Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time.
Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme (Investments)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what proportion of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme is invested in the fossil fuel, defence and tobacco industries. (S4O-03697)
I share the member’s interest in this matter, having been a trustee of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme for over three years.
The Scottish parliamentary pension scheme invests in the Baillie Gifford managed pension fund and, from May 2012, it has also invested in the Baillie Gifford diversified growth fund. In total, those funds currently hold approximately 4 per cent of assets in oil and gas producers, 1 per cent in oil equipment services and distribution, 2 per cent in tobacco and 4 per cent in defence.
I thank my colleague David Stewart for that comprehensive reply. He will be aware that very fine words about peace have emanated from here but we find that we are investing in the arms industry; our nation faces health challenges but we are investing British American Tobacco; and climate challenge is a major issue but we are investing in BP, Total and Shell.
Those are public moneys that are going to corporations at the expense of citizens, and that will have implications for Scotland and beyond. I think that Scotland wants us to be good global citizens, so will the member agree to prepare an early report for members’ consideration, laying out how divestment in those unethical areas could be undertaken?
Perhaps I can give a bit more background about the scheme to try to answer the member’s question.
The trustees of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme appointed Baillie Gifford as fund managers for the scheme and have delegated the responsibility for day-to-day investment management to them.
The pension contributions are invested in a pooled fund, which means that the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme is one of a number of investors in the fund. Under those arrangements, the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme does not directly own any stocks and therefore cannot direct investment.
In order to do that, the scheme would need to change to a segregated portfolio arrangement, but doing so would be a decision for the fund trustees and depend on a number of factors, such as the practicalities of such a change, any cost implications and whether the value of the fund was sufficient to support a segregated arrangement.
I will take the opportunity to write to the trustees of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme to ask them to consider the matter in much more detail.
Budget Scrutiny (Resources)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what resources it provides to allow members to scrutinise the Scottish Government’s budget. (S4O-03693)
In 2009, the financial scrutiny unit was set up by the Scottish Parliament information centre to support the committees and individual members to understand and scrutinise the Scottish budget.
With pressures on public finances and with new tax powers on their way to the Parliament, financial scrutiny is a vital function of the Parliament. I thank Cara Hilton for her question, not least because it will allow me to highlight the recent development of some online interactive tools that are now available on the Parliament’s website and that will assist all members.
One tool uses graphics to allow members to explore the budget at a very detailed level—right down to level 4—and to see year-to-year changes at a glance; and another tool allows members and, indeed, members of the public to vary rates, bands and some of the underlying assumptions in relation to the new land and buildings transactions tax. I think that the SPCB would very much welcome feedback from members and, indeed, the public on how useful they find those innovations.
In light of the extra powers that will be on the way to Holyrood soon, what additional tools will be available to members to enable them to better scrutinise the Government in respect of new powers that might be on the way on tax and welfare?
That is a valid question that I think many have been asking.
I think that we will have to await the outcome of the Smith commission before we progress any more specific work on the new powers and the consequences and implications for the Parliament and its committees. Having said that, SPICe provided briefings on a number of fiscal and welfare issues during the pre-referendum period and has already built up considerable expertise. SPICe will also tap into expertise available outside the Parliament, including in our universities and internationally. However, we will obviously keep the matter under constant review over the coming months.
Parliamentary Complex (Passes)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it plans to review the number of passes issued to people who do not work in the parliamentary complex. (S4O-036960)
The security office, on behalf of the corporate body, continuously reviews the issuing of passes. That process forms a critical part of the overall security measures and is based on the advice received from the security services.
As requested by the corporate body, the security office is currently reviewing the policies around the issuing of passes, including to those who do not work in the parliamentary complex.
Can the member indicate how many passes have been issued to people who do not work in the complex? Can he assure me that the issuing of sponsored passes will be reviewed more regularly so that we do not face the accusation that sponsored passes allow another form of lobbying to take place in the Parliament?
I will write to the member on the specific points, but perhaps it will be useful if I give the wider picture.
The year, the corporate body introduced changes to the criteria attached to the regular visitor pass category, which is known as the parliamentary support pass for MSP-sponsored applications. The primary change is that, for the visitor to qualify for a pass, the sponsor is required to confirm the parliamentary purpose for which the pass will be used and that the visitor will attend Parliament at least weekly, with the condition that parliamentary support pass holders do not use their access to the Parliament to act as lobbyists—paid or unpaid—for any individual or organisation that might seek to influence the political process. The pass is issued for an initial period of three months instead of 12 months, which was the period under the original arrangements.
Similarly, for other, non-parliamentary building users, the requirement for the continuance of a pass will be challenged at the point of receipt of an application for renewal.
Garden Level Restaurant (Cashless Payments)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its position is on offering a small discount or other incentives to encourage the use of cashless payments in the garden level restaurant. (S4O-03695)
There are no plans to offer a discount for using the cashless system. However, we encourage everyone who uses the restaurant to use their card as it is about five times quicker than paying by cash. The more the card is used, the better it will be for everybody, particularly when the restaurant is busy.
I very much agree with Liz Smith’s enthusiasm for using the cashless system. I noticed that there were considerable queues today. There have been polite notices for some time, which people are ignoring. Maybe there should be a penalty for people who insist on paying by cash.
