Equal Opportunities Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 2, 2006

Official Report 338KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Equality Framework

Item 2 is on the Scottish Parliament's equality framework. We are looking forward to hearing about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's equal opportunities report for 2005. I am pleased to welcome John Scott; Rosemary Everett, head of visitor and outreach services; Ian Macnicol, head of personnel; and Aneela McKenna, the Parliament's equalities manager. I extend a particularly warm welcome to Aneela, as this is her first visit to the committee.

We have a lot of material to get through this morning, so I will go straight to questions. I remind my colleagues to keep their questions short and I ask the panel to give us short answers—we would appreciate that.

Will you tell us more about the training that is provided to procurement staff on assessing suppliers' commitment to equal opportunities? How was the training developed and what did it include?

Thank you for inviting me here to give evidence on behalf of the corporate body. I echo your welcome to Aneela McKenna.

In the past year we have developed responsible purchasing procedures to ensure that equality issues are built into all contracting and procurement throughout the organisation. Equality considerations are included throughout various stages of the procurement process, which I regard as an excellent example of how we are embedding equality into the main activities of the Parliament. Aneela McKenna will give you further information on that.

To date, there has been no specific monitoring of the accessibility of committee meetings. However, for our annual report we ask each of our directorates to report on how it is considering equality issues. You can see good examples of that in the annual report.

In 2005 we delivered training to staff and contract managers covering how and at what stage to introduce responsible purchasing issues in the tendering process. The training included discussion of specific questions that could be asked of suppliers to assess their commitment to responsible purchasing, including equal opportunities.

How is that monitored to see whether it is working?

We have not monitored training, but we will be discussing it with the procurement office in the near future. I am new to the post. I could provide you with further information in writing. We will be considering how equality issues are included in the training for responsible purchasing.

The committee would like to be kept up to date with such monitoring.

Could we have a copy of the sorts of questions that people in procurement are being asked to ask their suppliers?

Yes.

It would be useful to have that information.

We can certainly provide it.

The committee notes the language training opportunities that are available to staff. Will that provision be continued?

It will. The provision is very much on-going. Members will be pleased to hear that we are providing training in British Sign Language. Is that the issue on which you are seeking an answer?

I was going to ask about it.

It is part of our training strategy to encourage staff to sign up for language training, if in their current post they would benefit from an understanding of another language. A number of staff have benefited from BSL classes: 13 staff attended courses at various levels in 2005. Under the current language policy, which includes BSL, BSL training continues to be offered to staff. Typically, that training is delivered at four levels, from beginner to advanced. It is beneficial to staff who come into contact with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who use BSL in their area of work.

Could you say more about that? There is good uptake of BSL training at beginner level. How does the SPCB assist staff members to maintain and develop their skills once they have shown initial interest?

We constantly review our policies and will shortly consider how best to maximise language training to support the equalities agenda in the Parliament. That will include the future provision of BSL training. Recently, we developed training for our public-facing staff to ensure that we communicate effectively with visitors who have different types of impairment, including those who are deaf and hard of hearing. We recognise the need to provide disabled people—whether they are members of the public, visitors, staff or MSPs—with equal opportunities from the moment they enter the building, so that they are treated equally and are able to access our services and provision in the same way as non-disabled people.

The committee notes that one of the action points for 2006 is the provision of disability awareness training for all front-line staff. Having commissioned research on that issue, the committee is interested in how the training has been developed. For example, has it been developed in conjunction with disabled people?

Absolutely. I am pleased to report that it has been arranged that disability awareness training will take place during May and June. As I said earlier, our target group will consist mainly of all public-facing staff, which includes all visitor services staff, all security staff and some Sodexho staff. The training is available to all other SPCB staff. I can say a little more about that, if members wish. The training will cover aspects of disability etiquette, communicating effectively with disabled people, accessibility to our services, the physical environment and access to public information. We have identified those themes from feedback that has been received from users of the Parliament. The aim is to ensure that the staff who are the first point of contact for many visitors treat disabled people equally and without discrimination. Aneela McKenna can provide the committee with more detail.

The training that we are providing will be mandatory for all public-facing posts. Recently, we ran a pilot session with the involvement of many service staff across the organisation. The training deals with many practical issues that relate to how we interact with disabled people and with accessibility issues. It also focuses on the social model of disability, which is concerned not with people's impairment but with the barriers that society creates for them.

Disabled members of the public were not involved in developing the training, but it was developed in conjunction with our disabled trainers. Both of our training presenters are disabled and will be able to bring their experiences of disability discrimination to the training. Once the training is complete, we will ensure that we visit team meetings to discuss its impact and to examine whether there has been any change to our practice at an individual and an operational level.

Are you talking about front-line staff?

Yes.

Do you have plans for other members of staff?

The training is open to all members of staff in the organisation, but we have targeted those who are public facing, because they are the first point of contact for disabled people who come to the Parliament.

