Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Thursday, March 10, 2022

Official Report 1081KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time

Good afternoon. I remind members of the Covid-related measures and that face coverings should be worn while moving around the chamber and the wider Holyrood campus.

The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body questions. As ever, I invite members who wish to ask a supplementary question to indicate that during the relevant question. If questions can be succinct, with answers to match, that will allow us to make more progress.

---

Scottish Parliament Building (Lighting)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, in light of the symbols of solidarity seen across the world, whether it will, and has the equipment necessary to, light the Scottish Parliament building in the colours of the Ukraine flag at night. (S6O-00860)

The demonstrations of solidarity with the people of Ukraine across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are important and show that we support their struggle.

The corporate body recognises that the Scottish Parliament wishes to play its part. In response to the events in Ukraine, the Presiding Officer instructed officials of the Parliament to fly the Ukrainian flag. That started on Monday 28 February. The Parliament held a debate in the chamber and showed its solidarity. Unfortunately, the Parliament does not have the technical infrastructure to illuminate the building at this point in time.

There might be other occasions when we want the Parliament to make a statement. Nowadays, lighting up a building in the colours of a particular organisation or country is the expected way to do that. The Queen Elizabeth hospital in Glasgow, for example, has that facility. I ask the corporate body to reconsider the matter and examine what the cost might be.

We work closely with Poppyscotland and, as part of that relationship, the Parliament has been illuminated. We had then to hire equipment.

We want to ensure that any displays that we do are respectful to the organisation concerned. There are some technical difficulties with lighting this building—its construction and design make it difficult to project things on to it—but we are happy to take the matter away and look at it again. The costs previously seemed prohibitive, but I take on board John Mason’s comments about the need for Parliament to show connection with certain organisations. Lighting up the building is an effective way to do it.

---

Scots Language

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to advance and support the use of the Scots language across the Scottish Parliament campus. (S6O-00858)

Fur historical forby cultural reasons, the Scots Pairlamentary Corporate Body leid policy taks tent o the yaise o Scots.

For historical and cultural reasons, the SPCB language policy recognises the use of Scots. We support MSPs in using Scots in a number of ways: in the chamber, in committees, with constituents and when taking their oath or making their affirmation. For example, MSPs can use Scots in the chamber and committees. If it is just a few words and the meaning can be readily understood or the MSP immediately translates, that can readily be accommodated. For more lengthy speeches, the prior agreement of the Presiding Officer or convener is required.

Muckle thanks tae Christine Grahame fur thon repone. Oor Pairlament’s committee reports and ither warks are awready available, by request, in Gaelic, British Sign Language or ither accessible formats—which is, o coorse, walcome. As wark is gan on tae support fowk tae yaise their ain leid—that it is gree’d that they can yaise and that is yin o oor three national leids—wull the SPCB commit tae explorin whither the executive summaries o committee reports could be publishit in Scots, as we pit a refreshed focus on Scots in oor ain national Pairlament?

If ye want me tae translate it intae English, Presiding Officer, Ah wull.

I think that that is fine.

Christine Grahame, do you want a translation, or are you okay?

I think that I shall cope. We shall find out.

As is reflected in our language policy, all bills, delegated legislation and their accompanying documents are in English. When an MSP or a committee considers that there are good reasons for translation into a language other than English, it can be requested through the clerks. However, I am not clear whether that covers executive summaries of reports. I will discuss that with my colleagues, confirm it and return to the member when I am clear.

Would the corporate body hae a thocht tae the idea that, if a motion is pit in in the mither twang o the member—fur exemple, the Doric—or the subject o the motion is the mither twang, wir practice the noo is flipped ower so that the mither twang motion is first and nae the English een?

Ah can translate if needed.

At the moment, I am afraid that they are published first in English and then in another language. Scots includes the Doric—indeed, it is a range of dialects such as Lallans and Scotch, as well as more local dialects such as Buchan, Dundonian, Glesga and Shetland—so it is more complicated. Nevertheless, Scots, which includes the Doric, continues to be recognised by the SPCB.

With a languages bill expected from the Scottish Government, we will have to allow that political process to progress. The SPCB will reflect any legislative or policy changes to its operations, including the Official Report and the Business Bulletin.

Thank you. As Neil Gray would confirm, Orcadian will also be recognised.

---

Constituency and Regional Offices

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how many members have been unable to establish a constituency or regional office. (S6O-00821)

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.

