SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY
Holyrood Project Team
I am particularly relieved to be able to ask this question in the chamber.
I am happy to put on record the corporate body's recognition of the huge contribution to the delivery of the Parliament building that was made by all members of the Holyrood project team, past and present, and by many other parliamentary staff.
Will the member acknowledge the loyal and excellent service of about 20 junior and middle-ranking staff in the HPT through phenomenally difficult years? They often dealt with impossible prima donnas in aggravating circumstances, endured the abuse that went with the project and took countless visitors around the construction site. Costs and delays were certainly not their fault. We have the benefit of a prize-winning building that they have helped to achieve. Will the corporate body take active steps to ensure that all those people get the opportunities that they deserve, after the successful completion of their challenging task?
I assume that the opportunities that the member refers to relate to contracts of employment. Some staff of the HPT are on secondment from the Scottish Executive. They are able to compete for jobs that are advertised internally on an equal footing with SPCB staff, and we are happy to allow them to do so, but it would be improper either to create jobs for them or to give them preferential treatment. We sympathise with them, given the position in which many of them find themselves but, unfortunately, the situation is outwith our control, as they are not contracted by us.
Will the member acknowledge that the Parliament has won no less than nine architectural awards, two of which are of very considerable international significance? Parliament staff should be congratulated on overseeing that result. However, if any work is found to be defective, will efforts be made to recover some of the expenditure involved?
Absolutely. The issue that the member raises is subject to constant review, in relation both to recent incidents and to the general progression of the building.
Discrimination
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what steps it is taking to eliminate discrimination in the Parliament. (S2O-9908)
Eliminating discrimination and promoting equal opportunities are of crucial importance to the SPCB. One of the Parliament's founding principles is to take account of equal opportunities in everything that it does. I believe that we are taking that seriously. There is a genuine commitment across the organisation to address discrimination, and a considerable amount of effort has been put into achieving that. However, the SPCB is not complacent, and it has taken many positive steps to eliminate discrimination. Each year, those steps are reported in the SPCB's equal opportunities report, which highlights examples of good practice in the organisation's work. I hope that the member has read it.
What steps is the SPCB taking to eliminate the blatant ageism that is currently condoned in this establishment, given the discrimination against those who are more than 75 years old?
I am aware that the member wrote to the Presiding Officer on this subject on 9 March and that the Presiding Officer responded on 21 March. There is not a great deal that I can add to that response. However, I can say that the pension scheme is not discriminatory. As members know, the pension scheme for members of the Scottish Parliament was established under transitional powers through Westminster. Various provisions in relation to equal treatment apply without having to be specifically mentioned in the scheme, which was recently amended by order of the Scottish ministers under powers in the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Given the member's recognition of the importance of eliminating discrimination to this institution, can the SPCB confirm that individuals from foreign academic institutions who are working in the Scottish Parliament under internships are entitled to the same protection from discrimination as salaried employees? The issue is relevant, because some of those foreign institutions practise forms of discrimination that would be illegal if they were practised by institutions in this country. Will the SPCB assess the terms and conditions of interns to ensure that they are not subject to discrimination while they are here?
As Mr Harvie would expect, with regard to equal opportunities, interns—who are in the Parliament as our guests—are under the same terms and conditions as our employees. How they are treated in their countries of origin is a matter for those countries, not for the SPCB. Of course we expect guests and interns to be treated in the same way as members of our staff.
Post-Completion Advisory Group
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will make a statement in respect of the work of the post-completion advisory group and, in particular, whether claims will be pursued by that group in relation to breach of contract by the construction managers in respect of their performance against their contractual obligations and whether Bovis will be sued for the Flour City losses. (S2O-9905)
As its name indicates, the post-completion advisory group has been advisory; decisions about any possible claims are not for it to make. The SPCB makes any such decisions on the basis of appropriate advice.