Four levels of training have been mentioned. How long does it take for somebody to reach competence?

The four levels are for British Sign Language training; the disability awareness training is two sessions of an hour and a half, so it takes three hours.

That is what I meant.

There is an hour and a half on disability etiquette and an hour and a half on accessibility.

How long does it take people to reach competence in BSL?

The BSL training is a much longer programme, with four levels, from beginner to advanced. I am not entirely sure how long the programme takes, but it is approximately 10 to 12 weeks.

I refer the witnesses to the evidence that the committee took last week on disability equality training. Aneela McKenna talked about awareness training and etiquette training, which were covered in last week's informative and helpful evidence session. The point was made last week that the length of training that is required depends on the person's needs at the beginning of the training, so asking how much training is needed is like asking how long is a piece of string.

In oral evidence last year, the committee heard about the successful pilot of BSL interpretation at First Minister's question time. The equal opportunities report notes that the SPCB is reconsidering how it will provide that service. What is the current situation with that provision?

You will recall that in 2004 there was a four-week pilot to consider the routine use of BSL interpreters for FMQs. The SPCB considered the use of BSL interpreters in September 2005 and decided not to provide the service routinely, largely because it would be a drain on what is an already stretched public resource. As members will be aware, there are only 40 fully qualified BSL interpreters in Scotland. Instead, we decided to continue with the current service of providing BSL interpreters automatically for debates or committee meetings that relate to deaf issues and on demand for other debates. In the past year, that system has worked well—we have received approximately 16 requests from various offices for different events and meetings.

We have agreed that we should investigate further whether technological solutions could provide the service or a similar one and whether that would be beneficial. Work is being done to advertise the current service more proactively. The service will be reviewed as part of the work that is under way to meet the new disability equality duties. Aneela McKenna will say a bit more about that, if members want. The SPCB considered the service, and although it was our desire to find a technological solution because of the shortage of BSL interpreters, we found that the technology did not yet exist. However, we are told that it is not far away from being ready. That was our best advice at the time.

In our work on the disability equality scheme we will review all our current policies and procedures to determine how far we have progressed in promoting disability equality. As part of that, we will reconsider the provision of BSL interpreters for First Minister's question time. However, as John Scott said, there are few professionally trained BSL interpreters in Scotland, which might prove to be a difficulty should we reconsider our earlier decision and decide to arrange regular BSL interpretation. There is no guarantee that interpreters will be routinely available for every question time.

Would the fact that interpreters were visible at First Minister's question time encourage other people to learn BSL?

That is an interesting idea. If that could be proved, the corporate body would be happy to consider it. At the moment, we have to decide whether it is more important for a BSL interpreter to be available to accompany someone to a hospital or doctor's appointment or to be at First Minister's question time. Both are important but, given that only 40 interpreters are available in Scotland, they are a scarce resource that is not to be squandered.

There is a dearth of BSL interpreters. I attended a meeting in Glasgow a couple of months ago where I asked questions about the new technology that has been introduced. A six-month pilot scheme was undertaken in London whereby interpreters were video recorded, so that even people up in the islands who needed interpretation could have it. I could look out the organisation that did that and pass that information on to the corporate body.

The corporate body is monitoring such developments, but we would welcome any information that you could provide.

The process was piloted in England for six months. I do not know how it would work here, but I would be happy to pass on the information.

There is also a good project in my constituency, which runs a similar programme.

Aneela McKenna would welcome any information that you could provide on that.

The committee notes that various measures have been employed to make the Parliament more accessible, both to those who participate in parliamentary business and to those who visit the Parliament. What feedback are you getting on the accessibility of the Holyrood building, following the changes that have been made?

Several new mechanisms have been introduced that help us to evaluate our services and the accessibility of the building more effectively. Most of the feedback that we have received has been positive, but some access issues have been highlighted. Although most of them had already been identified, the responses we received have been extremely useful in helping us to identify areas in which we need to improve. That has led to some access improvements being made within the past year. This is Rosemary Everett's field of expertise, so she will give you more detail.

The main improvement that we have made in the past year is the formal questionnaire for visitors that we have placed in the main hall and in other areas of the building since September. It allows us routinely to gather mainly quantitative and qualitative information, although there is a free comments box on the questionnaire that captures people's views on the accessibility of the building.

As John Scott said, it is encouraging that we are receiving repeat comments on issues that we have identified, and we are working with the equalities team to address them. We are also picking up new issues and specific instances—whether from visits or from events—and addressing them as they come up. The visitor services review for the SPCB, which was completed in October, made use of a separate questionnaire. We will learn from it and from the questionnaire that we have put out. As part of implementing the visitor services review, we will enhance the public questionnaire to gather more information on equal opportunities issues to improve our monitoring of them.

