Good morning and welcome to the Equal Opportunities Committee's eighth meeting in 2005. I remind all present to turn off their mobile phones. I have received apologies from Frances Curran, but I am pleased to welcome Carolyn Leckie, who is attending as a substitute.
As you know, a lot of work has been done to make the building accessible and to ensure that people who come here have a good experience, irrespective of their needs. Until now, we have sought extensive feedback from people, which has generally been favourable. Other measures are planned, but Levi Pay will deal with the details.
We have received the snagging report from Buro Happold and we are considering it, although we have already actioned many of the points. As the equalities specialists in the organisation, we have had meetings with the heads of the various offices that are responsible for responding to points in the report. Rosemary Everett and Ian Macnicol know all too well that we have regular meetings with them to discuss the issues that the Buro Happold report raises. In some respects, the experience of people as they come through the doors and engage with us is more important than the snagging report from the access consultants. Therefore, we are combining the information from the access consultants with the feedback that we receive directly from visitors and feedback that we receive through members from constituents, with the aim of compiling a more thorough report on the building.
I assume that you will continue to monitor the feedback and react to it.
In some senses the process will be on-going, because there will never be a stage when we can be so complacent as to say, "This building is completely accessible and there is nothing more we need to do in any respect." If we ever get to that stage it will be cause for concern. Because of changes in technology and visitor expectations, we need to keep the situation under review constantly to ensure that we deliver an accessible service.
The committee is undertaking an inquiry into the barriers that face people with disabilities, and we have been up and down the country speaking to groups and individuals. One issue that has been highlighted is inadequate induction loop systems in many buildings. Indeed, we have had feedback from people who have visited this building, who felt that the sound system was inadequate. The report highlights the provision of induction loops and infrared systems in the building. What measures have been put in place to ensure that the systems are operational and properly maintained, to ensure that deaf people have full access to the Parliament? We have also heard that the people who test the systems are not hard of hearing, so they assume that the systems are working when we know that often they are not. We are interested in having the best possible experience for folk who come into the building.
It is important not only that the systems are in place, but that they work on the day. We need to encourage an exchange. As MSPs we need to ensure that when we invite people with particular needs—for example, people who are hard of hearing—into the building, the tests have been carried out. We should not wait until the day and cause disappointment and have to make changes.
That is good news. We look forward to positive feedback from people who are hard of hearing.
Personal emergency evacuation plans have been rolled out for all visitors to the Parliament and staff. How well are they working?
We can give you details of our experience and of where the system has failed. The procedure for members of staff who might need help when evacuating the building is clear, and procedures are in place for organised visits. I flag up to MSPs that we have a responsibility to ensure that when we have visitors with needs, procedures are in place so that they can be assisted from the building if the need arises. It is not a big deal, but members should think about that and ask questions, so that when people with special needs come we have made contact and sought advice so that we know what happens if anything goes wrong. Levi Pay and Rosemary Everett have details on how the system has operated so far.
The generic PEEP that we have in place for visitors seems to work fine. We tested it during live testing, before we moved into the building, and so far we have not had to test it for real—touch wood. As far as we are aware, it covers the vast majority of general visitors and it is fine.
My one concern is that the name "personal emergency evacuation plan" sounds a lot more bureaucratic than it is. Put simply, when someone—whether a member of staff or an MSP—has a visitor coming to the building, they should ask them whether they have any access requirements. If they say that they do, they should have a brief discussion with them about how we can assist them, in the unlikely event that there is an evacuation. That is all. The PEEP is just a case of recording that. We might be able to do more work to ensure that everyone who uses the building is aware of their responsibilities and will carry out that work in future. However, as Rosemary said, we are confident that the generic PEEP, which covers the vast majority of people who come into the building, meets requirements.
When we heard evidence last year, the idea of using mystery shoppers to assess parliamentary services was being actively considered. Will you update us on the present position in respect of that proposal, please?
There has been little progress on that idea. We have been struggling with the 300,000 visitors, but it is certainly on our agenda. The corporate body is examining the overall impact of visitors on the Parliament and, now that we are further into the process and people are coming every week, MSPs and staff members have views. The mystery shopper exercise is something that we need to use to ensure that the quality of the experience is good enough. It is okay getting the numbers through, but we need the mystery shopper exercise and other feedback to evaluate the experience. We are doing it on numbers but are we doing it on quality? Are we meeting the expectations of children, people with special needs, people who are hard of hearing, members of the public and tourists who visit the Parliament? The corporate body needs to evaluate the visitor experience, and the mystery shopper exercise would certainly play a part in that process.
