Chamber and committees

The next continued petition is PE1901, on replacing the voting system for the Scottish Parliament with a more proportional alternative. The petition, lodged by Richard Wood, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to replace the broadly proportional additional member system that is used for electing MSPs with a more proportional alternative.

In our previous consideration of the petition, we agreed to write to the Electoral Commission, which has responded that it holds “no view” on the issue.

By way of reminder, the petition states that the additional member system is “not fully proportional”. The Scottish Government has indicated that it has no ambition to review the system at the present time.

I interrupted you, but thank you for that helpful clarification.

PE1893, on introducing legislation to protect Scotland’s war memorials, was lodged by James Watson on behalf of the friends of Dennistoun war memorial. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce legislation that recognises desecration or vandalism of war memorials as a specific criminal offence.

At our most recent consideration of the petition, the committee agreed to write to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We have received a detailed submission from the commission, which concludes by making clear that it does not believe that it has the authority to consider action in respect of the petition, because that would fall outside its scope, given the war memorials that are directly within its responsibility.

Members might recall that the Scottish Government said in its submission that it is content that

“there is legislation currently in place to deal with the vandalism and desecration of statutes and memorials, including war memorials ... Scottish Government has no current plans to introduce new legislation for the specific purpose requested in the petition.”

Do members want to recommend a route, given what we have heard from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Scottish Government?

Mr Sweeney wants to come in and then I will invite Jackie Baillie to make a statement to the committee based on what we have heard this morning.

Your life is being rebuilt with the support of your partner, Ian, who we are very grateful to have with us this morning as well. His support has obviously been hugely important to you.

In concluding, I would like to give you an opportunity to make any additional remarks to us as a committee that will help us going forward. If you have anything that you would like to read to us by way of a statement, that will be equally valuable.

If colleagues are content to pursue that route, I thank Mr Watson and the friends of Dennistoun war memorial. In closing the petition, perhaps we could draw their attention to the legislation that the Government thinks is appropriate, so that they know that they have recourse to it.

And in English. It goes without saying that all members who are entitled to a constituency office must be able to find a route to access one. Currently, four members have yet to secure an office and are still looking for one. Most members have secured, or are in the process of securing, either an office or a second office. A small number have decided not to have an office.

I will certainly take that issue back. Some members are particularly canny in identifying their party-political affiliations, because their leaflet is bright yellow, blue, red or green, and that gives it away slightly.

Notwithstanding that, it is absolutely the case that all MSPs should be able, within the context of the annual report, to identify the region or constituency that they represent, followed by the party affiliation in brackets. I do not know why that would not have been allowed in that instance and I am happy to take that experience back to officials to get some understanding as to what might have happened.

The corporate body has had fairly extensive discussions about office accommodation. We recognise that there are variable office accommodation costs in the different regions and cities in Scotland and that those costs are not equal. We also understand that there is a particular issue in Edinburgh and the Lothians and that costs there are particularly high. We recognise that and have tried to build additional funding into the scheme. We are prepared, where it can be evidenced that reasonable premises can be found, to seek to identify additional funding that can be allocated to assist members in that process. There have been no such applications so far for this session. Two such applications were considered in previous sessions.

We understand the nature of the issue and I know that officials are keen to work with members who are still unable, or are struggling, to find appropriate accommodation in order to identify and secure that at the earliest possible date. There is no doubt or debate that that should be possible and that that issue should be resolved.

Apologies, Presiding Officer—I have realised that I am slightly behind in my notes.

SPCB staff have held a drop-in session on ventilation guidance and offered a one-to-one consultation to look at each local office’s circumstances and provide recommendations to improve ventilation where it is needed. So far, 12 offices have been provided with recommendations and a simple specification to help them discuss ventilation with their landlord, who may well be an appropriate route to underwrite the funding of any alteration, but also, if required, to seek two quotes for the work. Three offices have so far provided quotes to officials.

A deadline of 31 March has been set for the return of quotations from local offices. The SPCB will then consider whether additional support is needed for ventilation solutions in local offices or whether such costs can be met within the current office cost provision limits of the members’ expenses scheme. However, we would quite like to see the scope of the particular requirements before finally deciding on that point.