SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY
Parliament Building (Security)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what changes it plans to make to the safety and security arrangements for the Parliament building. (S3O-8167)
In addition to the recently installed turnstiles at the Canongate and Queensberry House entrances, the SPCB will be undertaking additional perimeter security measures involving bollards and other concrete structures on the Canongate and Horse Wynd.
Many users of the building, who may have been a bit surprised and puzzled by the installation of the turnstiles and the hassle that it takes to get in and out of the building, might wonder why the removal of the temporary barriers outside the front entrance has not been given a higher priority. That area is much more widely used by members of the public, yet it is still served by unsightly safety barriers. Will the member explain why the decision was made to prioritise the installation of turnstiles that some would regard as mere security theatre?
The SPCB receives regular security advice from national security agencies. As members would expect, we pay serious heed to that advice, and as such we proceeded with the security measures. I acknowledge the member's point about the barriers around the pond area on the perimeter of the building; the SPCB is aware of how unsightly those are, and we intend to take action in that area as soon as we possibly can.
Question 2 has been withdrawn.
Telepresence Systems (Committee Rooms)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what progress has been made to equip all committee rooms with telepresence systems. (S3O-8164)
A budget bid that covers the costs of purchasing new, high-definition videoconferencing equipment has been made as part of the SPCB budget process for the financial year 2010-11. There are, however, no plans to equip all committee rooms with telepresence systems.
Yesterday I took part in a videoconference with Boston via telepresence. The technology is breathtaking—it is like watching a digital film in high definition—and it meets the three tests of high quality, ease of use and reliability. Will Mr Johnstone ask the SPCB to assess the technology in terms of the benefits to the public, the gains for our committees and the reduction in our carbon footprint, so that Parliament can join the new revolution in communications technology?
It is believed that the current system is able to provide what members of the Parliament currently require. However, the SPCB is aware of the benefits that videoconferencing technology offers, and it encourages wider use of the technology where it is appropriate to minimise travel and increase engagement. The SPCB undertakes to continue to monitor the availability of new technologies, and it will consider those in future.
The SPCB generally accepts—if I heard the member correctly—that such technologies are a good thing. Does it support the ability of the cross-party group that I run, for example, to link to somewhere on the other side of the country?
Videoconferencing facilities, like all other SPCB resources, are provided to facilitate and enable parliamentary business. As a result, they are not necessarily available for the use of cross-party groups.
Parliament Building (Security)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how much the recent security improvements to the Parliament have cost in the current financial year. (S3O-8166)
The cost of works in the current financial year to the end of August is £178,000, and the total forecast expenditure to the end of the financial year, when the works are expected to be completed, is anticipated to be around £1.8 million.
Are there any expected future costs for security improvements to the Parliament building or its environs in the next financial year?
As I said in response to an earlier question, the SPCB receives regular security advice from national agencies, and we respond to that advice. It is not possible at present to adequately forecast the advice that we may receive and the costs that may be associated with such advice.
With regard to Tom McCabe's reply about the advice that the SPCB gets from consultants, does it receive any counter-advice, or go to other consultants to get different advice? It appears, to many of us, that a huge amount of money is being spent on security measures that not all of us think are essential. In view of the £300,000 for the turnstiles and the exorbitant figure of £375,000 a year for unplanned maintenance, might it be a good idea to have an ad hoc group of back benchers, elected through a free vote of their peers, to act as a sounding board for the corporate body? I am sure that we would be willing to do that, because more and more people are taking more and more of an interest in how the Parliament spends money and the impression that that creates with the people who pay for it.
First, the corporate body is a body of four back benchers who are elected by the entire Parliament. Secondly, we receive advice not from consultants but from national security agencies.
Local Offices (Information Technology)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body when it plans to complete the IT refresh in MSPs' local offices. (S3O-8165)
The local office technical refresh project has started and is anticipated to be completed in 2010. As part of the project, business information technology staff will begin to consult members and their staff in October.
I put on record the good service that we get from our information technology office. However, the corporate body will be aware of members' frustration about the outdated technology in their constituency offices, where most of their staff are based. Can the SPCB tell the Parliament when members will be contacted and told when their refresh will take place? Will the member also give some indication of what improvements members can expect?
Since 2008, broadband provision to local offices has been improved to the premium service that is available at individual locations. In addition, improvements have been made here at Holyrood—for example, upgrades to servers and other hardware, increased bandwidth provision and improved local office services. Through the provision of faster hardware, more up-to-date software applications and improved connectivity, the service that is provided is improving. It is intended that the service will continue to improve with the upgrade that is about to take place.
I am sure that all members will welcome the improvements as they are made, but when can we expect an IT refresh or an approach to providing IT that allows members to choose what kind of hardware they wish to use and what kind of operating systems and software they wish to run in their local offices? Given that anyone who runs any other small office has that freedom, it is hard to understand why it is not possible to achieve it in constituency or regional offices or, indeed, on the Holyrood campus.
Needless to say, there are always questions that no one has thought in advance might be asked. However, I share some of the member's concerns about the way in which IT services can be provided in large-scale operations such as the Scottish Parliament. I encourage him to engage at every level with other members, and with those who are responsible in the Parliament, on those issues, which are largely philosophical and are not directly connected to the day-to-day provision of services that we are discussing. However, I am keen to explore the matter further with the member at some time in the future.
Members and their staff in local offices are frustrated by the speed and stability of connections to the internet and the Parliament's intranet. It is not uncommon for connections to fall down and for work to be lost. I take on board Alex Johnstone's remarks on the refresh programme, but will he make a commitment to discuss those issues with local offices and consider how we can build a more reliable connection that is not only more stable but faster? Such a connection would not only provide a better service to our offices but improve the service that we give to our constituents.
As I said, it is believed that all services are of the best quality available in the area where individual offices are located. However, as broadband services throughout Scotland are improving, it might over time be possible to improve performance in a relatively short timescale. Again, I give an undertaking that BIT will speak to individuals on a one-to-one basis about specific problems, many of which can be dealt with by members explaining them and having BIT act directly on them.
Given the member's comment that members should engage with each other on the matter of IT upgrades, particularly in their offices, do I take it that the member agrees with and endorses my suggestion of establishing an ad hoc group to act as a sounding board for the SPCB?
No, I do not, and I welcome this opportunity to clarify my answer to Patrick Harvie. My point was related not to the direct day-to-day provision of IT services, but to the nature of the software that is allocated to such services. As I said, that is a largely philosophical issue at the moment and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it with other members. I re-emphasise that that does not apply to the day-to-day provision of the Parliament's IT services.
That ends questions to the corporate body. As we have finished early, I suspend the meeting until 2.50 pm.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—