in Holyrood and do their jobs?

Tell them to shut up and get to work.

10

The Judge,

26/09/2007 12:54:34

Maybe if the there was a tightening up of Scottish MPs allowances there would be more cash for MSP's.

For example my MP Nigel Griffiths expenses since devolution has almost doubled despite his responsibilities being cut. Mind you if you rent an office from your sister what else can you expect.

11

,

26/09/2007 13:05:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 999810, Article id was mapped to record!
12

,

26/09/2007 13:06:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 999817, Article id was mapped to record!
13

Matt M,

Edinburgh 26/09/2007 13:09:00

#9 and #1 among others are parading their ignorance. These are the same people who would complain about not getting an early enough response from an MSP to their e-mails or if they were forced to leave a voicemail message bacause a constituency office can't be staffed fulltime. This is about MSPs being able to offer the same level of service to constituents as their Westminster counterparts and paying staff a decent wage. The amount of time the usual suspects above spend e-mailing this forum with ill-informed tat suggests it is they who should shut up and get to work.

14

Simon M,

Edinburgh 26/09/2007 13:32:06

#3 What makes you think MSPs only work for 30 weeks a year. Do you honestly think that if that MSPs are not sitting in the Chamber they aren't working? If that's what you think, then you are breathtakingly ignorant about our political processes.

Like #13 says, your ilk would be the first to throw a tantrum if you didn't receive a swift response from your MSP.

15

Sassenach Observer,

Edinburgh 26/09/2007 13:47:23

#14 I don't even think they are working when they are siiting in the Chamber. Actually I suspect #13 and #14 are both sons of an MSP who clearly aren't happy that daddy has to share such a meagre handout between the two of them - especially after mum has had her cut.

" I like the Scottish Parliament. It has such a family atmosphere."

16

Edward,

26/09/2007 13:56:33

There are a couple of aspects that are a bit questionable.
Firstly we have Labour MSP Sarah Boyack, claiming that
the £49,300 a year Member's Support Allowance (MSA) is inadequate!
As it had to cover to cover staff, office, travel and other costs
To quote "does not adequately fund the level of service which our constituents expect from us”. She said she employed one full-time and one part-time staff
So lets break this down a bit. By offices, what exactly does she mean??
If Parliamentary office, then there are supplied free to the MSP, as each MSP is entitled to a parliamentary office. So does she mean a constituency office? If that is the case, then why doesn’t she and others like her simply use the nearest party political offices. I’m sure there must be a few Labour offices in Edinburgh, or Labour clubs?
Why not make use of the Community centres? Why on earth do they need to have some plush office suite? What kind of staff is she employing?, lets say for example the going rate for an assistant is £ 26,000 pa and part time, lets say £ 12,000 pa, so that’s £ 38,000, leaving £ 19,300!
I thought travel was reclaimed separately? Or is this travel that’s outside the parameter of travelling from and to Parliament

17

Edward,

26/09/2007 13:58:10

#14 Simon M
Seen as you seem to know exactly the work output of the MSP's
can you actually list a typical years work

18

wattie>x 1,

26/09/2007 14:07:37

I have never heard of this lady - maybe because I am a long time exiled Scot, but I wonder if she is the mouthpiece for the rest of her parliamentary pals who have over the years sat dormant when many of our elderly who were the backbone of those who fought Hitler's Nazis, suffered a near pauper life existence on the lowest elderly state pensions in Europe. This, was when Brown then Chancellor, and his side kick Darling when Minister of Pensions, awarded our elderly the never to be forgotten insulting weeky pension increase of 75P , and at the same time awarded themselves an annual salary and pension increase of 20%. Many of these eldelry went to an early grave through winter ilnesses brought on by our climate and so many sat in cold homes because they couldn't afford the heating costs. And what was some government ministers advising them to do?, wear thick socks,gloves and heat one room, where they would be warm. One of the ministers then offering advice was PM John Major's clandestine sleeping partner, Edwina Currie who was keeping him nice and warm when his own wife was sleeping on her own. These are the typical standards many of the lying political impostors live with, when they preach to ordinary people how we should live our lives.
The present Champagne New Labour socialists and the many disenchanted Tories now flocking to join them want to begin to live in the real world, and not their own sham world of myth and fantasy.
May be; we should wake up one day and use the same people power as the Burmese are presently using. I am certain, that in our democratic country our establishment wouldn't interfere with us like the *cruel Bumese * who are now trying to drive their protesters of the streets. Our humane, caring police wouldn't behave like that now; or would they?

