Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time
Visitor Searches (Knives)
1. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how many knives have been removed from visitors to the Parliament in each year since 2011. (S4O-03080)
All knives, pen knives and other sharp objects carried by visitors are retained by security. The total number of knives retained by security officers was 1,454 in 2011, 1,383 in 2012, 1,498 in 2013 and 85 so far this year.
Knives that can be carried legally in a public place in Scotland are returned to the visitor on leaving the building. The number of knives surrendered to police was 156 in 2011, 181 in 2012, 219 in 2013 and 10 so far this year.
What implications arise from the level of seizures that David Stewart outlined and what plans does the Parliament have regarding security?
I acknowledge Graeme Pearson’s keen interest in this issue, which comes particularly from his background as a senior police officer.
All security officers are supplied with protective vests, which they are required to wear when working in the screening area or at the gatehouse. All new officers receive full induction training, including customer care training, which assists them in dealing politely but confidently with situations such as the surrender of a knife. That is followed by regular refresher training.
In 2011-12 Lothian and Borders Police trained all security officers in techniques for dealing with visitors in such situations, including conflict management. It is our intention to approach Police Scotland to repeat that training for all new officers. We have close relationships with Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I will ask officials to look carefully at the points that Graeme Pearson made.
To get first-hand knowledge of this area and to gain a better understanding of day-to-day problems, I am going to spend some time with officers working in the screening area.
Given the number of knives that are returned to visitors, why are those knives confiscated in the first place?
We work closely with the police and the fiscal to get accurate understanding of the legal position. We hope to have good understanding of our visitors.
Some visitors come from foreign parts, where knives are used regularly. We try to use common sense when dealing with our visitors. Further training on the legality of this issue will be looked at with the fiscal service and the police.
Parliamentary Proceedings (Accessibility)
2. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what plans it has to promote access to parliamentary proceedings for people who are deaf or have a hearing impairment. (S4O-03082)
The SPCB makes available provision for people who are deaf and hard of hearing to access parliamentary proceedings. It is committed to engaging with all communities in Scotland and removing barriers, to enable everyone to access the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament.
People who are deaf or hard of hearing and who wish to view proceedings in the Parliament can request a British sign language interpreter or any other form of communication support, such as a speech-to-text reporter or note taker, for a debate or committee meeting.
Any information produced by the Scottish Parliament can be translated into BSL on request and many of the Parliament’s videos use BSL and subtitles, for example its videos on how to submit a public petition and appear before a committee as a witness.
That is very helpful. What provision is being made for the subtitling of televised parliamentary debates, to enable the deaf and hard of hearing in Scotland to follow the democratic process here in the chamber?
The Parliament has recently gone through a three-month pilot to provide subtitles for First Minister’s question time. Shortly after the Official Report becomes available, a subtitled broadcast of the proceedings can be provided by using YouTube technology to synchronise the Official Report with the actual video. Having only recently discovered that technique, we are very pleased to have found a way to offer the service to deaf and hard-of-hearing people.
Following the success of the pilot and positive feedback from deaf and hard-of-hearing groups, we intend to continue to provide the service, with a view to expanding it to cover other business in the chamber such as question time and perhaps debates of particular interest to the public.
Officials are currently looking at how the service will be delivered and will bring a report and recommendations to the corporate body. I would be happy to report back to Cara Hilton on progress once the corporate body has considered the proposals for the new service.
Capacity Needs
3. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it has given to the future capacity needs of the Parliament in the event that it exercises significant additional powers. (S4O-03083)
It would be for the Parliament to determine its capacity needs before the SPCB could consider this matter in any detail.
As Patrick Harvie will know, the corporate body recently issued a document to all members that summarised the relevant policies on the use of parliamentary resources in the run-up to the referendum. Moreover, our strategic plan recognises the need to prepare for the support of parliamentary services that will require to be delivered post referendum, regardless of the result. We have tasked officials with that work, but we do not expect to receive any briefing until the result and the Parliament’s requirements are known.
I acknowledge that, until the range of possibilities is better understood, it would be difficult to make hard-and-fast decisions. However, it seems likely that all political parties will be offering some form of progress, and the bare minimum would be additional requirements to run a wider range of committees, which would not only imply additional research and clerking capacity but have implications for budgets and physical space.
At the other end of the spectrum, we might even need a second chamber. Has the corporate body noticed that, just across the road, there is a large underused building that the Scottish ministers already own and which could entertain a little democratic use in future? I am sure that we could allocate a couple of spare rooms just in case Her Majesty wanted to stay over. I encourage the corporate body to examine this option—after all, it is never too soon to start measuring up for carpets and curtains.
I think that I thank Patrick Harvie for his supplementary question. I certainly noted a ripple of republican fervour across the chamber when it was asked.