We will also continue with some of the other formal mechanisms with which members might be familiar. One of those is the facilities management dashboard, which picks up on a lot of issues relating to the services that we provide in the building, such as cleanliness. We are also beginning to analyse the uptake of the public information leaflets that we have in the main hall, so that we can monitor how well the formats that we provide are being used, the languages of the leaflets that are most picked up, and so on.

I presume that the same mechanisms are used to monitor the accessibility of events that are held at the Parliament.

Yes. In January, we introduced a formal evaluation form, so each event is now being monitored through feedback from the external event host and the internal sponsor, who is usually an MSP, which gives us views from two sides. We receive an awful lot of verbal feedback on events from people on the night. We are picking up on a lot of the issues with the equalities team and, with the events management team, we are dealing with them as we can.

We need to approach this area with humility. We are not an events management organisation, but events management is becoming more of a requirement in the Parliament. We are learning as we go, but we are doing so positively. I am very content that Rosemary Everett and her team are doing everything they can to address foreseen issues and issues as they arise.

A specific question about the main public area has been brought to my attention. Have you had any feedback from people with breathing difficulties? When one particular group visited the Parliament, there was a perception that it was difficult to catch one's breath in the public entrance hall.

Was that the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease people? I attended the function on COPD, but I was not aware of any such difficulty. Were you aware of it, Rosemary?

No, I do not think that that has been formally captured as a piece of feedback. However, we would be happy to receive more information on that.

We would welcome Marlyn Glen giving further input to Rosemary Everett. It would be useful if you could provide some specifics, Marlyn.

When I was taking a visitor round recently, I was really surprised when I located the garden-level meeting room in which she could breastfeed her baby. It looked like it had been used as a coffee room or something; it was an absolute shambles. We could not find a room in which the baby could be breastfed, and she ended up being breastfed in my office with the blinds down. I was really surprised and disappointed by that.

I am surprised by that too. Thank you for drawing that to our attention. I was not aware of it and—I dare say, from the look on her face—Rosemary Everett was not aware of it either.

Two rooms are set aside for nursing mothers. One is a fairly discreet room adjacent to the crèche, and it should always be available. The second room has been used as a meeting room and a temporary office, but—

It is a mess.

I believe that plans are now in place to convert the room back to its original, intended purpose. It will become the second nursing mother room.

The other room was not available, and the room that we tried was a mess. However, that is good news.

Are there mechanisms for recording comments made by visitors to security staff, for example? Is there a way of capturing that informal feedback in addition to the formal mechanisms?

The security staff are very good at forwarding the comments that they receive, either verbally to us at the visitor services desk in the main hall or by e-mail. For evening events in particular, we find e-mails the next morning that capture what went on. Security staff are represented on the events management team, which meets every Friday, and we tend to go over what has happened with events at those meetings. As far as visitor services is concerned, there is more of a daily discussion about what is going on.

That is good.

Ian Macnicol has pointed out to me that it is open to members to log complaints with the helpdesk should situations arise at events. If members are aware that people have found themselves in difficulty, we would naturally welcome their input.

Do you have evidence on whether committee meetings that are held outwith the Parliament are accessible?

We do. A lot of good work has been done across offices over the past year to check for accessibility when arranging meetings or events. The annual report, of which the committee has a copy, highlights some of the examples of good practice with external committee meetings in particular. The committee best practice manual, which is used by the committee clerks, provides detailed information on accessibility and on issues that need to be considered when arranging internal and external meetings. Committee clerks are expected to follow the guidance to ensure that committee meetings are inclusive and fully accessible. Aneela McKenna has more information on that.

To date, there has been no specific monitoring of the accessibility of external committee meetings, but we ask each director to record in the annual report how equalities issues are considered. Some good examples are highlighted with regard to external committee meetings. We hope to improve on the situation when we introduce our impact assessment process in the next year. The Parliament will be able to use that tool at the outset to check for adverse impacts when a policy is being devised, an event is being planned or a practice is being developed. We will check whether that is working by collecting all the impact assessment reports. We are required to do that by legislation, particularly the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and we must publish the information that we gather. That information will enable the situation to be monitored.

Last week, the committee discussed the use of mystery shoppers to evaluate accessible provision. Has that idea been taken forward?

It has not. We have not implemented the mystery shopper programme because we are confident that the feedback mechanisms that are in place are working and we do not believe that it is needed. In that regard, we have taken a number of positive steps towards improving our review and feedback processes. A wide range of mechanisms has been developed across various functions, including visitor services, events, the committee office and the education service, and we have paid attention to the correspondence that we have received from members of the public and organisations.

As you will be aware, Nora, our recent review of visitor services and events gives us an opportunity to examine further the systems that are in place and to determine the extent to which they address equality issues. Rosemary Everett and Aneela McKenna might want to talk a little bit more about that.

We will be required actively to involve disabled people in the development of the disabilities equality scheme, which is one of our key areas of work in the next six months. That will provide an additional excellent opportunity for direct input from disabled people to help us review and develop our policies and practices.