19

inter alia,

Edinburgh 26/09/2007 14:11:47

#14 Simon M: Why say GP is "breathtakingly ignorant" ?. The suggestions advanced [#3] deserve better. And what do you mean by saying "your ilk" ? Calm down, old chap. Your reality [and that #13] is out of focus.

Most MPs, MSPs, MEPs act as postboxes. A constituent writes to, say, their MSP on a particular subject. The MSP then forwards the letter to the relevant department - and - one hopes - writes to the constituent saying what's been done and - one again hopes - asking the constituent to get back to the MSP if the subject hasn't be resolved. Much of the casework they get could well be tackled by welfare rights advisers.
The Hard truth is your average MP, MSP, MEP is not important to the political process.

20

Chris.J,

26/09/2007 14:21:57

# 12 - Eh? What of the council tax freeze?

21

Matt M,

Edinburgh 26/09/2007 14:42:01

Edward, use community centres? Presumably they should be expected to find space for free for MSPs, their staff, IT equipment and confidential constitutency casework. Who pays for Community Centres? A tall order I know judging by your e-mail but use your loaf.

22

Stephen101,

MSPs allowances and the homeless 26/09/2007 14:46:08

I like Michael Matheson's suggestion about trust funds.

MSPs would hate us to think they are profiting personally from property speculation on the back of public funds.

Why not set up a trust that after all selling expenses, any profit made by each MSP on the sale of their Edinburgh property goes to a charity who looks after the homeless? The Cyrenians for example use about 95% of all monies received on helping the homeless.

I think we have a win-win here. Unless of course the MSPs decide otherwise.

23

Edward,

26/09/2007 14:49:53

#21 Matt M, Edinburgh
What about Labour party office, or doesnt the Labour party have offices???

24

BIG EYE,

Paisley 26/09/2007 15:00:38

Surely something wrong with the Headline it should read "Lothian LABOUR MSP's seek more cash!

25

Matt M,

Edinburgh 26/09/2007 15:10:42

Edward, The Labour Party in Scotland is based in Glasgow. Besides, party aparatus should be seperate from MSPs' and MPs' roles as public servants. They are elected to serve all constitutents, not just the ones who vote for them. In countries like Germany and Australia the state provides constituency offices for elected members which pass to whoever succeeds them instead of giving an unrealistic allowance to cover nearly all their costs (regardless where they represent) and expecting them to get on with it. Remember offices are not just there for MPs/MSPs and staff, but for visiting constituents as well. The taxpaying public deserve better than to be cramped into a corner of a community centre or party office to discuss their confidential business.

26

Utter Shambles,

26/09/2007 15:11:34

Well what do we expect once they got their snouts in the trough. During recent years when 'proper workers' have seen their pay rises severely limited, performance related pay (or similiar) introduced, their workload increase, allowances reduced or removed, pension schemes changed-never for the better; there has always been one group who have made sure none of this affects them, whilst urging others to show restraint. Yep step forward the parasites who are politicians. If most of this band of numpties turned up at a private company, asked for a £52k salary, plus £50k expenses, they would get a two word response. As for the comparision with Westminister, amazingly when it was pointed out the Scottish Parliament is actually over represented by MSP's per head of population compared to MP's, they voted to keep it that way.

