Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Official Report 676KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time

---

Zero Waste Policy (Monitoring)

1. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it will monitor the progress of its policy on zero waste. (S4O-00690)

In straight terms, we will monitor progress by measuring the quantity of waste and recycling that is produced. The member will be interested to know that approximately 70 per cent of the building’s waste is recycled or composted and that we have agreed to be a pilot organisation in Zero Waste Scotland’s zero waste zone initiative.

I welcome the taking up of the zero waste zone initiative and I am pleased that it is being rolled out across the building, but I am not quite sure whether we are all there yet. Will further initiatives be considered to promote zero waste best practice among members and in the Parliament’s procurement policies?

I hope that agreeing to be a pilot organisation in Zero Waste Scotland’s initiative means that such issues will come forward, because we all have individual and collective responsibility on zero waste. I hope that I can offer some comfort on that.

A really important point has been raised about procurement policies. I undertake to investigate that further.

---

Parliament Garden (Apple Trees)

2. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review the varieties of apple trees in the Parliament garden to ensure that they cross-pollinate. (S4O-00692)

In the past couple of days, I have learned more about apples than I thought I would ever know in my entire life. Rob Gibson is right to raise the matter, because it seems that the apple trees in the garden are Malus Bramley’s seedling, which are not self-pollinating, so there may well be an issue.

We will review the situation in the early autumn. I am told that there was an apple—singular—once, which caused great excitement for a certain Robin Harper, whom we all miss. However, it was a rogue apple. We should certainly look at the issue further and we will do so in the autumn.

How very sustainable. I call Dennis Robertson to ask question 3—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon; I was getting carried away. I call Rob Gibson.

I suspect that a horticulturally challenged landscape gardener planted only the Bramley’s seedling variety without the two other necessary varieties to ensure cross-pollination. I seek the corporate body’s assurance that there will be appropriate planting of varieties that will help the trees to bear fruit.

We are at the core of the issue now. We have looked at the question, and I understand that there are two compatible varieties—the Scottish James Grieve and the Scotch Bridget apple trees—which will be considered.

Some corporate body members have also suggested having a beehive in the garden to assist in pollination. We might consider that.

---

Parliamentary Complex (Accessibility)

3. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it last carried out an accessibility audit of the parliamentary complex and what issues this highlighted. (S4O-00728)

The corporate body undertakes regular auditing of the building’s accessibility, which helps to determine areas of the building where further action or investigation may be required. That is incorporated into an accessibility action plan, which parliamentary officials monitor regularly.

The latest audit, which was carried out in October 2011, involved a group of blind and visually impaired people who represented the Royal Blind school, Guide Dogs Scotland and the Edinburgh access panel. They audited various parts of the building and made a number of suggestions to improve the building’s accessibility, including more visual aids in the public cafe and a tactile surface on the stairs up to the chamber, and increased lighting levels in the stairwell that leads up to the chamber gallery. The outcomes of that audit are being considered as part of the on-going review of the building’s accessibility requirements.

The doors in the Parliament are extremely heavy. Are the doors to the MSP block entirely necessary? People with either muscular or arthritic conditions find them extremely difficult to use, because they are so heavy. Further, why do we have pull handles on all the doors when, quite often, they must be pushed? Would it not be more sensible to have a push plate on one side rather than a pull handle?

The doors to the MSP block are obviously necessary for security reasons. They are used to secure the members area and allow for only authorised access to that part of the building. They are also fire doors, which are central to the fire safety procedures in the building.

However, I appreciate Dennis Robertson’s concerns about the doors being extremely heavy, and how that might affect various users of the building. At this stage, we have no plans to do any work on the doors. However, we are exploring what options are available to address the member’s particular concerns. In doing so we must, of course, take account of any practical and financial considerations, including budget availability and security requirements, before any firm commitments can be made to alter the doors.

Mr Robertson also raises an important point about replacing the pull handles with push plates. I understand that having door handles on both sides can make it difficult or confusing for someone to establish whether the doors open inwards or outwards. I will, therefore, raise the issue with the corporate body. I am also happy to update the member on the outcome of any further investigations on the matters that he raises.

---

Parliament Information Technology System

4. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it considers the Parliament’s IT system to be fit for purpose. (S4O-00693)

The Parliament relies heavily on information technology in order to function efficiently and effectively. The corporate body is aware of the crucial role of the parliamentary IT system in supporting the business of the Parliament in Holyrood, in the regional and constituency offices and, of course, through remote working.

Like all organisations, we keep our IT systems under review to ensure that the service that we provide best meets the needs of members, attains value for money, and takes advantage of proven, contemporary technologies.

Many members are increasingly frustrated by the inadequacies of the IT system that is offered by the Scottish Parliament in the Parliament campus, in our constituency offices and when we are working from home—or trying to do so. From my perspective, there are concerns around the capacity of our e-mail system, the ability to file electronically and the ability to manage cases effectively.

Given the increasing volume of e-mail correspondence that members are receiving, will the corporate body examine e-mail systems that are used by other bodies and groups to ascertain whether there is a better system that we could and should be using?

The key point is that the SPCB is here to serve members, not the other way round. I will undertake to ensure that the member’s concerns are raised with IT specialists.

I want to flag up a couple of points in which members might be interested. The first is that the new year saw a new contract for voice and data communication suppliers. We are now with Virgin Media—a change that represents a saving of £70,000 a year to the corporate body. The other point, which is, perhaps, of more importance to members, is that that gives us increased capacity—two links, rather than one—improves resilience and gives us a greater ability to have high-speed broadband. That is important for our offices in the constituencies and regions. I know, from talking to members from across the political divide, that that is a key point.