Is the SPCB aware that Flour City landed a contract worth £7 million on the recommendation of Bovis, as construction manager, despite the fact that Flour City had no assets, no directors and no track record, and that it did not even have a bank account in Scotland? Does the SPCB agree that that was negligent; that part of that negligence involves a failure to procure a parent company guarantee or performance bond; that the claim, if not pursued, may be prescribed in August; and that, therefore, legal action to recover the £4 million that is owed should be taken before then? Is it not time to claim £4 million cashback on the Holyrood project?
I know that the member has taken a considerable interest in this matter, and I thank him for his question. We and our advisers are aware of possible prescription. However, it is probably better to discuss this complicated issue at the corporate body's next meeting, at which we will be delighted to listen to and consider any further comments that the member has to make.
Health Care
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what measures it will take to ensure that its policies and procedures will not encourage the further involvement of the private sector in health care. (S2O-9910)
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has put in place a range of policies and procedures to support the good health and well-being of members, their staff and parliamentary staff. Key to that is the presence of a general practitioner and nurse, which are provided by NHS Fife's occupational health and safety advisory service.
I hope that the member is aware that, the other week in the Parliament, a stall set up under Unilever's auspices obtained personal health information from staff and MSPs, including whether they were married or pregnant. What will happen to that information? Why were members not informed of the risk that such information would be taken? Why was the stall allowed in the first place? Moreover, why was it used as a substitute for providing services that should be provided by national health service occupational health and community services, not by representatives of a private company dressed up in NHS uniforms?
The member has asked many questions, and I will do my best to answer them. The organisers made a late approach to the Parliament to host the exhibition, and Roseanna Cunningham MSP agreed to sponsor it. I should point out that, under the usual procedure, all events and exhibitions must have MSP sponsorship.
CowParade Edinburgh 2006
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will support CowParade Edinburgh 2006 by hosting one of the fibreglass cows on the Parliament estate for the duration of the event. (S2O-9906)
I confirm that we will indeed host a cow sculpture on the Parliament estate during CowParade Edinburgh 2006. We look forward to her arrival on 15 May.
Given the Parliament's original decision not to go ahead with hosting a sculpture, that is great news. As the member knows, I am hosting a CowParade reception in the Parliament and, up to now, I found it a real shame that the Parliament was not going to be involved in the event. However, I am grateful to discover that the corporate body has changed its mind. After all, this is a major international event. Owners of cows include J K Rowling, Nelson Mandela, Elton John—
Will you ask a question, Mr Pringle?
I am coming to my question, Presiding Officer.
You are not coming to your question—I want it now.
A number of young people from Southhouse in my constituency have decorated their own cow. Will the member assure me that space will be found in the Parliament to display it at the reception on 24 May?
As Mike Pringle knows, there was some discussion between officials and organisers about the role that the Parliament could best play. However, at the time, we could not take a quick decision because of other pressing matters—at which point I should say that we are pleased to be back in the chamber. However, we are delighted that we will now take part in the event. We wish it and Mike Pringle's reception well. We hope that the event will raise much needed and deserved money for charities in Scotland.
That ends questions to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The next item of business will be stage 3 proceedings for the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Bill.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was under the impression that a minimum of 15 minutes was allocated for questions to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. However, we fell far short of 15 minutes; the clock showed that we had only about 12 and a half minutes.
I was due to start the script for the stage 3 proceedings at 2.34 and I would have been starting at 2.35. It was for me to decide when I moved to the stage 3 proceedings.
I wrote to the Presiding Officer following what happened two weeks ago, when there was an early blowing of the whistle at question time. What has happened is completely unacceptable. I pointed out to the Presiding Officer that such things would not happen in Westminster or in any other Parliament in the world, and that they should not happen in the Scottish Parliament. If 15 minutes are allocated for questions, 15 minutes at least should be allowed, rather than the Presiding Officer blowing the whistle before full time.
I inform you, Mr Canavan, that the time allocated is up to 15 minutes and that it is for me to decide when to move on. The time allocated for the next proceedings is very tight and I gave you as much time as I possibly could.