LABOUR’s plan to create a leader’s political office for Kezia Dugdale by clawing back £10,500 from each MSP’s staffing allowance appears to be in breach of parliamentary rules.

The money is intended to create a support network for Dugdale, including funding posts such as chief of staff, communications director and political director.

However, the staffing allowance – currently £85,000 a year for each MSP – can only be used for parliamentary purposes, principally in servicing constituency business, not for party political work.

Read more: Shadow Scottish Secretary warns against UK and Labour split

Staff are employed by MSPs individually and not by parties. And while it is permissible to pool staff between members this can only be for parliamentary business and purposes, and not political work. It is a breach of the rules to use employees to campaign, to further the aims of the party or to carry out political undertakings.

The party lost 13 of its MSPs in May – almost 40 per cent of the total – but in its worst election result in 100 years it is also estimated to have lost around £150,00 in income.

In the last Parliament, Labour were the official opposition. Their operation was paid for by what is known as Short money – the annual payment to opposition parties – a leaders’ allowance, party cash and £3,400 from every MSP out of their allowances.

Short money is calculated by the total number of MSPs a party has – £7,977 per member – and Labour’s has fallen by over £100,000 following the election. The money paid for the research and press activities of the leader and her group of MSPs.

Short money is named after Ted Short, Leader of the House, who introduced the payment scheme in the 1974-76 Harold WIlson government in order to “enable opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions”. It was not to be used for political purposes but to help fund administration costs.

Read money: Jeremy Corbyn ally accuses Kezia Dugdale of blanking his trip north of Border​

Labour’s catastrophic result which has led to the funding drop means the party now has to come up with new ways of bridging the gap. A Labour spokesman confirmed that the plan was to triple the amount MSPs contribute from their allowance, to £10,500 each, and that the money “comes from MSP staffing budgets”.

He added that it was to “support the work of the parliamentary Labour group – policy development and

research, group business within the Parliament and so forth”. A central pool of staff will work for the group, he said, confirming that other parties have similar arrangements.

The Reimbursement of Members’ Expenses Scheme makes clear what is and what is not permissible.

Under the heading “Integrity” it says: “A member shall not submit a claim which relates to party political activity and a member shall not enter into any arrangement which could give rise to a benefit to a party political organisation”.

A Scottish Parliament spokesman added: “The Scottish Parliament’s expenses scheme includes provision for staff to be employed through a group pool in order to support MSPs in carrying out their parliamentary duties. The expenses scheme is founded on the principle that parliamentary resources can only be used for parliamentary purposes.”

The staffing budget for each MSP in the new Parliament, at £85,000 a year, is up from £62,000. Members alsoreceive an allowance for office costs of more than £17,000, but this is reduced if members share offices, as is likely to happen in Glasgow with the four list MSPs in office setting up in Kinning Park in facilities provided through Anas Sarwar.

Read more: Steven Purcell: I will decide today on a Labour comeback

The Parliament expenses scheme is overseen by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, the SPCB, made up of five MSPs and the Presiding Officer Ken Macintosh. The Parliament spokesman pointed out that “all expenses claims must be supported by receipts and/or supporting documentation before the Parliament will reimburse a Member.”

There is no independent body for administering the scheme, as there is in the Westminster Parliament where IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, regulates and passes MPs’ business costs and expenses. IPSA was set up in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal.

An arrangement where part of an MP’s allowance was diverted to subsidise the national party would clearly not be sanctioned.

The Scottish Parliament audits MSPs and also publishes an annual report as well as regularly detailing MSPs expense claims.