I will certainly ensure that we listen to members more efficiently. It is important that management walks the walk and that it talks to members regularly. On a wider matter, I know that there will be a review of the issue of tablet devices and other projects later this year.

I cannot overstate the importance of a reliable IT network for MSPs in carrying out their role. There is no doubt that we have faced significant disruption over the past six months, which has caused down time in local offices and Parliament. I hope that the steps that have been taken recently have made the system more robust, although I think that I am not alone in feeling that IT staff have a poor grasp of how local offices work and of the needs of the people who work in them.

What progress has there been on the review of change-management processes to ensure that the inherent risks of change in the IT service are managed appropriately?

I thank the member for contacting me at the end of last year with a list of complaints about the IT system. I am grateful for her courtesy.

I stress that the key point is that the corporate body is here to serve members, and it is important that the officials whom we employ consult and listen to staff. From talking to officials earlier today, I know that consultation is taking place as we speak, and the officials will take on board the points that the member has raised.

I also stress the key point that the new contract gives us new capacity and new resilience. I think that members will notice a big difference in broadband speed and accessibility to remote offices.

I am glad that John Lamont has raised the issue, as it is important to consider concerns about the IT system.

Mr Stewart said that the system is kept under review by the Parliament. Will the Parliament consider a benchmarking exercise against similar systems in industry in order to ensure that its IT system is fit for purpose and that it serves members as well as people in the private and public sectors are served?

The member makes an excellent point, which I undertake to raise at the corporate body’s next meeting.

---

Catering Contract (Renewal)

5. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when the contract for the provision of catering services to the Parliament will next be up for renewal. (S4O-00695)

The catering services contract is due for renewal on 1 August 2015, but there are options involving three times one-year extensions, which would be considered at that time, subject to the demonstration of acceptable performance. That could take the contract renewal date up to 1 August 2018.

Will the SPCB assure me that, when the catering contract comes up—sooner rather than later, I hope—and is being renegotiated, staff numbers will not be reduced and that consideration will be given to paying the lowest-paid staff the living wage rate in order to ensure that they are on a level with other parliamentary staff?

I understand that there is general concern across the chamber about the living wage, and I know that my colleague on the corporate body, Dave Stewart MSP, and my colleague in the Scottish National Party, John Wilson MSP, have often raised the issue.

For information, more than half the catering staff are already paid above the living wage of £7.20 an hour, and the staff who are currently paid below it are within 4 per cent of the £7.20 rate. I will request that, in the future, the SPCB will cost the living-wage option prior to the award of any new catering contract.

As I said, there is a review for the years at the end of the contract, but there is currently a yearly review of the cost of the wages. There will be a good opportunity to ask for the issue to be raised at the next review, which I undertake to do.

In addition to the living wage, is it possible that the next catering contract might specify that the company involved should not be using tax havens or other business structures that are designed to facilitate tax avoidance?

Mr Harvie has form on that matter, of course—if members will excuse the expression. He has expressed such concerns over many years, and there is general concern in the chamber about that and about how successive Westminster Governments have allowed such things to happen. I hope that we will continue to make our concerns in that regard known to the Westminster Government.

---

School Visits (Travel Funding)

6. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what plans are in place to provide funding or other travel assistance to schools from deprived areas that cannot afford to visit the Parliament. (S4O-00691)

The SPCB currently has no plans to provide funding or other assistance. The corporate body considered a proposal for a scheme in 2009-10, including an analysis of the other schemes that are available—in the Westminster Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, for example. It was felt that the current education service is effective and efficient and that, in the financial climate, the budget that is available would be best spent on continuing that provision, which is accessible to all Scottish schools.

Does the member accept that Westminster targets schools that do not visit? Will the SPCB at least look at that and study from which areas schools are not coming? Perhaps we could consider future assistance. In my constituency, the reality is that parents in better-off areas raise the money and kids can go to places, but that does not happen in poorer areas.

I thank the member for raising that excellent point, which fortunately was covered in the briefing paper. Officials do monitor uptake by region and constituency and have undertaken initiatives to promote visits in areas that are underrepresented. Regular contact is made with all schools in Scotland to advise them of opportunities to arrange visits or to take part in major events.

The cost of the inreach and outreach programmes is currently £233,000. In 2010-11, the service reached 12,000 young people through inward visits to the Parliament and a further 10,000 pupils took part in the outreach programmes.

---

Parliamentary Information (Foreign Languages)

7. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what provision there is for foreign visitors to access information on the workings of the Parliament in their own language. (S4O-00694)

The SPCB language policy supports the provision of information in different languages to facilitate the engagement of people with the Parliament. In addition, the SPCB also makes available some relevant information about the workings of the Parliament for visitors from other countries who are not fluent in English. Five languages were selected as the most predominant foreign languages and a further eight languages are used to provide information in the Parliament.

In the light of the heightened interest in Scottish politics and the Scottish Parliament because of the forthcoming referendum, what steps is the SPCB taking to enhance translation and interpretation provision for overseas media and other visitors?

I am not aware that we have had more visitors since the referendum consultation was announced, but interpreters can, nonetheless, be booked for private groups of foreign visitors. However, official delegations of visitors usually bring their own interpreters. Should we see a massive increase in visitors from other countries because they have taken an interest in the referendum and the Parliament, I am sure that the SPCB will address that issue and facilitate any need that may arise.