So we are using real shoppers, not mystery ones.

Indeed.

You said that you were confident about the feedback mechanisms. However, feedback from the guided tours shows that certain issues, particularly those relating to recorded audio tours, are not being addressed. Your report says that you will not have a remedy in place until, perhaps, 2007. Why did front-of-house work take priority over that issue, considering that it was flagged up as a problem in 2004?

I should perhaps apologise to the committee in that regard. In the past year, pressure of work that has been created by the visitor services and events review has meant that specific work on making the tours more accessible, in terms of the equalities issues that you raise, has still to be done. That work will form part of the action plan as part of the visitor services and events review. That is a huge piece of work that is being done at the moment. The equalities team will ensure that equalities issues are taken on board during that work and injected into that plan. The accessibility of the tours will certainly be considered in that regard, particularly with regard to the audio issues that you raise.

Some improvements have been made this year. However, given that we have a small and compact team—it is made up of Mairi Pearson and Aneela McKenna—I have to say that, having only recently been given this brief, I am absolutely amazed at how much has been achieved in what seems to me to be a relatively short space of time. We will get there; I apologise for the fact that we are not there yet.

Can you give us a timescale? Rosemary Everett has spoken about the materials that will be used and the fact that the information will be presented in various styles. However, the feedback emphasised the issue of recorded audio tours. Why was that issue not incorporated into your examination of front-line services?

The timescale for the introduction of an audio tour is fairly flexible. I am sure that you are aware that the standard guided tours have been running since October 2004 and, in the shorter term, we aim to improve their accessibility to deaf or hard-of-hearing people by looking at portable induction loops that can be introduced to go around with the guide.

One of the challenges that we face in managing visitors within the building lies in identifying what added value an audio tour would bring to the visitor experience and what we would be trying to achieve by its introduction. Developing and introducing an audio tour, and purchasing the equipment, would be fairly costly, so the SPCB would have to be satisfied that such a tour would be the right visitor management solution for us. An alternative would be to continue to offer personal tours that are led by a guide and to improve their accessibility.

Obviously you have to answer to the Parliament for the money that you spend, which will be documented. However, the feedback that the SPCB received showed that the tours are one of the areas in which people who are hard of hearing are not getting a service. You say that something might be implemented in 2007. Is there a timescale for that?

It might be better if we were to write to the committee with a considered response rather than giving an off-the-cuff answer that would not be adequately researched. We will come back to you on that.

Thank you.

The Parliament's crèche has been the subject of debate among MSPs who have kids and others. We note that pass holders as well as visitors can now use the crèche, and that that pilot scheme will run for six months. What is the background to that decision? What assurances can you give us about the future of the crèche? When the Parliament first opened, the provision of a crèche for workers, MSPs and visitors was an excellent and forward-thinking exercise. I would like to have a wee bit of background knowledge and some assurance for the future, because I would hate anything to happen to the crèche.

You are in luck; I have the background report with me. In 2005, the SPCB set up an advisory group to consider options for maximising the opportunities that were offered by the Parliament's public crèche facility. Indeed, Nora Radcliffe chairs that advisory group; she probably knows more about it than anyone.

In an interim report to the SPCB in February, the advisory group proposed that use of the crèche should be extended to all pass holders on a trial, paid-for basis. Although pass holders have always been able to use the crèche in an emergency, the trial extends that provision while ensuring that there is adequate provision for visitors and maximising the use of the crèche facility.

The SPCB agreed the proposal and take-up by pass holders will be evaluated during and after the six-month period. The information will be used to inform the group's report to the SPCB in October 2006.

On the future of the crèche, the SPCB continues to consider all options for maximising the opportunities that it offers.

Use of the crèche increased last year. You say that you will report in October on the six-month trial. Has the crèche been advertised more than it was previously? As I said, I think that it is an excellent facility and I would not like to lose it, even if we have to consider SPCB money and that type of thing. Can you give me any information about how the service has been advertised more during the pilot than it was before so that maximum use can be made of it?

I cannot give you any specific information about how much more the crèche has been advertised, but I am certainly aware that it has been advertised more than it was.

Whenever the SPCB discusses the crèche—which seems to happen on a not-irregular basis—people say that they do not know about it. We are constantly trying to find ways of advertising it. When committee papers are issued and witnesses are invited to attend committees, to the best of my knowledge information is included about the availability of the crèche facility.

Others may differ, but I take the view that coming to the Parliament, whether to give evidence or as a visitor, is often a special event for people, which is why many of them make their own arrangements and leave their children at home. That said, we are determined to keep on the crèche, but it is still under discussion and evaluation. The question is the best way to proceed. The report and the review will be concluded by October 2006 and we will come to a view on the crèche thereafter.

Is the availability of the crèche advertised on the Parliament's website? Do you have any sneak figures to show whether the numbers have increased?

