Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time
E-petitions System
1. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what progress there has been on the development of the e-petitions system. (S4O-01494)
I thank the member for his question. I know that, as a former member of the Public Petitions Committee, he takes a great interest in e-petitions. He will know that this Parliament was at the forefront of developing an online petitions system.
As convener of the Public Petitions Committee and a member of the corporate body, David Stewart has ensured that e-petition delays and updates have been on our agenda regularly. The original system needed to be upgraded and we wanted not just to replace the old system, but to enhance it. The system that has now been developed delivers improved functionality, including enabling people to create petitions themselves and to have interactive contact with staff to finalise content; improved security features; and improved presentation of petitions together with improved administration tools for the clerking team.
Apart from giving us the opportunity to make improvements to the look and functionality of the system, it also gave us the opportunity to bring the system in-house, as opposed to having it externally hosted at a cost to this Parliament.
I thank the corporate body member for that answer. As Mary Scanlon mentioned, I am a former member of the Public Petitions Committee and I have a keen interest in the committee and I am proud of the good work that it does in listening to and engaging with people across Scotland on a significant number of important issues.
I understand that there were difficulties with the development of the new e-petitions system and I am pleased that progress has now been made. What lessons can the Parliament learn from those difficulties and delays and how does it intend to improve the e-petitions system in the future?
I thank the member for his constructive and reasonable question. We recognise that although we now have an improved system, the process of getting there has been far from ideal.
Officials will conduct a full review to see what lessons should be learned from the experience. We acknowledge that the whole thing took longer than had been anticipated, with the result that we did not provide an online facility to enable petitioners to gather signatures and comments between the end of August 2011 and 25 June 2012. Neil Bibby is right that lessons should and will be learned.
The new online system was made available to the public on 25 June. So far, 249 petitioners have created accounts; 70 petitions are being prepared or processed; eight have been published and are in the process of collecting electronic signatures; and a further 16 have been lodged and are under active consideration. Feedback so far has been very positive.
Before we come to question 2, I must say that there are a lot of questions today, so brief questions and answers would be helpful.
Special Dietary Requirements
2. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how the Parliament’s facilities and services meet the needs of members and staff with special dietary requirements. (S4O-01456)
Our contract with Sodexo requires it to provide a range of dishes for different dietary needs, including vegetarian, vegan, ethnic and health-related requirements. We also label dishes, and have information on our menus and on the intranet.
We have in the past noticed inaccuracies in the labelling and a new process is now in place to avoid that. Our officials are always happy to meet with any member or staff member who has a particular dietary need to discuss how best we can help.
I express my gratitude to the members of staff who met representatives from my office to discuss the on-going issues that we have encountered, not just with general catering, but with events and facilities catering.
Would it be possible for the SPCB to incorporate formal groups of building users who have each of the special dietary requirements so that they can be notified of service changes on an on-going basis and provide input into service and menu development?
Yes—that sounds like an extremely interesting idea, and it is always good to have participation from those who use the service. I am happy to have a chat with the Sodexo management and include Marco Biagi in those discussions to see whether we can find a way forward.
Procurement Policy
3. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what procurement policy provisions it has made since May 2011. (S4O-01489)
A number of changes have been introduced to Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body procurement policies. For example, in order to build on our efforts to streamline processes and actively remove barriers to participation in SPCB procurement, the use of the Scottish national pre-qualification questionnaire was recently adopted, which is the first step in an overall approach to standardise and simplify the process of selecting prospective suppliers.
The procurement policy manual reflects established public procurement policy and complies with the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2012. Recent changes that have been made to the SPCB conditions of contract include limiting price increases and taking account of the Bribery Act 2010.
The approach to the evaluation of bidders’ economic and financial standing is being reviewed as part of an on-going commitment to increase transparency and proportionality. Responsible purchasing initiatives continue to be developed, which has led to embedding environmental action plans in SPCB high-risk on-site services contracts.
Is there a local labour market initiatives clause in the current procurement policy? Was any such policy considered in the contract that was awarded for the new Parliament security screening facility?
I advise John Wilson that the issue of the local content of the work that will form part of the building of the new security screening facility was debated in a number of meetings. We have received assurances from the winning bidder that the amount of work that will be generated through business that is located in Scotland and through sub-contractors will be significant.
We were limited by the way in which procurement law rules out a structure that goes much beyond that, but the issue was certainly a fairly major consideration during our discussions on the contract.
IT Systems (Constituency Offices)
4. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review the performance of information technology systems in constituency offices. (S4O-01495)
I know that the member has extensive experience and expertise in IT systems from his previous working life.
The corporate body is fully aware of the reliance of members and their staff on effective and efficient IT services in local offices and we are committed to reviewing and, where possible, improving performance. Recent contractual changes provided a vehicle to ensure that all local offices are equipped with the fastest broadband service that their local telecommunications network supports, but it should be noted that the services are delivered over the public infrastructure and, as such, they are limited by the capacity and availability of those common services.