As the member has rightly acknowledged, it is difficult to make any hard-and-fast decisions. However, he will be aware that, even in recent times, the corporate body has looked at ways of accommodating the change requirements of parliamentary business. For example, additional capacity had to be put in place to support parliamentary scrutiny of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill and the Welfare Reform Bill against, I have to say, the backdrop of some fairly difficult decisions on overall staffing in the Parliament—and I take this opportunity to put on record the corporate body’s gratitude to the staff for the way in which they have handled that situation.
As I have said, officials have been tasked with looking at a range of options. Patrick Harvie is right to point out that the issue is not simply to do with clerking and budgets; there are also potential capacity issues, some of which we have bumped up against in recent months. Nevertheless, any final decisions will have to await greater clarity on outcomes.
As for Mr Harvie’s final suggestion, I will throw it into the mix, but I am not necessarily confident that it will find a great deal of support.
Open-source Software
4. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it has given to making greater use of open-source software. (S4O-03048)
The corporate body is making use of a number of open-source software products in the information technology network, and we will continue to evaluate products on their merits as new requirements emerge.
Is the corporate body aware that jurisdictions around the world—including the European Parliament, which uses the Jahia content management system—are using more open-source software? Given the quality benefits of open scrutiny of source code, and the potential for financial savings in adopting open-source programmes, can we consider testing selected software with members with a view to rolling it out more widely if it proves to be satisfactory?
I know that Mr Stevenson has, after 30 years working with IT in banking services, wide experience in this area. He is right to say that open-source approaches are developed in a much more open manner by like-minded people; the programming code can be seen, and the software is generally free to use and—some people argue—more robust. It has also been argued that there are more minds available to solve any problems that arise.
To date, however, no new contracts have been awarded for open-source products. The corporate body’s procurement procedures ensure that the selection criteria are published in advance of any submission and are based on the outcomes and outputs that we need to achieve. As a result, it is open to suppliers to propose how those outcomes and outputs will be achieved, and the solution that they believe would best meet our criteria.
Electronic Security
5. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what measures it is taking to prevent illegal access to the Parliament’s website and other data sources, such as members’ email accounts. (S4O-03047)
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is aware of the importance of information security and takes the security of the Parliament network, and our information assets, very seriously.
In order to ensure that the appropriate levels of confidentiality and integrity are maintained, we employ a risk-based approach, and combine that with multiple layers of security technologies to maintain the balance between security and ease of access.
Can David Stewart clarify the nature of those external threats? Are they from individuals or Government agencies, in relation to unauthorised access? Further, can the SPCB assure me that no member’s email account has been hacked? Is the SPCB aware of any mobile devices that have been issued to members having been hacked?
Mr Wilson makes some good points. The SPCB takes security seriously and gets regular advice from Police Scotland, and we get general advice from the security services, and we also look to the national technical authority for information assurance.
Threat levels are clearly a big problem for us. The concerns that we have are not so much about geographic areas as individuals within them. For example, there are concerns about hacking by people who are based in China and Russia.
Our officials take external security advice. We have to realise that we are a big target in the public sector, but I am convinced that we have a rigorous approach to security and, as always, we will take advice from the experts in the security services.
Building Security
6. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, in light of a member of the public recently accessing the Parliament’s roof, whether it plans to implement extra security measures. (S4O-03085)
We constantly review our security measures and, where appropriate, seek to make adjustments. We do not, however, consider the incident on 20 February to be a breach of Parliament’s security. At no point was access gained to the Parliament’s interior, and the incident was handled by the police unit as an antisocial behaviour matter.
We are looking at the exterior of the Canongate building, which the individual climbed up, to see whether further practical measures can be added to prevent climbing.
Who regularly reviews security in Parliament? Are any meetings held with Police Scotland to review the security of the Parliament?
Yes. A police unit is based in the building and we have close relations with Police Scotland. As I said in my answer to the previous question, we take general advice from the security services. Richard Lyle will know that we currently have extensive electronic security systems in place, including perimeter intruder detectors and closed-circuit television.
Documentary Films
7. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what facilities are available for the showing of documentary films. (S4O-03081)
I ask for short questions and answers, please.
There are facilities available for showing documentary films, however the facilities used would be dependent on specific requirements. It is always best to get as much notice as possible, so that those specific requirements can be met.
I endeavour to give decent notice, but on two occasions when I have screened documentary films on Lockerbie and the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, all I had was a conventional monitor, and it was difficult for the audience to see or hear it clearly. I ask for more suitable screening facilities. If the SPCB accedes to my request, I undertake not to request the provision of a popcorn machine.
I am aware of the issue, and of what happened. However, I understand that the last time Christine Grahame showed a documentary film was right after a committee meeting and there was no time to change the layout of the room, which precluded use of larger screens.
We will take Christine Grahame’s comments on board and reflect on what she has said. However, I can say that, courtesy of James Dornan, an excellent documentary film—“Barefoot in Business”, which is about women in Uganda—was shown last week in the garden lobby.
We have the appropriate facilities, and we try to provide them when required. Given notice, we do our best.
I apologise to John Mason, but we must move to the next item of business.