SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY
Bottled Water
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its justification is for the widespread provision of bottled water throughout the Parliament. (S3O-1289)
The SPCB provides bottled water only in the debating chamber and committee rooms. That is for the comfort and convenience of members and to minimise disruption during business. Unopened bottles are returned to stock and all used bottles are recycled. Bottled water is also provided on request for hospitality and meetings but is charged to event hosts. Chilled tap water is available throughout the building from tea points.
John Lamont asked, on 16 October:
You have asked your question, Mr Harper.
We provide chilled tap water throughout the building but not in the chamber or the committee rooms, as I said. We consider bottled water to be more convenient to members and less disruptive to business proceedings. At the moment, we use between 500 and 600 330ml bottles per business week in the chamber and committees. That represents a relatively small total, but we recognise the environmental impact and wish to minimise it by recycling the glass. However, we are investigating the possibility of bottling filtered tap water on site and hope that that will come to fruition in the not-too-distant future.
Further to the question of excessive water throughout the Parliament, I suggest that it is time to get rid of the three wee ponds in front of the Parliament, which are things of neither beauty nor utility. It is reasonable that we should keep the big ponds in the area where people exercise their dogs at the weekend, but I can see no continuing reason for the three wee ponds.
You can respond to that if you wish, Mr Johnstone, although it is not relevant to the question.
Needless to say, I did not come to the Parliament prepared to answer questions on the subject of the ponds. However, I guarantee members that we will not consider using the water from them to fill the previously mentioned bottles.
I call Nanette Milne.
Presiding Officer, my questions have already been answered. I was going to ask about cost and the environmental impact.
Scottish Public Services Ombudsman
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it is satisfied with the running and effectiveness of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman's office. (S3O-1288)
Members will be aware that, under the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, the ombudsman is an independent officeholder who, in the exercise of her functions, is not under the direction or control of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. However, the SPCB has a statutory responsibility to fund her office, and we believe it to be adequately resourced to enable her to fulfil her statutory duties.
I draw Mike Pringle's attention to the time that it is taking for the ombudsman's office to process reports and complete investigations. It often takes longer than the problem that it is investigating lasted. Can something be done to speed that work up, either by providing additional resource or by improving efficiency?
I am aware that members receive correspondence about the handling of individual complaints and understand that that was brought to the ombudsman's attention when her reappointment was considered. The SPCB was given assurances that procedures and processes were being adopted to improve the delivery of service to members of the public.
I associate myself with the remarks made by my good friend Alex Neil on the matter of time delays. I have previously raised concerns, which I know others share, about the quality of the investigations that are conducted by the SPSO, in particular the lack of a forensic approach to investigations.
I am aware that there have been a number of complaints, as the member mentions. The member will be aware that the corporate body is not responsible for the ombudsman. She is an independent person, and she can run her office as she sees fit. We have an annual budgetary control, but it is up to her in the end. I suggest that the member and I could have a discussion afterwards. We could have a similar conversation to the one that I intend to have with Alex Neil on his concerns about the ombudsman's office—I can do the same for Murdo Fraser.
I say to Murdo Fraser, and indeed to Alex Neil, that my experience has been that the ombudsman is very willing to meet members, to listen to any suggestions that we may have and to follow them through. I had a recent meeting with her, and I found her very helpful. It is really useful that members of the public may make complaints directly to the ombudsman, not just through councillors and MPs, which was previously the case.
The corporate body.
The corporate body—thank you. You have always been very helpful to me, Trish—I mean Madam Presiding Officer—and you always come in at my moments of need.
Mr Foulkes will be aware that this Parliament appointed all those commissioners. Therefore, that is the responsibility of the entire Parliament. Alice Brown identified that problem when I met her recently. However, when a member of the public comes to her and it is not her function to respond to the matter in question, she always ensures that they are directed to the right place. I raised this point with Alice Brown, not with the rest of them specifically, but I am sure that the other commissioners will be doing the same thing. That is something that we can consider, and the corporate body could perhaps discuss how to approach the matter.
Domestic Violence Employment Policy
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it has a domestic violence employment policy in place. (S3O-1287)
We do not have a domestic violence employment policy in place. We do, however, have a range of support mechanisms in place that can be called upon in the event that an employee finds himself or herself the subject of domestic violence. Those support mechanisms were set out in detail in response to the member's written question, which was answered on Monday. If the SPCB were to articulate a policy on domestic violence, such a policy would simply encapsulate the measures that I outlined in my response on Monday.
I thank Mike Pringle for his answer. Although the Parliament is undertaking some commendable measures, which other employers are not, there are still no clear sign-postings for employees who need to turn to people when they are affected by domestic abuse. I have spoken to Parliament workers and found from a simple search on the Parliament intranet that it was difficult to find such information.
On the second point that the member makes, she will probably find that the staff responsible for the policy are already doing what she suggests. On the first point, if the member thinks that something is lacking, I would be happy to discuss it with her, so we can follow it up. There have not been many instances of complaints during the time that the Parliament has been in existence—in fact, there have been very few—but of course we want there to be no complaints whatever.
Previous
Time for Reflection