£8m in MSPs' expenses - but what do we get for it?

• Figures released yesterday show MSP expense allowances of 8 million.

• Travel expenses between constituency and Holyrood make up bulk of claims

• Call for 'value for money' assessment to reduce excess

Key quote

"From a public relations point of view, it would be beholden on them to try to restrain expenses. We are all being asked to hold back; we are asking local authorities to, and the civil service." - BILL ANDERSON, FORUM OF PRIVATE BUSINESS IN SCOTLAND

Story in full MSPS have recorded an inflation-busting rise in the amount they claim in expenses, according to figures released yesterday which showed that the tax- payers’ bill for Holyrood allowances rose to almost 8 million last year.

The politicians immediately faced demands that they take part in a "value-for-money" audit after details of their expenses claims for 2003-4 were published.

The statistics showed a huge range of claims from different MSPs, but top of the list was Keith Raffan, a Liberal Democrat. Mr Raffan is one of the MSPs representing Mid-Scotland and Fife, yet he managed to put in travel expenses totalling 41,154.64 for the 2003-4 financial year.

With MSPs’ mileage expenses calculated on the generous rate of 49.3p per mile, this works out at the equivalent of 84,000 miles in a year - or three and a half journeys around the world - when his electors are just over the Forth Bridge in Fife.

The travel bill submitted by Mr Raffan, who lives just a few hundred yards from the parliament in Edinburgh, dwarfed all the others to such an extent that the next most expensive travel claim was half that, from Alasdair Morrison, the Western Isles MSP, who claimed 22,567 for travelling to his constituency and back for the year.

Mr Raffan said he had to claim such a large amount in travel expenses this year because he had failed to claim as much as he should have in previous years. He said the 41,000 should be spread over the past five years to get the true figure for his yearly travel bill, not seen in isolation in just this, latest, year.

It is true that Mr Raffan claimed virtually nothing in travel expenses in the first two years the parliament was in existence, but he had been claiming substantial expenses for travel for the previous two years, totalling 10,000.

So while he may have had some ground to make up from the first two years of the parliament, he still managed to claim more than MSPs from the same region even before he put in his huge 41,000 claim this year.

Mr Raffan, however, remained unrepentant, insisting that he travelled all the time around his region, the second biggest in Scotland, in his Skoda Fabia car.

The Liberal Democrat MSP said: "My constituency region is the second biggest in Scotland. I go up and down to my office in Perth four times a week before I get anywhere else. What do you expect me to do - sit in my office and see nobody in the constituency?"

The total bill for MSPs expenses and allowances was 7.9 million. This represents a rise of 400,000 or 5.3 per cent - more than twice the rate of inflation - on the previous year, 2002-3, which in turn saw a rise of 300,000 on the year before.

Business leaders warned that MSPs could not continue to urge restraint on the rest of the population and squeeze local government finances while splashing out on themselves to such an outrageous extent.

Bill Anderson, from the Forum of Private Business in Scotland, called for MSPs to be assessed to find out whether they were performing as well as they should be.

"Are we getting value for money?" he asked. "Should we have a value-for-money analysis of MSPs’ performance?

"From a public relations point of view, it would be beholden on them to try to restrain expenses. We are all being asked to hold back; we are asking local authorities to, and the civil service.

"It would be a wise thing for them to show restraint on expenses like everybody else."

Mr Anderson said some of the MSPs were doing a good job and obviously justified their allowances, but he questioned whether all were performing to the same standard. His comments echo concerns which have arisen from several areas of Scottish society in the last few days over the quality of Scotland’s MSPs.

The debate was prompted by Lord Sewel, the former Scottish Office minister, who called for the Scotland Act to be changed to allow non-MSPs to be appointed as ministers to "widen the talent pool".

The rise in expenses, at a time when many people are questioning their quality, will do nothing to enhance the reputation of the Scottish Parliament. The average claim for each MSP was about 70,000 last year, but this covers staff salaries and office costs in the constituency and the parliament, as well as expenses.

