MINUTES OF FIFTH MEETING OF THE ALLOWANCES REVIEW PANEL ON 25 JANUARY 2008 AT 10.00AM IN ROOM Q1.03, THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
Present:
Sir Alan Langlands (Chair)
Alastair MacNish
Isobel Sharp
Tom McCabe MSP
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
In attendance:
Ian Leitch
Huw Williams
Ailsa Heine
Eric McLeod
Lori Gray (minutes)
1. Minutes
1.1. Due to time constraints the minutes were not discussed but a revised version has since been agreed by the Chair.
2. Draft Report
2.1. The Panel discussed the principles of the report and agreed that the information documents supporting the review and the minutes of meetings would be posted on the review website.
2.2. It was agreed the Chair would write a covering letter to the Presiding Officer when presenting the final report
3. Accommodation
3.1. The Panel considered two options. The first was whether the option to claim mortgage interest on capital required to purchase a property should remain, but to reclaim the allowances claimed from any subsequent sale of the property, the allowances paid being secured by way of a standard security and personal obligation. The second was abolishing any allowance to meet mortgage interest payments.
3.2. The Panel generally agreed that a standard security would cause additional work and therefore cost. It was also recognising that abolishing the existing arrangement would require consideration of what arrangements should be put in place for Members who had already bought an Edinburgh property under the existing Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance.
3.3. The Panel was unanimous in believing that the present situation is not sustainable and considered the two options. The majority view of the Panel (Lord Selkirk of Douglas dissenting) was for the abolition of the right to claim for mortgage interest payments. James Selkirk favoured a clawback (standard security) option.
3.4. If the right to claim mortgage interest on capital required to purchase a property was to be abolished, a transitional period would need to be determined to enable those Members who have purchased property under the existing scheme to make arrangements appropriate to re-order their affairs. The Panel considered that existing Members should receive support at current levels to assist with mortgage interest payments. This transition period should last until the end of the current parliamentary session.
3.5. The Panel agreed that the allowance limit should be set at £11,400.00 per year.
3.6. The Panel also discussed the issue of overnight hotel limits. For overnight hotel accommodation in Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK except London – the limit should be set at a maximum £128.60 per night based on an average hotel price of £110.00 per night and the government evening meal rate of £18.60 per night.
3.7. In London, it was agreed limit should be set at up to £150.20 per night based on an average hotel price of £131.00 per night and the government evening meal rate of £19.20 per night.
3.8. The Panel recommended that the West of Scotland region should be added to the list of regions for which overnight expenses can be claimed within a region. Any reimbursement should be limited to overnight stays off the mainland of the Cunninghame North constituency.
4. Staff Provision
4.1. The Panel discussed the best method for setting a staffing budget. It was agreed that the current allowance is insufficient in certain cases, but there was a concern that any increase would add considerably to the costs of any new scheme. It was agreed that in applying any new limits and recognising that they are employers of their own staff, Members should be encouraged to make any adjustments with reference to the recommended salary scales. The panel expected that no salary should increase by more than one or, maximum, two scale points when the new rates are introduced.
4.2. The Panel agreed a monetary cap based on the mid-points of current SPCB staff salary scales and indicative numbers of staff.
4.3. It was agreed that the staff provision for constituency Members should be £61,928 based on one full time equivalent senior researcher/caseworker, 0.5 FTE researcher/ caseworker and one FTE office support.
4.4. The majority of the Panel agreed that the provision for regional Members should be £40,524, based on one FTE senior researcher/caseworker and 0.5 FTE office support, with James Selkirk dissenting.
4.5. It was also agreed that the SPCB should have powers to hold a central fund to meet the cost of such other items which reflect good employment or workplace practices and facilities for Members and staff as may be determined, subject to the approval of the SPCB.
4.6. The Panel agreed that, where a Member has insufficient funds in his or her staff provision, the SPCB should have authority to meet any reasonable redundancy costs centrally and that these be reported against the respective Member.
4.7. The Panel also agreed that the SPCB should also have authority to meet centrally redundancy costs arising in the event of a pool dissolving where one or more Members vacates office.
5. Local Office Costs
5.1. The Panel agreed that Members who cannot realistically lease office accommodation and meet other office costs should be able to apply to the SPCB for a determination on an increase to this capped amount, limited to 10% of the office cost provision.
5.2. Members who do not enter into a lease for a local office but undertake their constituency/regional duties from the parliamentary complex should have their entitlement to the office costs provision abated.
5.3. The panel took the view that there is no reason not to permit Members to sub-let office space to party political organisations provided the arrangements are transparent and scrupulous. However, Members should not be allowed to use their home as an office instead of opening up a local office. This would not disallow a member from operating IT equipment from home. It was noted that that, operating an office from home would involve tax implications and health and safety issues.
5.4. The allowance limit should be set at £14,917 per year.
6. Travel
6.1. The Panel agreed that Members should be eligible to claim for travel between their homes and their local offices. The provision for the reimbursement of travel expenses should enable Members to carry out the full range of their activities but with the provision of receipts/due certification. There should be no provision for Members to claim reimbursement of business car insurance.
6.2. The Panel unanimously agreed to recommend that the provision for family travel should be abolished. James Selkirk withdrew from the decision making process on the grounds that he has an interest since he has claimed this allowance under the respective schemes as an MP and a Life Peer, although not as an MSP.
6.3. It was also agreed that a decision on the number of staff travel journeys would be taken at the next meeting.
7. Party Leaders Allowance
7.1. The Panel discussed the Party Leaders Allowance and agreed that there was not enough evidence to suggest an increase in funds for Party Leaders. The key issue is financial assistance to non executive parties to enable them greater parity to carry out research. Short Money is not in the Panel’s remit and the SPCB should consider the staffing needs of party leaders and members of non-executive parties in holding the Government to account.
8. Winding Up
8.1. The Panel agreed that the SPCB should have the authority to meet any contractual redundancy costs centrally and these be allocated as a cost to the Member or Members concerned. Provision should also be made to ensure that the SPCB, on application by a Member, was satisfied that the payment of such redundancy costs was reasonable, and where any redundancy payment arrangement is considered by the SPCB to be unreasonable, to restrict payment to a sum which the SPCB considers, in all the circumstances, to be reasonable.
8.2. The winding up provision to cover office costs should be up to a maximum level of 33% of the office costs provision.
9. Engagement
9.1. There should be no separate category for ‘engagement’ or ‘communication’ costs. Instead, provision to meet surgery advertising costs should be available in the form of a ring-fenced provision.
9.2. The Panel agreed that the surgery advertising should be up to a maximum of £1,460 per year.
10. General
10.1. There were a number of general recommendations which to the panel would discuss at the next meeting.
11. Discussion Topics
11.1. The Panel agreed that the final report should be published during March 2008 to meet the deadline set by the Presiding Officer when he initiated this work.
12. Date of next meeting
12.1. It was agreed to hold a further meeting in February to discuss the final report ahead of publication. Friday 22nd has been provisionally agreed and the Secretariat will confirm this after checking Panel Members availability.
Secretariat
January 2008