Rosemary Everett might be better informed in that regard.

Any sneak figures, Rosemary?

I do not know whether I have got sneak figures, but the crèche is definitely on the website. We have increased the amount of information in the marketing leaflet that we issue to community and other information outlets throughout Scotland. We have done the same with the public information leaflets that people can pick up here. The visitor services team has been briefed to ask whether visiting families wish to use the crèche. The most noticeable increase in numbers using the crèche was around doors open day in September last year, which was the first time that the facility had been open to the public on a Saturday. Numbers increased dramatically as a result of a specific advertising initiative and figures are gradually climbing. It is too soon into the pass holder pilot scheme for us to be able to tell what the effect of that will be, but we hope that it will generate more usage.

The committee welcomes the move by the personnel office to sponsor a black and ethnic minority job fair last year. What other work is planned to promote the Parliament as an inclusive employer?

In conjunction with the equalities team, the personnel office is well aware of the need to be proactive in the recruitment of staff from underrepresented groups, mainly from black and minority ethnic communities. Ian Macnicol is our expert in that area and will provide examples of the further work that we plan to undertake.

We take that issue very seriously. The main way in which we ensure that we reach black and ethnic minority potential employees is through the use of our equalities distribution list, which we have expanded over the past year. It comprises organisations such as all the racial equality councils in Scotland, Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre in Glasgow, Skillnet Edinburgh, Lothian Employers Network on Disability, Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association and the Jobcentre Plus disability services team. We send all our vacancies out to those organisations. This year, like last year, we are sponsoring the annual black and ethnic minority job fair, which is run by Trust Housing Association. We are participating in this year's event in June. We are forging an active relationship with Trust Housing Association in its new venture, equalityscotland.com, and we have added the THA to our distribution list. We are also forging an active relationship with Jobcentre Plus's employer management team, with the specific aim of increasing engagement with minority groups and communities.

Last year, we implemented revised recruitment and selection training for people who will potentially appear on selection panels. Equalities issues are mainstreamed throughout the course, so it is not just a case of us dipping in and saying, "Remember about such and such." The course has been structured to ensure that we see beyond what is presented and try to see the person behind it on the range of equalities issues.

Thank you for that detailed answer. The committee notes that the recruitment procedures review was deferred to this year. Can we be assured that that work will not be subject to further delays? What is the current timescale for the review?

You are right in saying that the formal review has been deferred, but the process has been kept under continuous review. The purpose of the review is to consider the effectiveness of the Parliament's recruitment process in delivering the right staff to meet the organisation's business needs rather than to consider matters from an equalities perspective, although equalities issues and inputs are integral to the review. Perhaps Ian Macnicol can give more details about the improvements that have been made in that regard in the past two years.

I reiterate what John Scott has said. Our recruitment procedures are not broke—we have an effective method of bringing people across the threshold. However, the review's purpose was to look beyond the horizon. Should we use different techniques, for example? Should we use assessment centres, questionnaires and so on? The review's purpose was not to consider equalities specifically because we think that we have that aspect more or less nailed.

We have made improvements as we have proceeded. The improvements that have been implemented in the past two years include the application of best practice on filling vacancies at the outset, which the Disability Rights Commission has produced; a more rigorous approach to specifying the requirements for jobs, which focuses on relevant skills and experience rather than relevant qualifications; revised training for those who are involved in recruitment, which I mentioned; and changes to our pre-employment inquiry process to avoid discrimination when identity checks are being done. In addition, we will soon use a new application form and entirely revise our guidance and information for applicants and those who are involved in the selection process. My recruitment manager, Dominic Johnston, will work with Aneela McKenna with a view to ensuring that we make any further changes that we need to make in anticipation of the discrimination legislation that is being introduced so that we know that we are on top of things.

The committee has noted the positive measures that the SPCB is undertaking as part of the work-life balance policy and the adjustments for staff. What measures are in place to assess how those schemes are working? Can the SPCB do anything more to provide an accessible environment for its staff?

The work-life balance range of policies that the corporate body has introduced has been well received by staff in the past year, and several requests have been supported. Many details about those policies are included in the report, but Ian Macnicol will go into more detail on them.

John Scott has anticipated my response. Rather than going through all the detailed information in the report, I will be brief.

In the past 12 months, we have received five applications for career breaks, all of which have been supported. There have been three applications for reduced-hours working, all of which have been approved; formal applications have also been made for part-time working, job-sharing, compressed-hours working and working from home. In addition, managers of business areas regularly approve ad hoc, informal arrangements, which never come anywhere near my office. A person might simply want a different pattern of work, which is agreed to informally. That is happening throughout the Parliament.

We try desperately hard to agree to different work patterns and to support staff when their needs change. If an unusual request is made, my modus operandi or first reaction in the personnel office should be to ask, "How can we make this work?" We try to strike a balance between what we can do for a worker and what the business needs. Occasionally, business needs must prevail, of course, but we are able to say yes to by far the majority of requests.