Taking that limitation into account, the business information technology office is working with suppliers to consider what other technologies might be used to improve the performance of the network infrastructure that supports local offices. That work will involve consultation with members and the plan is to pilot potential solutions early next year. To assist with the consultation and other IT issues that members may be experiencing, BIT recently appointed an engagement manager, who will be happy to discuss any aspect of the services that are provided.
If the member wishes to participate in the pilot, I will be happy to forward his name to BIT.
I thank my colleague for his detailed answer, and I thank our IT team for their sterling efforts over the past years to try to resolve the performance issues.
However, I do not think that the problems are related to broadband speeds or processing capability in the new computer systems that we give members from time to time. Rather, I think that the problems lie in the levels of security layering in the communications between constituency offices and Holyrood. I would be happy to work with my colleague and others to try to identify solutions and improve the position for all members.
I thank the member for his comments. He is an ideal choice to be part of the pilot, given his technical expertise, and I will be happy to nominate him to BIT.
I am concerned that, although the remote access system on which we have relied for the entire lifetime of the Parliament has been fine-tuned, it still relies on network access. Given that new hardware and software available that would allow us to abandon the system and use a much more reliable one that is not as dependent on network infrastructure, is that something that we should consider so that we can avoid the on-going problem? It has been with us for more than 13 years and it has still not been solved.
I know that Mr Johnstone also has tremendous background knowledge of IT systems, and I would also like to nominate him to form part of the piloting of systems for the future.
IT Performance Issues
5. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what work is being undertaken to address information technology performance issues in the Parliament and in constituency offices. (S4O-01458)
There is a similarity in the question.
Mr Kelly has also taken a great interest in IT issues—[Laughter.] I thank him for his question.
The Scottish Parliament, like most modern organisations, relies on information technology for the effective and efficient delivery of business. The business information technology office is committed to reviewing and, as I said, improving performance. Recent changes to the IT systems have increased the resilience and speed of our voice and data systems, thereby providing greater capacity for internet services such as email, web browsing and remote access, as well as reducing costs.
Contractual changes have provided us with a vehicle to ensure that all local offices are equipped with the fastest broadband service that the telecommunications network supports but, as I said in my answer to Mr Coffey, it is delivered over the public infrastructure and, as such, it is limited by the capacity and availability of these services. However, members have benefited from increased mailbox sizes and improved reliability of remote access solutions.
I call question 6.
In a radical change of topic, I ask the corporate body—
Presiding Officer, I did not get a supplementary.
I beg your pardon, Mr Kelly.
I apologise to Mr Harvie, who was in full flow.
I know that there have been a number of questions on IT, but it is an important subject. The fact is that the reliability, connectivity and quality of the IT service in constituency offices is simply not good enough. As Alex Johnstone said, after 13 years, we are still trying to sort it out.
Having raised this issue previously, I suggest that the IT unit and the SPCB look at best practice in the public and private sector, assess the issues and come forward with a substantive plan that solves the problem. Ultimately, constituents are suffering because of this.
A brief answer will suffice, Mr Stewart.
The member makes a very strong point. I should note in response to his and previous questions that the Scottish Parliament BIT department benchmarks our work with that of Parliaments in Westminster, Wales and Northern Ireland, but I take on board the comments that the member has made—and has made very well.
Finally, just to put the member’s remarks in context, I also point out that we are three staff down in BIT and have lost a considerable number of qualified staff members over the past year.
Members’ Staff (Employee Forum)
6. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what its position is on recognising an employee forum for members’ staff and engaging with it on corporate body decisions that will impact on its members. (S4O-01492)
In answering this question, I think it useful to state from the outset that members’ staff are employed by individual members, not the corporate body. Individual members determine their own staff’s terms and conditions. Of course, if individual members of staff, who are employed by members, wish to set up an employee forum, that is a matter for them. However, given what I have said, it would not be appropriate for the corporate body to engage with such a forum as to do so would confuse the employment relationship between the member and his or her staff.
I am a wee bit disappointed by that answer. Clearly members are the employers of their own staff and I am not suggesting anything that might undercut that. However, where decisions about, say, a change to the Parliament’s facilities or even the information technology infrastructure in constituency offices impact on members’ staff, is it not reasonable for those staff to have a route to express their concerns directly to the corporate body and be heard? Is such a suggestion not reasonable and modest?
Although I understand Mr Harvie’s point, I stress that as an employer of 470 staff we engage very well in collective bargaining with our three trade unions and those staff. The key point is that members employ staff and that it is for MSPs to discuss corporate body decisions directly with them.
That concludes questions to the corporate body.