Wendy Alexander has said MSPs' support staffing should be boosted by at least half.
The Labour leader at Holyrood is one of several MSPs complaining that they are not funded to provide an adequate service to constituents.
As MSP for Paisley North, Ms Alexander wants to employ three staff instead of two, while she also wants a review of the support given to opposition party leaders.
Ms Alexander has been joined by several other MSPs responding to the current review of MSP expenses, saying they should be able to pay their support staff more generously, with progression as they become more experienced and with funds for training. It is suggested by many of them that they should have their pay and conditions set centrally while remaining the employees of individual MSPs.
Many of the MSPs have highlighted the more generous funding for Westminster MPs while claiming they have a much lower caseload from constituents, and that communications with constituents by MPs has 10 times more funding and is not at the expense of staff salaries.
Ms Alexander wrote in her submission: "On average, an MSPs' casework is likely to be much more significant than that of an MP. We are not resourced to deal with the level of casework required, nor are we able to reward our staff appropriately for the increasing volume or complexity of the work they undertake."
Her Labour colleague, Jackie Baillie, said her office staff are handling 60 cases each week, with her surgeries adding up to 40 extra cases each month, and MSPs receiving an average of 100 e-mails each day.
Labour's justice spokeswoman, Pauline McNeill, has complained the lack of staff means she has to write all her own speeches.
The review, chaired by Dundee University Principal Sir Alan Langlands, was set up by the parliament to address strong media and public criticism of the expenses system, and particularly the payment of mortgage interest payments for MSPs who buy property in Edinburgh to live in during their working week.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article