Mr McGrigor asked how we measure how our schemes are working. We have conducted one staff satisfaction survey; the plan is to conduct another survey after two years. In that survey, we received excellent feedback on the satisfaction of staff with the SPCB as an employer. I think that 91 per cent said that they are proud to work for the corporate body and for the Parliament—I was going to say not to quote me on that figure, but I know that I will be quoted; I will check it—and more than 80 per cent of people said that they would recommend the Parliament as an employer. That is one way of measuring whether we are getting things right. Anecdotally, people come up to me and tell me that the terms and conditions for staff are marvellous and talk about our flexibility when employees' circumstances change.

In addition, we have a policy of conducting exit interviews when people leave. We do not report on that, but my staff go through a fairly sophisticated process to check out whether people are leaving for the right reasons, and we do not have any sense that people are leaving because we are unable to support their work-life balance.

I must just correct Ian Macnicol. In fact, more than 90 per cent of staff recommend the Parliament as a good employer.

I am so modest that I did not want to boast.

The committee has noticed that the second equal opportunities staff audit will be published shortly. What are the key findings from that audit?

As Ian Macnicol and Aneela McKenna have said, more than 90 per cent of staff—a total of 472 members of staff—completed the questionnaire, which helps to give us a comprehensive picture of how well we are doing. The vast majority of findings from the report were positive, with more than 90 per cent of the 90 per cent who responded saying that they would recommend the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body as an employer, and 80.3 per cent saying that the SPCB is doing all that it can to implement equal opportunities. The staff, the Parliament and those who have been managing the process are to be congratulated.

Obviously, there are some issues that we need to address further. Aneela McKenna will give you some more details about how we will do that; I have raised with her recently one issue in particular that has concerned me. The report stated that 17.2 per cent of respondents said that they had not received sufficient training—that was an increase on the figure from the 2003 audit, when the figure was only 10 per cent—and although that is not an equalities issue, it needs to be addressed. If one in six of our staff—or something approaching that figure—feel that they are not sufficiently trained, something needs to be done about it, although that is not a point for discussion today.

Aneela McKenna will give you more information on the audit.

As John Scott says, there are no major concerns, but we have picked up some areas in which further development is needed. One of the areas that were highlighted was to do with harassment and bullying, and although there has been a further reduction in the number of staff who said that they felt that they had been bullied and harassed—down from 13.2 per cent to 10.6 per cent, which is good—we must still take proactive steps to ensure that we are preventing harassment and bullying in the workplace. In conjunction with the personnel office, we have agreed to examine some areas that we can develop and to work on guidance for staff, particularly managers, in that area. We are also considering training for managers and we will be reviewing the dignity at work policy and developing the role and remit of the dignity at work contacts.

There has been a fall in the number of staff who felt that their career progression was affected by their particular characteristics. That is the term that is used in the report to highlight those groups who may suffer more discrimination than others because of their race, disability, age, gender or sexual orientation. There has been a slight change in the age profile of staff in the organisation, and there are now no staff under the age of 20. That may be a natural consequence of the aging workforce, with staff remaining and progressing in the organisation, but we take that issue seriously and we will consider a modern apprenticeship programme to encourage more school leavers to join the organisation. We will also examine our recruitment and selection procedures, particularly the person and job specifications, to check whether there is any discrimination against younger people.

John Scott referred to the question on sufficient training. The personnel office is picking up on that through the learning and development strategy that it is developing.

I have a follow-up question about dignity at work. It is important that the Parliament sets an example to other employers. The aim is to ensure that no one feels harassed or bullied, but perhaps it is too idealistic to expect that 0 per cent of employees will experience harassment or bullying. Do you have a comparative, average figure for other employers?

For the percentage of employees who experience harassment and bullying?

Yes.

The figure for my previous employer was 25 per cent, which would be an approximate average for other organisations. The 10 per cent figure in the Parliament is not that bad. Bullying and harassment exist in hierarchical organisations, but even though the figure is lower than the average for other organisations, we cannot ignore it.

Did you manage to evaluate the dignity at work programme?

The dignity at work contacts or the programme?

I know that it was your intention to evaluate the dignity at work network as part of your audit.

The network is what we regard as the contacts. The contacts were set up on the basis of the findings of the 2003 audit to provide support and information to other members of staff who feel that they have been harassed or bullied or who have experienced discrimination. In the 2005 equality audit, we asked staff about the dignity at work contacts, to assess whether the service that they provide has been effective. We have received a generally positive response about the service, although only 3.5 per cent of the staff said that they had used it. That is, of course, encouraging. It could be interpreted as meaning that staff do not have issues in relation to their work life that they need to take to a dignity at work contact. However, we are not complacent because the low level of feedback could be a result of lack of awareness of the contacts. To ensure that we fulfil our role as a caring employer, we propose to undertake further publicity and promotion of the dignity at work network. Aneela McKenna has more details on that.