I do not know whether the committee was planning to ask about the disability equality scheme that we will have to produce to comply with the latest disability discrimination legislation, but complying with that legislation gives us an opportunity to revisit the way in which we collect feedback from people who come along to the Parliament building and make use of our services. In the legislation, there is a heavy emphasis on consultation with disabled people. Whether that feedback is sought through mystery shopper exercises or in other ways, the key is that the quality of the feedback must be sufficient to enable us to act on it and respond to it effectively. A mystery shopper exercise would certainly be a useful way of gathering some of that information, but it would need careful thought about how we manage it.
It seems to me that the people who are in the front line and who are likely to get the most direct feedback are our uniformed security personnel throughout the building. Is there a formal mechanism in place to enable them to feed back or to be consulted on what they pick up about visitors' experiences?
I am not aware of any formal procedure.
There is a more informal working relationship among all front-of-house staff. Contractors, people in facilities management and visitor services and the security staff have put a lot of effort into setting up those day-to-day relationships, so we share all the feedback that comes in from visitors. Obviously we are considering how we can develop formal feedback and evaluation mechanisms, so that we can capture information and report more formally, but at the moment that is done informally, and it works really well. We get a lot of comments, particularly from the security staff, because they are everywhere in the building.
I wondered whether there was a route for them to give feedback and, if there was, whether it was formal or informal. If it is working, that is fine.
I want to ask about the mystery shopper idea, because I have experienced that as a management tool in a number of different workplaces. As a trade unionist, I have resisted it, because mystery shoppers are perceived as agents provocateurs who are trying to catch people out. It strikes me that it would be much more useful to obtain direct information from the people who come into the Parliament. Questionnaires provide more realistic information than something that is constructed artificially. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have more formal discussion with people on the ground, such as the security staff, who are a mine of information. Anybody who talks to them about the situation for visitors will discover that they already have the knowledge. I imagine that there would be a cost associated with implementing a mystery shopper scheme and I do not see the need for one. The information is already there; it is just a question of how we go about collecting it.
If I have a group of people coming in, I phone down to the desk and tell them about any disabilities that the people might have. When visitors come in off the street or if they phone in, are they asked about disabilities? Is that information collated? As Carolyn Leckie said, if the information is there, it should be collated and passed over, instead of using mystery shoppers.
At the moment we do not routinely ask everybody who calls in or inquires whether they have specific access requirements because we are dealing with such a high volume of inquiries. One of the issues that Levi Pay and I have been discussing is how we could do that regularly. If someone volunteers the information, we record it, but it does not currently get put into any sort of system. There is not a separate visitor figure for people with disabilities. Currently, the information is just included in the overall scenario. Once we have worked out how the building works and the pattern of visitors that we will experience over the year, we will begin to introduce more sophisticated visitor management methods.
On the induction loop system, in a committee room such as this where the sound system is up and running, everything is fine, but at many meetings elsewhere, such as group meetings and other events, the sound systems are not operational. My experience of the induction loop system is that it does not seem to work when the sound system is not there. Is that the case?
An induction loop system or an infrared system requires a public address system to operate. There has to be a way of inputting what is said and relaying it through the loop or the infrared system. You are right.
Is there no possibility that there could be a switch-on system, at least in each of the committee rooms? That would be a major step forward.
The only problem with that is that the committee rooms are sometimes used for private sessions and are used by various groups. We would need to seek advice, but if there was a switch-on system, I suspect that other people could listen in to those meetings.
If anyone needs the loop system switched on for a meeting that is not a pre-arranged committee meeting or something like that but is being held in a committee room or in the chamber, they can contact the broadcasting office to ensure that it is switched on. That is no problem.
I would like to take forward a number of issues, but not at the committee. Perhaps the matter could be considered for the future.
We would welcome the views of someone who relies on the system. By all means, feed that information back.
On the theme of access for parents and carers of young children, I will ask about the crèche. I understand that it is the only visitors' crèche in a Parliament in Europe. Is that correct?
Yes.
We should note that fact and take pride in it. Is the crèche proving to be popular with visitors?
It is becoming increasingly popular. We are heartened by the fact that the figures for its use show an increase over the past three or four months. We recently answered some questions from Elaine Smith about the matter. We must not only address the headline about it being the only visitors' crèche in a Parliament in Europe; if we have the facilities, it is important that people are aware of them and that we encourage their use. Recently, we have increased the amount of information that is provided about the availability of the crèche. All the new publications highlight its availability.
The committee feels that the crèche is important—however many people are using it, such a facility is needed in a modern Parliament building. Nevertheless, it is heartening to hear that the figures for its use are rising.
We promised that we would review the service approximately a year in. We take heart from the fact that the numbers are increasing and we fully take on board your point about making that information as widely available as possible.