27

SPG,

26/09/2007 15:14:23

Simon M: While I'm quite proud to be breathtakingly ignorant, I would just like to categorically assure you
I do not have,or ever have had, an elk!

28

Porty Nat,

26/09/2007 15:24:29

Edward #16:

"So does she mean a constituency office? If that is the case, then why doesn’t she and others like her simply use the nearest party political offices".

Because the party may not have offices. In any case, even if they did and they were suitable to use as an office for constituents, some people would then complain about taxpayers' money being funnelled into helping pay for an asset owned by a political party.

"Why not make use of the Community centres?"

Because they're intended for the benefit of the community - not to be used as an office. And as Matt points out, there's confidentiality issues as well which need to be taken into account.

"Why on earth do they need to have some plush office suite?"

Who said anything about plush? Clean, affordable and accessable is hard enough in most parts of the country.

"What kind of staff is she employing?, lets say for example the going rate for an assistant is £ 26,000 pa and part time, lets say £ 12,000 pa, so that’s £38,000, leaving £ 19,300!"

Yes - leaving £19,300 to pay for an office, electicity, water and business rates, equipment, furniture, travel expenses, staff training...

Oh, and #26 - if you think the private sector doesn't pay big salaries to numpties, you've clearly never worked there :-)

29

Edward,

26/09/2007 16:11:08

#28
Dont shoot me!
Im only trying to get my head around this.
From what Ive heard so far, my impression is that politicians of any party have had to organise own constituent offices from time immemorial. Its not just about MSP's, but also applies to Councillors and MP's.
The MSP's plight is something thats been existance long before MSP's existed as MP's and Councillors must be in the same position.
Okay, so if this is the case, then perhaps some joined up thinking needs to be applied here.
As mentioned in this article, suggested by Scottish Nationalist MSP Michael Matheson there should be a trust fund. But the trust fund should actually encompass all political representatives, not just MSP's A trust fund, financed, jointly by the Scottish Parliament, Westminster and each council, would be able to set up suitable offices or suite of offices in each MP or MSP constituency (this doesnt mean hundreds of offices, but sensible common sense locating would mean shared premises) So that the MSP, MP and Councillors can make use of an office, which would be fully serviced. This would also encourage greater contact between the levels of government through informal contact.
At any time that a MP or MSP looses there seat, then they dont have to do anything other than moving out and allowing the new MSP or MP in
This also takes out the MSP or MP from the expenses trail

30

Rodster,

Glasgow 26/09/2007 16:22:58

Funny how in opposition these Labourites now think it is so necessary to have extra allowances for back room staff.
Yet it was their absolute belief in one party government that made them makeallowances so low previously tihnking they would harm the SNP .
Now the boot is on the other foot you can hear the pigs howling at the trough.

31

Porty Nat,

26/09/2007 16:55:02

Sorry Edward - I wasn't intending to get at you :-)

Councillors have never had 'ward' offices. I do like your idea about offices where MPs and MSPs could work together, but it might run into a couple of problems:

1. Holyrood and Westminster constituencies no longer share boundaries, which could make setting up offices in suitable locations quite tricky. There might also be problems if the MP and MSP for the overlapping areas concerned represent different parties.

2. What do you do about the 7 list MSPs in each region? Do you centralise them all in the one place, or try to spread them out throughout the region? If its the second option, then how do you decide who goes where?

These problems don't really arise while we let MPs and MSPs make their own decisions about where they are based.

In my opinion, the Holyrood allowances scheme is actually pretty transparent, even down to letting us find out how much was claimed for bog roll and bleach. Whatever else it might be, its hardly lavish and for that reason, I don't think there's all that much wrong with the system as is.

Mike Matheson's idea of a trust fund to take care of property gains/losses resulting from the accommodation allowance is a very good one. The sooner it's brought in, the better.

32

Toast,

26/09/2007 17:46:22

Lazy bitch should do some work herself for a change

33

An Australian of Scottish Ancestry,

Where the sun sends us mad! 27/09/2007 06:15:51

Do we even have to approve pay rises for those complicit, grubby little brown-noses, Lord Foulkes and Bendy Wendy?