In evaluating the network, we work closely with the dignity at work contacts and investigating officers to find out how people use the service and what training the contacts need to support them. I met the contacts and investigating officers for the first time last week and we discussed their development and how staff could be made more aware of the network.

The contact feedback forms that we receive from the dignity at work contacts show that approximately 30 staff have either phoned or met a dignity at work contact.

We will ensure that staff are aware of the support that is available to them. We will produce a lot of publicity and undertake promotion of the network in the coming year. We will also provide refresher training to the dignity at work contacts, who have been performing the role for two years now, to help them in situations in which they might have to deal with an alleged harasser.

We will also review the current procedures for investigation in the organisation to see how they are working.

The report highlights that the implementation of recommendations from the equal pay audit is still on-going. What is the timescale for the completion of the exercise?

We have implemented most of the recommendations resulting from the audit, as you will be aware. Ian Macnicol will outline the remaining timescales.

Most of the information is set out in the report. We have either met, or are in the process of meeting, all the major recommendations. Members will remember that we were assessed against a number of tests and that a red, amber or green tag was given on each one. We did not get any reds and we got only one amber, so we got mostly greens.

The only amber tag was on our pay supplements and allowances, so we are focusing our attention on that issue. We are working closely with our trade union side colleagues on the bespoke pay benchmarking exercise that is taking place. I expect the exercise to be completed by the time that we settle our pay deal for the coming year, which starts in August. That should be done by 1 August, although the timeframe may slip a little. Our grading arrangements are based on internal relativities, but when we are out of kilter with an external relativity we can give a pay supplement. Those supplements are also under review. That was the main area of contention and we are sorting the matter out.

Only three recommendations were not delivered upon at all. One was a simple one relating to gender balance in the performance achieved under the performance appraisal arrangements. We were going to get Towers Perrin, who did the original exercise, to reproduce the test using our next set of appraisal reports. That was not done, but I have asked for it to be done. An assumption was made that we should not have such a report done because we had done the work ourselves, but in the two years since the review was done there has been no bias in the allocation of exceptional markings. In fact, there are more men than women in the organisation but more women than men are getting exceptional markings, so if there is any bias it may well be in favour of women. However, the difference in the figures is so small that we think it is probably statistically insignificant. We are addressing the matter, but not by the means that were indicated in the report.

Another recommendation that was not delivered concerned the planned review of recruitment, which has been deferred. One of the tests was that we should have regard to the gender balance in an office when we decide whether to fill a post internally or externally. We were going to combine the issue with the recruitment review, but clearly we can take the matter into account as we go. There are very few offices in which there is a distinct gender imbalance. We would certainly be able to take that into account in the recruitment process. The suggestion in the report is that we should opt for external recruitment for offices in which there is a gender imbalance, because there is more chance of addressing the gender imbalance by going to the external market, whereas if we use the internal market we might compound the issue. However, we can address the matter without a recruitment review so the fact that we have not had one is not a big deal.

The other recommendation on which we have not delivered concerned the development of a set of annual statistics for directors, focused on gender distribution. Bearing in mind that we did not get any ambers or reds on the issue, that was not seen as a big deal. We are conducting a more fundamental look at the way in which we deliver management information and we have lumped the issue in with that. However, that review will take longer to deliver. We have not delivered on those three matters, but we are taking steps to address them.

We would like to be kept up to date with progress.

Okay.

The SPCB has published its revised race equality scheme. What measures did it take to update the scheme and how did it monitor progress against the original action plan?

The race equality scheme has recently been reviewed to identify what has been achieved in the past three years. Aneela McKenna is new to the post of equalities manager and one of her key jobs will be to review the race equality scheme and ascertain how well we are meeting the general and specific duties of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Aneela has more information on the matter.

Although there has been a review of what we have achieved under the scheme, there is a need for a further review to establish how well black and ethnic minority staff, visitors and organisations think we are doing. That will be our next step in the development of the scheme and it is one of the key matters that I am considering.

What preparations are being made for the implementation of the disability equality duty and the gender equality duty? For example, how will the SPCB consult disabled people on its disability equality scheme?

A paper was recently provided to the senior management team on the new disability equality duty. We recognise that legislative changes will require us to promote disability equality proactively, mainly in how we undertake our day-to-day business. Plans are under way to develop the scheme and an action plan has been put in place to help us to prepare for the new duty's requirements. The equalities team will lead on that and the involvement of almost all offices throughout the organisation will be expected.

I can talk about the consultation with disabled people, which is an exciting project that will take place in the next six months. Close involvement with disabled people will very much be part of developing the scheme. We intend to do that in as many ways as possible and we will try to be as creative as possible in how we get people to work with us.