Mr Raffan’s high travel expenses made him the most expensive MSP in the country, costing the taxpayer a total of 108,825.99 last year. Jamie Stone, another Liberal Democrat MSP, claimed the second highest total overall. His bill for the taxpayer was 92,187.64.

Mr Stone’s claim was pushed up by 15,901.11 of travel costs to his remote constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. He also had equipment and supply costs of 5,571.32.

Alex Fergusson, a Tory MSP, was third on the list with an expenses claim of 90,285.27, caused largely by travel costs of nearly 13,000, as well as a claim of 7,749 to cover costs of accommodation in Edinburgh. MSPs can claim the cost of staying overnight in the capital if they live more than a standard commuting distance from the parliament. However, some use the money to pay mortgages on flats in the city - even though the flats will not be returned to the taxpayer after they leave the parliament.

Some MSPs put in big claims for office equipment last year, but a parliament spokesman said that was part of a rolling programme of "IT refreshment".

Some were given the chance to change the computer equipment in their constituency offices this year, while others will be given the same opportunity next year.

Public to pick up 80,000 tab for members' restaurant

SCOTTISH taxpayers are being asked to pay up to 80,000 to subsidise a restaurant in which they are not allowed to eat.

The MSPs’ privately run restaurant in the new parliament building at Holyrood is making substantial losses and is in danger of going out of business.

But parliamentarians on the ruling Corporate Body have decided to extend the taxpayers’ subsidy for the restaurant, to keep it going and subsidise their fine dining.

Official figures have revealed that the restaurant ran up losses of more than 13,500 in the first two months of its operation.

The parliamentary authorities had originally set aside about 60,000 a year to subsidise the MSPs’ restaurant but they have now increased that provision to 80,000.

Meals are subsidised to such an extent that MSPs can enjoy a three-course lunch for little more than a fiver but business has been so poor that MSPs have been asked to fill out a questionnaire to find out why they are not using it.

There are more than 1,100 people working in the new parliament but only the 129 MSPs and their invited guests can use the restaurant, which contains the only bar in the complex.

Staff can use the restaurant on Mondays and Fridays when parliament is not sitting, but it has not proved popular to restrict them in such a way and very few bother using it.

A spokeswoman for the parliament confirmed yesterday that the subsidy was being extended but insisted business was picking up.

She said: "As is common practice with many large organisations, some financial support is required to ensure that catering can be provided for visitors and all those who work in the building. November’s figures show a marked improvement on the initially slow start to business."

The spokeswoman said MSPs had decided to relax the restrictions on the use of their bar but they wanted to keep the restaurant to themselves - a move which is unlikely to save the facility from more financial hardship.

She said that both the bar and the restaurant would be given a makeover to help make them more appealing.

The report to the Corporate Body warned that the subsidy would have to be increased from 60,000 to between 70,000 and 80,000.

The parliament spokeswoman said she expected the final subsidy to be between 60,000 and 70,000, rather than 70,000 and 80,000.

However, Donald Gorrie, a Liberal Democrat MSP, hit out at the Corporate Body’s stance.

He said the subsidy should be scrapped and the MSPs should pay the going rate for their food. "It’s nice to have a reasonable restaurant, but we have a reasonable salary so we should pay our own way," he said.

The number of lunches taken in the restaurant has fluctuated from 286 a week to just 114 and dinners from 108 to 39.

In the first eight weeks of the new parliament’s operation, the target of serving 240 lunches and 90 dinners was met only in week one.

Many MSPs prefer to eat in the main canteen with the rest of the staff. It is often crowded, but MSPs feel it has a better atmosphere than the restaurant which some have complained feels frosty and aloof.

It is understood that, in answer to the parliament’s questionnaire, MSPs complained that the food portions were too small and the restaurant not appealing enough.

Figures for the first two months show the restaurant required an extra subsidy of more than 6,000 beyond what had been budgeted for.