It is my understanding that both constituency and regional members of the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh and the Lothians have been the last to be able to source office spaces. That has also presented issues with regard to the need for individual members to meet the additional access and security requirements that the corporate body is now suggesting that all MSPs take into account. Will the corporate body investigate a potential Edinburgh weighting for allowances? Will it look at how we can utilise all our allowances in the way we would like to so that we can represent our constituents in the Parliament?

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.

---

Scottish Parliament Crèche

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what progress has been made on reopening the Scottish Parliament crèche. (S6O-00857)

The Scottish Parliament originally established a crèche to improve public access and engagement for those with young children. In session 2, that service was extended to parliamentary passholders. The crèche closed in March 2020 due to Covid-19 restrictions, and in October 2020 the corporate body agreed to temporarily discontinue the crèche contract due to the on-going pandemic. I am pleased to say that, at a recent SPCB meeting, we agreed that, as the building reopens to the public and as working from home measures are eased, we will immediately procure a new crèche contract.

As the corporate body is aware, in the past the Parliament has celebrated the provision of a high-quality crèche service in the building, which allows parents and carers to access parliamentary business and to meet more easily with members of the Scottish Parliament. In October 2020, the SPCB committed to having a new contract in place as soon as possible at the start of the new parliamentary session. What steps are being taken to speed up that process, including consulting not just members but constituents, in the interests of supporting wider engagement with the Parliament?

I recognise the value of the crèche—I used it when my daughter was pre-school—and I recognise how important it is for visitors and constituents. We have consulted passholders in the Parliament, and I thank everybody who responded to the survey. The procurement process will take around 12 months, but anything that we can do to shorten that process and get the crèche open as soon as possible, we will do.

---

Ventilation in Constituency Offices

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on whether it will support MSPs to install ventilation solutions in their constituency offices with funding outwith the office cost provision. (S6O-00859)

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.

I confirm that I am one of the three who have got quotes and sent them back in. I know that every single office will be different and will have a different set of requirements. I ask the SPCB to be as timeous as possible when it takes the decision on the matter at some point post 31 March, so that any installation that can, and needs to, take place can happen as quickly as possible to help protect staff and any constituent who comes into the office.

I can give that assurance. We understand that many MSPs have constituency offices that are in fact shop units. It is normally regarded as ventilation if the door opens and shuts, because it is a shop. Obviously, when the space is used as a constituency office, the door is not opening and closing in that way, so we appreciate that ventilation issues accrue.

If members who are pursuing those opportunities can ensure that they have two quotations so that we have an idea of the scale of the demand, we will respond as quickly as we can to facilitate the introduction of appropriate ventilation measures.

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

---

Policy on Party Affiliation in Publications

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider amending its policy on party identity or affiliation appearing on publications paid for by the SPCB. (S6O-00854)

Publications that are funded from parliamentary resources must be factual and relate to the member’s work as a parliamentarian and must not be party political in nature. Therefore, the SPCB’s policy on members’ publications and the policy on the use of the Scottish Parliament corporate identity by MSPs do not permit the use of political party logos or emblems on parliamentary-funded publications, which helps to ensure that parliamentary-funded publications remain non-party political in nature and are not confused in any way with party-funded political publications.

However, under the policy, members can include their party affiliation in the format that is laid out in the policy—member of the Scottish Parliament for X constituency or Y region, followed by their party in brackets. There are no plans to review the policy at this time. That dispensation is not granted to MPs, for example.

Members’ publications are for many an essential means of communication—they certainly are in my case, in the absence of any local newspaper—and the one opportunity that there is to communicate with all constituents. For them to be seen to be compromised in a party-political way would undermine public confidence and trust, and there would be calls, which would be much more difficult to withstand, for us to end the ability of MSPs to send out annual reports.

I agree with the member completely, but there seems to be some confusion, because, when I put my report in this time, the “Conservative” title was taken out and was not allowed to go through by the officials.

I wonder whether that could be looked at again and absolute clarity given, particularly for regional MSPs. I think that about 40 or 50 people responded to me saying, “Which political party are you from?” It would be helpful for them to know which party the seven regional MSPs come from. If that could be clarified and some information could be sent to regional MSPs, I would be grateful.

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.

With apologies to those members whom I was not able to call, that concludes SPCB question time. Before we move to the next item of business, I will allow a short pause for members on the front benches to change places.