The member makes an interesting point. That is not something that the corporate body has considered, but the member makes a good point about the issue in general. There have been concerns in the past that we have sometimes run into difficulties because it has been so busy. The corporate body has undertaken to perhaps look at the “tap and go” or “wave and pay” system in the future, and we will certainly take on board the member’s comments.
MSP Family Members (Employment)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what decision it has made on the employment of family members of MSPs and whether this complies with the requirements of European laws on employment, discrimination and human rights and whether the legal requirements of any consequent redundancies will be complied with. (S4O-03698)
The SPCB discussed the expenses scheme’s transitional arrangements in respect of members employing close family members at its meeting on 4 June 2014 and it agreed to return to the issue later in the year. I reassure the member that the SPCB will, of course, ensure that any decision that it makes complies with the relevant legislation.
In the event of job redundancies, I wonder what rules will be put in place to assist MSPs on the basis that there cannot be a like-for-like job replacement under redundancy law. How will the administrative support jobs be different?
I certainly understand the background to Mr Brodie’s question. It is worth reflecting on the fact that the McIntosh review contained recommendations for a transitional provision that was intended to allow the existing arrangements for any family member of staff who had been employed to continue until three months after the date of the next Scottish Parliament elections. Of course, the date for the next election has been moved by 12 months, and the corporate body is actively considering how to give effect to the intention that the transitional scheme should run until three months after the next election. It is a matter that we will return to.
As for the support that will be provided to anyone who is affected by the decision, the corporate body will be cognisant of its responsibilities in that respect and will provide any appropriate support that we can. I should, however, underscore the fact that the McIntosh review’s recommendations on this matter were subject to legal advice and we are confident that any recommendation from the corporate body will be consistent with any relevant legal requirements that are placed upon us.
Margo MacDonald (Contribution to Parliament)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it has given to commemorating and celebrating the contribution of Margo MacDonald to the Parliament. (S4O-03694)
Everyone in this Parliament appreciates the very considerable contribution made by Margo MacDonald to the Parliament, just as we also value the considerable contributions made by other members who have passed away during this parliamentary session, namely Brian Adam, David McLetchie and Helen Eadie. The SPCB has no policy of commemorating the lives of members or former members who have died, but it is something upon which we are happy to reflect.
I think that there is a rationale behind saying that it would be invidious to single out one MSP, no matter how individualistic and significant her contribution had been to Scottish politics at large. In the 15 years that I have been here, seven sitting MSPs have died in service, and I suggest that in its coming meetings the corporate body give some thought to putting in place a discreet plaque or memorial that would list the MSPs—from all parts of the chamber—who have died in service, starting with Donald Dewar, ending with Margo MacDonald and the other MSPs in between.
I am grateful to the member for her considerate and sensitive supplementary question. The SPCB should reflect on the issue and we can undertake to do so.
Travel (Journeys between Mainland Scotland and London)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how many journeys between mainland Scotland and London were made by road, rail, coach and air in the last year for which figures are available. (S4O-03700)
I can tell Alison Johnstone that, in 2013-14, 21 return journeys were made between Scotland and London and reimbursed under the members’ expenses scheme. Fifteen of those journeys were by air and six were by rail.
I thank the member for those figures. Speedy travel to London is, of course, sometimes necessary, but it is vital that we as a Parliament keep reducing our climate emissions. Does the SPCB have any further plans to reduce air miles? For example, in my time on the committee of which I am a member, we have had one videoconferencing session. Are there any plans to expand videoconferencing, to increase the available facilities and to promote their use by committees and other organisations?
Alison Johnstone makes a very fair point about our own responsibilities in reducing our climate emissions, given the legislation that we passed in the previous parliamentary session. The corporate body takes this issue exceptionally seriously and reports on it regularly. As I understand it, our track record shows that we have increased the amount of videoconferencing, where appropriate, but there is clearly more that we could be doing.
As for the member’s specific question, the choice of the appropriate method of transport is ultimately the responsibility of individual members and, in making that choice, members are required to act in accordance with the principles of reimbursement in the members’ expenses scheme and should be satisfied that the expenses represent value for money and were incurred having due regard to efficiency and effectiveness. However, it will do us no harm to continually reinforce the message about our own responsibilities with regard to the environmental challenges that we face, and the corporate body will continue to do that.
Cleaning (Wall and Hanging Glass Panels)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to clean the wall and hanging glass panels in the chamber. (S4O-03699)
They are above you. [Laughter.]
The high-level hanging glass panels and walls in the chamber are cleaned annually, during the February recess.
I thank the member, although that was not my understanding. I will certainly check that. Is the work put out to tender or is it done in house?
Members: Do you want the job? [Laughter.]
This is an important issue—I am sure of that. A reason why the panels and walls are cleaned annually is that it is an extremely expensive job, which takes five to seven days to do properly. For that reason, it is done during the February recess, when there is plenty of time.
The cleaning is carried out by the high-level fabric maintenance contractor, Trac International Limited.
That concludes questions to the corporate body. I say to the two members that I was unable to call that I am sorry, but we must move on.
Previous
Home Safety Kits