On Elaine Smith's point about committee witnesses, a new publication has been put together that all committee witnesses receive. It has in it information not only about the crèche but about a wide range of access issues, including the induction loop and infrared systems, PEEPs and so on.
I think that Levi Pay has answered my question. I wanted to ask about public information and publications. The committee is pleased that the range of materials in other languages has been extended. Will access be extended further? You mentioned in your answer to Elaine Smith that people are given the publications when they inquire about visits to the Parliament. That is one way of publicising the leaflets and so on. Are there other ways of distributing the publicity material more widely? Will you produce more documentation?
Levi Pay can highlight areas in which we feel that we are doing well.
This is one of the Parliament's biggest success stories in the past couple of years. Consideration of the information that we provide in a range of ethnic monitory languages was one of the key action points arising from our race equality scheme. A couple of years ago, we produced nothing in languages other than English, Gaelic and a small range of tourist languages. Now we produce our three key public information leaflets in a range of up to 13 or 14 different languages. The feedback from that has been incredibly positive. It is important to consider not just the number of copies of each publication that we produce but the number of copies in the various languages that are requested, because that clearly indicates the demand for information about the Parliament in those languages.
It is good that you are producing more—public opinion will reflect that. You mentioned that if someone phones up in a specific language you will send them a publication in that particular language—I would hope so, anyway. How do you distribute that material without people phoning and asking for it? Is it distributed to all sorts of groups?
We have a database of 300 ethnic minority community organisations throughout Scotland and we send them all copies of the publications along with an order form for further copies. We also send out copies to partner libraries, members' local offices and so on as a way of ensuring that we get them out there as much as possible.
I have received copies of leaflets about interpretation at Parliament meetings and have distributed them in the constituencies.
That is another important area and, as you rightly point out, there was a successful pilot for First Minister's question time. One question that arose from that is whether we should have signing at First Minister's question time, at question time or on request. We have also considered how we can maximise provision of that resource through new technology and television—using a wee box or whatever. That has proved difficult for the live sessions, but we might want to ask whether that could be provided for the parliamentary channel at the weekend, for instance, which would require our broadcasters to deal with others.
I am really pleased that you think that BSL is important. In the Public Petitions Committee, some petitions have to be held back because we do not have an available signer. There is an obvious difficulty in training people in BSL, but I appreciate your answer and look forward to further reports.
Before the summer recess.
Another issue in which the committee is interested is disabled access. From feedback, we have learned that disabled people pay a reduced fee of £1.75 for the guided tour of the Parliament. Are the tours fully accessible to disabled people and what has been the feedback from those tours? I have been informed by constituents that it is quite difficult for wheelchair users to access the Parliament, including the committee rooms, independently.
I do not know what specific feedback Rosemary Everett has had.
Overall, the feedback on the guided tour service seems to be positive. The route is fully accessible. We have put in place special measures so that we can respond quickly and easily. For example, we have additional guides on hand to escort people, because on one part of the route we need to split the party up to use a lift if someone is in a wheelchair, for example.
Do you—
We need to move on to other questions now, Sandra. We might need to seek answers to some other questions in writing.
I turn to staffing. The committee welcomes the obvious commitment of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to equalities issues and notes the strengthening of the equalities team with the addition of an equalities adviser. What plans does the SPCB have to further develop that office?
This is an opportunity to put on record that Levi Pay is leaving us. I am sure that we are grateful for all the work that he has done over the past couple of years in developing positively many of the policies that we have discussed today. Levi and his team can take pride in those policies, which have established best practice throughout Scotland—many other organisations are contacting us for help with equalities issues.
Two.
There you are: I increased it by one. There might be a change of focus, given that what we have done in the past couple of years has been to do with policy. We might need now to focus on how the policies are bedding in.
I have always been clear that it is important for an organisation not simply to build up an ever-increasing team of equalities specialists. The vital point is that those people put in place the strategies that are necessary to ensure that the whole organisation takes account of equalities. From that point of view, we have been a big success story in getting other bodies to take account of equalities issues. That is the work on which we need to focus in the future, which we will do.
Thank you—we look forward to hearing about developments. I know that the committee appreciates the work that Levi Pay has done so far.
The short answer to that is yes. Ian Macnicol can fill you in on the detail of the staff who are taking advantage of those opportunities.
There is no doubt that the work-life balance policy is working well. There has been absolutely no negative feedback on it; indeed many positive remarks are being made about it. In the past 12 months we have had 22 applications for changes to working patterns, all of which have been accepted. That in itself shows that we have made a huge success of the policy, given where we started in 1999. There is natural resistance to change; if one starts off with eight full-time members of staff and one of them wants to go part-time, one thinks "Oh, hang." I remember having such conversations in 1999, but we do not have them any more. We have educated our managers and workforce to adapt. The flexibility that we have built into the way we work with the flexible working arrangements, which we are extending in the near future, shows that we are prepared to come and go with our staff. We get payback from that, because our staff like us.