There are several options. We are considering information technology options such as web questionnaires and an online forum. Mairi Pearson and I will speak to as many disabled people's organisations as possible and will visit organisations to talk about different impairments. We will also work with disabled staff in the organisation. We will certainly be keen to tap into the groups with which the committee has been involved for its disability inquiry. That would be useful for us in obtaining feedback. Lots will happen in the next few months on which we will be able to report to the committee later.

How is the SPCB preparing for the implementation of the age discrimination legislation? Does the organisation face any particular challenges?

Aneela McKenna will talk about the challenges. Suffice to say that we have started to make some progress in relation to the age discrimination legislation. The personnel office and the equalities team are working closely to ensure that we meet all the requirements. Aneela will fill you in on the detail.

Equalities legislation always presents new challenges. One of the main issues for us is ensuring that young people are better represented in the organisation. We must ensure that our equalities framework and our personnel policies comply with the legislation. We must also ensure that staff understand their new responsibilities under the legislation, particularly in relation to how we communicate and behave with one another—for example, in the jokes that we make about old and young people and in the birthday cards that we send. Such behaviour can offend people, so adhering to the legislation is also very much a communication exercise for staff.

You mentioned encouraging young people, which is right, but I want to ask whether the retirement age for Scottish Parliament staff has been raised. Is it not the case that people who are aged even about 58 cannot obtain a job in the Parliament, because the retirement age is 60? Have you addressed that in preparing for the age discrimination legislation?

When we started, the normal retirement age for staff was 60. When we put the equality framework in place, the corporate body decided to raise that age to 65. That meant that people could retire at 60 but would not be required to retire until 65. We made that change before the age discrimination legislation was on the horizon.

We do not tend to sift out people by reason of age. A person would probably have to be 63 before we might sift them out under the current arrangements. When the retirement age was 60, the relevant age was 58; the relevant age is now 63. We would still appoint someone who was in their 60s. However, as Aneela McKenna has said, we are to consider that with a view to ensuring that our position is cast iron by the time that the legislation is in force.

Another way in which we have anticipated the legislation is that this year's review of our staff handbook was done with a view to the changes that we expect to come when the age discrimination legislation hits the statute book. We have changed the staff handbook sufficiently so that, when it comes to the bit, we will not have to make too many changes. We are good at getting matters right in relation to the end of people's careers. However, like Aneela McKenna, I think that perhaps we do not do enough at the early stages. We perhaps expect too much of people who come across the threshold. We could probably do more to bring in young people and give them skills, rather than requiring the skills up front.

A balance will need to be struck on that, as there are conflicting priorities—those of the young and the old. We are well aware of the problems but, as Ian Macnicol said, we have them in hand.

To clarify, are SPCB staff obliged to retire at 65, or is that just the normal retirement age?

At the moment, we expect staff to retire at 65, unless they ask to stay on beyond that. The normal retirement age is 65. When people are 64, we give them notice that they will retire when they are 65, although we tell them that they can apply to stay beyond that. Even at the normal retirement age, we do not chuck people out the door. If people genuinely want to stay on, they can make a case for that. That approach will continue.

Will there be a limit on the extension of working life?

I do not think so. I expect that, under the legislation, we will have to be able to justify objectively why somebody is staying or going. I believe that we need a retirement age, so that everybody knows what they are aiming for. However, if someone feels able to work and we think that they can do so, based on objective criteria, such as performance assessment, attendance and conduct, there is no reason why they should not stay on in employment, as long as they want to and we can provide a job.

We have dealt with the retirement issue, but I want to know about recruitment. Until a couple of years ago, a person would not have been recruited in the Scottish Parliament if they were over 50 or 55. The policy was ambiguous, but people would not have been recruited.

I think that Ian Macnicol has answered that.

Yes, I have.

Sorry.

Duncan McNeil's letter to the committee of 10 June 2005 shows that a joint race and disability scheme was at one point being considered. Are you still considering such a scheme and, if so, will it be extended to cover gender and age equality?

Again, I have a confession to make—I seem to be landed with the confessions. Because of time constraints, to develop the first draft of the disability equality scheme by October 2006, we will have to proceed with separate equality schemes in the meantime. We plan to develop a single equality scheme that includes the schemes on race, gender and age. Those will be amalgamated into one scheme when the gender equality duty comes into effect and the new commission for equality and human rights is set up in 2007. The equalities team will lead on that. The work is in hand, but much of it is still to be progressed. We are doing the schemes one by one at present.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for the excellent annual report, which I was pleased to read. It is good for organisations outwith the Parliament to get a flavour of the work that is being done and of the commitment to equalities in the Scottish Parliament.

Thank you for your kind reception. I have only recently come to the brief, but I am proud of the work that the Parliament does on equalities. We have done a huge amount of work, which is of great credit to the organisation. I thank the committee for the part that it plays.

We will have a short break to allow for the changeover of witnesses.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—