These are just the sort of stories that detract from the essential issues such as independence, capital growth, employment and improving the life-quality of ordinary Scots.

34

IJW,

Edinburgh 27/09/2007 08:24:46

Edward - if you are trying to get your head round it, then also bear in mind that there are 'on-costs' for staff as well, which I think is about 20% over and above salary levels. I used to work at the Scottish Parliament and I didn't do it for the big bucks. Full time salary for a graduate with several years work experience was more likely to be £17-£20k, not £26k average. So its not a case of employees jumping on the gravy train. Most people don't stay very long because they can earn £5-£10k more by going elsewhere. Perhaps if there was a separate provision for staffing that did mean that you could guarantee £25k to someone then you would get people who were prepared to stay for four years or more and use their knowledge and experience to the benefit of constituents. Rather than people complaining about MSPs having their noses in the troughs they should look at the situation for staff funding in Westminster and Brussels and see the Holyrood is the poor relation in all of this. And its not the MSPs who lose out - its the ordinary workers. The NUJ represent many of the MSPs staff and have long argued for a proper pay structure for staff that would reflect their qualifications and experience, rather than what an MSP had left in the budget for the year.

35

GP,

27/09/2007 09:25:27

6# real life experiences and running a business.
What are you basing your utter crap on?
mums job?
Msps' work 30 weeks per year.
There is no evidence to show they work a 35 hr week.
In most cases if you contact your local MSP you will either be asked to leave contact details by their 1 FTE assistant. On the rare occasions when they do attend surgeries you will possibly be able to speak to them.
So for not doing anything ,ike the average working persons hours or weeks per year they demand additional resources, wake up lazy and greedy simply the truth and you are probably involved in this particular scam.

36

Albanian Hamster,

Bay of Bengal 27/09/2007 09:34:02

Although both Parliaments have their rightful place, I think we need to be careful that we do not become over represented. Look at how many people we now elect to represent us. Every place in Scotland is now represented by Councillors, Westminster MPs, Constituency MSPs, Regional MSPs and MEPs. Is this not democracy gone mad? To fund each of these people(bar the councillors) to provide constituency offices, parliament offices and the like is a joke. There is clearly a wasteful overlap in responsibilities...

37

Porty Nat,

27/09/2007 10:29:50

#35 - Real life experiences and running a business? If that's the case, you're doing a very good job of hiding it right now.

You don't have a clue what I do for a living, whether my parents are alive or dead, what their occupations are/were, or what my age is. For the record, I've spent many years working in both public and private sectors, and sidelined with my own business. Now that's out the road, how about getting off your high horse and dealing with the arguments instead?

"MSPs work 30 weeks a year" - Pish. Parliament might sit 30 weeks a year, but they work outside the parliament as well. Only the terminally ignorant would try to claim otherwise.

"There's no evidence they work a 35 hour week" - Agreed - most work a lot more than that. Why not try and shadow one for a week if you don't believe me - that's assuming that the restraining order allows it, of course :-)

"In most cases if you contact your local MSP you will either be asked to leave contact details by their 1 FTE assistant" - Of course you will - that's why the assistants are there.

There's a big demand on MSPs' time, so you ain't going to get through when you phone the office. If you think that's unreasonable, put yourself in the position where you've arranged to meet an MSP, but they have to keep interrupting the discussion to answer the phone because there's problems with trying to get Mrs McGlumpher's hip replacement speeded up; because Mr MacPherson wants you to bang heads together to sort out his anti-social neighbours; and because the local residents' committee want to speak to you to about the problems caused by local schoolchildren at lunchtime. So many demands, only so many hours in the day, yet folk like you whine that they get any support at all to try and get the job done. Incredible.

You ain't going to get through to an MSP direct just because you've phoned, any more than you'd be likely to get through to the senior


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.