From my point of view, it is good to hear that. It concerns me when committees—not necessarily this one—run on well past the expected three hours and the official reporters and clerks are still sitting there. I realise that flexible hours are built in, but it concerns me when we run over into lunch time. I presume that that is taken into consideration with the flexi hours that you make available.
It is. The staff work a set number of hours per year and they manage their time to suit Parliament's business. Naturally, they work fairly intensively for three days a week and can have a later start on a Monday or Friday. The system is not prescriptive; there is negotiation between individuals and their managers. They come and go and it really works—it is flexible working in its real sense and we are considering extending the arrangements. Staff work within a particular bandwidth during the working day. Quite a lot of staff work compressed hours and it is more difficult for them to make up time within the existing bandwidths. We are working with staff and trade unions to extend the bandwidths simply to accommodate that rather small group of staff. We are taking their concerns seriously.
The report highlights the SPCB's participation in the Capability Scotland back-to-work scheme and the successful outcome of that participation. What is being done to provide staff with more opportunities to participate in such schemes?
As you would imagine, we approach such issues case by case and we have had a number of successes. I will not pretend that we are doing a huge amount in that area, but when a situation arises, we use all the resources that are at our disposal to ensure that people get back to work.
Rightly, the SPCB has placed considerable emphasis on equalities training. Are you content that training in equal opportunities is sufficient for staff to provide a high standard of service?
Yes, but there is only so much training we can provide. The real issue is attitudes and how people work with their colleagues and the public. At the heart of our approach is one of the policies that Levi Pay carefully crafted for us: our dignity at work policy. That is more than just a policy—it must be lived and breathed. We have a successful operation because people take dignity at work seriously. They know that managers will take their concerns and complaints seriously and that monitoring is in place to ensure that people behave themselves.
Three years ago, when I started working in the Parliament, one of the first things I did was go out to other organisations to find out what training they had for staff. We have reached the stage at which organisations in all sectors and of all sizes are now starting to come to us to find out about the success stories that we have had in training.
I am encouraged by those answers. You spoke about training for front-line staff, which is important because front-line staff are people's first point of contact. However, members' staff—here and in constituency offices—are very much in the front line and many are assisting with tours and so on. What is the balance between the training that is offered to front-line SPCB staff and that which is offered to members' staff?
At their induction, MSPs' staff spend some time on equal opportunities issues. The problem is that the legal responsibility for training members' staff lies with MSPs. We try to raise MSPs' awareness of their legal obligations and of the fact that they need to deal with equal opportunities issues and the associated legislation. Obviously, MSPs have a responsibility to train their staff. At SPCB level, awareness of issues is raised during induction.
Why does it have to be the case that, legally, the onus is on MSPs to train their staff? The other people who we have been discussing are also MSPs' staff because they work for Parliament, which is made up of the members, who select people to serve on the SPCB on our behalf. Why do we have a two-tier system of staffing?
There is a debate that goes on about that. However, the issue is not one that is simply technical or philosophical; it is contractual. MSPs' employees are employed directly by an MSP or a group of MSPs and contractual obligations flow from that arrangement.
I am sure that Duncan McNeil is aware that the trade unions have made representations in an attempt to ensure that there is fairness and equality for people who work under the same roof. If you were implementing an equalities strategy, you would hope that everyone would have fair and equal coverage.
There are two people who are anxious to come in on the detail of that question, so I will allow them to do so.
I do not think that we could ever have exactly the same approach for each of the groups of people who work in Parliament because they all have different employers with different needs. That said, when we enter into contracts, we place on the contractor a requirement to observe a standard on equality—essentially, we expect them to observe all the headline provisions in our equality framework. We do not police that to any great extent, but we work closely with the contractors as part of a bigger set-up.
But you do not formally monitor the situation.
Not as far as I am aware. I can check that and get back to you.
This is another area in which we are an example of best practice. One of the initiatives that we have rolled out over the past couple of years is an equalities in procurement initiative, which considers how we can build equalities issues into all contracting across the organisation. We are fully aware that, if a member of the public comes in through our doors and engages with a member of a contractor's staff, they will not distinguish between that person and a member of staff who is employed directly by Parliament or by a member. That is why we have to ensure that everyone across the board takes account of equalities issues. We have a checklist system that is used for every contract to ensure that appropriate measures in relation to equalities training and monitoring are built into every contract. That has worked well, to the extent that it was highlighted in a recent Commission for Racial Equality publication on public procurement.
We still have many questions, particularly around that last topic, but we must stop now as we have other business to attend to.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Next
Gypsy Travellers