Committee Rooms (On-screen Presentations)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what improvements can be made to committee rooms so that on-screen presentations can be seen by everyone present. (S4O-04425)
The presentation equipment currently used in committee rooms is portable equipment that, if requested, can be configured to display presentations on multiple screens located around the room, thus allowing on-screen presentations to be seen by everyone present.
The reality is that, when I attended the cross-party group on industrial communities last week, the majority of people present could not read the presentation on the screen, because it was so small. Last night, I attended the cross-party group on credit unions. Again, the people present could not see what was written on the screens. Would the member accept that there is a certain amount of frustration that we cannot cope with that high-tech side of things?
The member raises a valid question, but he will know that, as part of the digital Parliament programme, a pilot of audiovisual technologies is being conducted in four meeting rooms. Feedback from the pilot will be used to inform future decisions on audiovisual technologies.
The current mobile presentation equipment used in committee rooms could be linked to the broadcasting system to ensure that a committee meeting is broadcast, provided that sufficient notice is given.
Training Courses (Effectiveness)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what evaluation has been done on the effectiveness of its training courses. (S4O-04427)
The SPCB evaluates all learning and development. We request that post-course evaluation is completed by all attendees on courses that are arranged by the SPCB. The evaluations ask about the ease of booking, the accessibility of the location, whether attendees were satisfied with the quality and content, and how they will use the training in their role. Human resources uses the responses to make amendments to training courses when required.
The SPCB has planned changes to the delivery model for training provision, which will modernise learning and development.
I wonder whether we can consider the staff who could benefit from training. I carried out my own informal straw poll among MSP staff to find that most staff have not had any training since 1999, apart from on fire safety. One person did a half-day course on Word, and another walked out of a course, as she saw it as a waste of time. Some recent recruits have signed up for training only to find that it is only offered on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, which are the busiest days for MSPs and staff. Others hope that some training might be available in recess.
Is it not time to carry out a training needs analysis of MSP staff to discover their training and development needs, so that they are supported in carrying out their jobs effectively and efficiently, and so that they can continue to grow and develop their careers?
Mary Scanlon raises another good question. I am sure that she will know that a range of training is available to MSP staff. For example, MSP staff can access a range of e-learning packages and can attend courses provided by the SPCB. Members can access funds for training through the members’ expenses scheme. This information can be found on the Parliament website.
Sometimes, there is a perception that training courses are just a tick-box exercise and an excuse for a catch-up, with no emphasis on outcomes. I am sure that that is not the case with Scottish Parliament staff. Could the member advise us what the Scottish Parliament staff’s experience is of the training provided?
I am not too sure whether the member is aware of it, but the recent staff experience survey shows a very high degree of satisfaction with the learning and development provided by the SPCB: 89 per cent of staff felt that they had fair access to learning and development opportunities; 90 per cent felt that they had opportunities to develop their skills and experience over the past year; and 88 per cent believed that the learning and development opportunities that they have had have helped them to do their job better.
Events (Business Sponsorship)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what assessment it has made of the use of business sponsorship for Parliament events. (S4O-04426)
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is making an on-going assessment. When the SPCB considers its programme of major events, it considers the merits of business sponsorship, always looking to enhance and extend our activities as appropriate. It is important to say that any agreed business sponsorship should add to the event or exhibition in the programme. We would always consider any potential reputational risk to our Parliament before agreeing to any sponsorship.
I will give two examples. An on-going one is the festival of politics, on which we work in partnership with a number of organisations to enhance the festival experience. A recent example is the SPCB’s work with partners to deliver the world-class “Andy Warhol: Pop, Power and Politics” exhibition, for which we secured funding from external organisations to bring the exhibition to Scotland.
On 14 April this year it was announced that the Parliament building was to be rented out for receptions and dinners as an expansion of an existing pilot programme. The Scottish Government’s guidelines on sponsorship of corporate events say:
“sponsorship arrangements must not compromise the dignity or public standing of the Government ... Sponsorship must not be accepted from inappropriate sources ... e.g. companies with dubious or doubtful background.”
With that in mind, why was it deemed appropriate to accept donations from a company called Lockheed Martin, which clearly is involved in a number of areas on the world stage, not only including the production of Trident nuclear weapons, which this Parliament voted against on several occasions?
There are a few different issues there. John Wilson brought in a separate issue to the issue that the original question was on, which was business sponsorship of Parliament events. We are now looking at the on-going pilot for commercial events, too. Let us separate those two completely separate issues.
The particular Parliament event that John Wilson mentioned regarding Lockheed Martin was the Scottish public service awards 2014. The Scottish Parliament co-hosted that event because the Parliament was an appropriate venue for the inaugural awards, which recognised the achievements of public servants from many organisations across Scotland. Lockheed Martin was one of a number of companies who sponsored the awards—it was not the sole sponsor. Lockheed Martin is one the largest public sector suppliers of information technology systems.
Open Data
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether its practices comply with the open data strategy published by the Scottish Government and what action it will take to address the issues that it raises. (S4O-04424)
In the interests of fairness I say to Patrick Harvie that the corporate body discussed the right pronunciation of the word “data”, and I decided to use whichever pronunciation Patrick Harvie did not use.
The open data strategy sets out that public sector organisations in Scotland should publish open data publication plans by the end of 2015, with all data sets being published as open data by 2017. I am pleased to tell the chamber that as of today our first 60 data sets, including ones on questions, motions and petitions, have been published online, with more to be made available over the months ahead.
The SPCB is on course to comply with the open data strategy well ahead of the deadline.
I will stick with the “Star Trek” pronunciation.
Open data is incredibly important in both private and public sector organisations, but where more so than in a Parliament whose business is supposed to be transparent and accountable? One of the open data principles is around usability by all. Would it not make sense to ensure that our Official Report links very clearly through to the video record of our proceedings to ensure maximum usability? If a person searches for a question, they should be able to click through easily and see the context in which it was asked in both text and video.
One can always rely on Patrick Harvie to come up with a question that one has not had notice of from the officers who deal with the issues.
What Patrick Harvie suggests sounds eminently sensible to me, and I could tell from the reaction of my three SPCB colleagues that they felt the same. It seems quite straightforward to us, but then again we are not the experts who have to deal with the issues on data—I am using what my colleague Liz Smith assures me is the Latin pronunciation. We will get back to the chamber on that one. If it is more difficult than it would seem, we will let members know the reasons why.
Previous
Caledonian Canal