Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Thursday, June 13, 2024

Official Report 1148KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Question Time

Good afternoon. The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time.

---

Public Gallery Admissions Process

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review the process for admitting visitors to the public gallery in the chamber. (S6O-03585)

Our key priorities for admitting visitors to the public gallery are ensuring public safety, minimising disruption to chamber business and the security of the Parliament. We always want to ensure that visitors enjoy the experience and feel that they are participating in our work, and I welcome any feedback on the process.

Members’ business debates are a brilliant opportunity for MSPs to raise issues that matter to their constituents. However, during my debate last month, constituents from Angus and Aberdeenshire were unable to hear my opening remarks because they were still filing in, which was disappointing for them because they had travelled so far.

I have attended other members’ business debates at which visitors were seated at the back of the gallery, as is the case today, with plenty of seats at the front remaining unused, which we can also see today. I welcome the points about experience and safety, but we can clearly see that the situation is not acceptable. Will the corporate body consider reviewing processes in the people’s Parliament to ensure that opening speeches do not begin until all visitors are seated, and that better use is made of the seating arrangements?

I recognise the member’s frustration, and I have also been in that situation in relation to members’ business debates. Effort is made to ensure that the public gallery is seated in advance of the start of any debate, but there can be delays, particularly with Thursday afternoon debates, when members of the public are leaving after First Minister’s question time. FMQs is usually busy and we have only one door in and out of the gallery.

As the member said, the members’ business debates generate great interest, and people often travel great distances to get here. I agree that they should be seated for the opening speech, and I also agree that we should have greater flexibility in the seating arrangements in the gallery. A small working group between the various offices will be set up over recess to look to improve that experience.

---

Catering Produce and Products (Source)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether any of its contracted catering companies source produce or products from occupied land in Gaza or the West Bank. (S6O-03583)

Catering services at the Scottish Parliament are provided through our service partner, Sodexo. There is a focus on using local and seasonal products where possible. I am advised by Sodexo that none of its products is grown or supplied from occupied land in Gaza or the West Bank.

The corporate body will be aware that the Scottish Government has a clear procurement policy note that states:

“Exploitation of assets in illegal settlements ... is likely to be regarded as constituting ‘grave professional misconduct’ for the purposes of procurement law”.

Does the SPCB share that view, and will it undertake to review the products that it sources to ensure that none comes from illegal settlements?

I appreciate the points that the member has raised. The corporate body will discuss those points, look at our procurement policy and engage with Sodexo. The member might be interested to know that the catering contract will be put out to tender within the next couple of years.

---

MSP Staff Training Budget

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it would consider increasing the £500 annual training budget that is allocated to MSP offices for staff training. (S6O-03586)

Following a review in 2021 of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme, the corporate body delegated authority to the Scottish parliamentary service learning and development team to approve up to £500 per member annually through the incidental and ancillary employment cost provision to facilitate any additional ad hoc job-specific training needs, such as attending seminars and conferences.

Claims in excess of that amount have to be submitted to the SPCB for approval. However, current expenditure against the expenses scheme is extremely low. In 2023-24, there were just four claims against the scheme. Therefore, the corporate body’s view is that there is no current requirement to increase the provision.

I would emphasise that knowledge, experience and office size can vary, as can costs, because of where constituency offices are situated in the country, for example. As an addition to what the member has just described and to the £500 annual budget per office, perhaps a more individualised proposal system could be implemented for training, whereby members can source external training opportunities that would suit their office need and then seek approval from allowances for them, on a case-by-case basis in a timeous and practical way. That would help to deliver more flexible and tailored development opportunities for all staff.

I hear what Mr Macpherson says. As well as the scheme that I have identified—the members expenses scheme that was agreed in 2021—a central budget for MSP staff learning and development is in place to deliver all recurring training needs for MSP staff. That budget is managed by the SPCB’s learning and development team. The corporate body is keen to maximise the central budget to the benefit of all MSP staff, in order to realise economies of scale and value for money while ensuring equal and fair access. However, we will look further at Mr Macpherson’s suggestion.

I back what Ben Macpherson has said about the budget. I found outsourcing of training for parliamentary staff in my constituency office extremely difficult. Will the member say a wee bit more about what could be available and what could be done to ensure that constituency staff in rural and island areas are able to meet their parliamentary colleagues more regularly for training?

As I indicated, there is the £500 dispensation. It is also possible for claims in excess of that to be made and for them to be considered by the corporate body.

More generally, the current corporate body has taken the decision to have a comprehensive review of the entire structure of membership expenses, with a view to making recommendations for the next parliamentary session. Obviously, we will learn from the experience of the provision that we have had during the current parliamentary session to see whether there need to be changes that would accommodate some of the concerns that are being expressed, specifically with regard to Beatrice Wishart’s constituency office as well as others who might be in a similar position.

---

British Sign Language Services

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how much of its annual budget is allocated to the provision of BSL services to ensure that the Parliament is accessible to those who use BSL, in light of the 2022 census results showing that BSL is used by 117,300 people, or 2.2 per cent of the population. (S6O-03584)

I thank the member for the question and recognise her work to raise the profile and use of British Sign Language in the Scottish Parliament.

Although inclusion is more complex than a simple pro rata of budgets per population using a language, each year we spend around £90,000 to £100,000 on our services and staff to support and grow BSL inclusion.

The SPCB is proud of its achievements through its first BSL plan and is about to launch the consultation on its second plan. The second plan will build on our current work, not least in continuing to expand the proportion of chamber business that is BSL interpreted from the current level of around 12 per cent, and in continuing to provide interpretation of every First Minister’s question time.

In response to my previous question to the SPCB on the wider roll-out of BSL accessibility, I was advised to raise the issue at the Conveners Group, which I have done, and I was advised there that the Parliament does not have the necessary resources to facilitate BSL accessibility across all committee work.

Although recent efforts have been commendable, deaf people and BSL users want to be included in more issues than just those that affect their communication needs. They seek inclusion in all areas of democracy. Can the SPCB allocate the necessary resources to ensure that those individuals have direct access to all democratic processes, thereby promoting true inclusivity in our parliamentary system?

The member might be interested to know that we interpreted or translated into BSL 12 per cent of chamber business in the first five months of this year, 15 per cent of our committee calls for views, and 20 per cent of our festival of politics events in 2023, which has risen to more than 30 per cent in the 2024 programme.

However, I return to the fact that we are launching our draft BSL2 plan to build on that work, not least in continuing to expand BSL-interpreted chamber business, as well as providing interpretation of every FMQ. The member raises an important issue, so if she can be more specific about what she requires, particularly with regard to committees, I am sure that we can explore and consider that in the draft BSL2 plan.

Sharon Dowey is joining us online for question 5.

---

Security Review

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on the review commissioned by the security team, in light of the protest that took place on 21 February 2024. (S6O-03582)

The protest on 21 February was the first time that a protest at the Parliament attempted to physically prevent the public from entering the building. The review has highlighted that communications to those in the building, those trying to leave the building and those arriving were not good enough, and that some people were left feeling unsafe.

The security office conducted a lessons-learned review and developed a set of rapid communications that will be deployed in real time to building occupants and those known to be travelling to the building. Work has progressed in the security office on response plans for disruptive protests, and work is under way with events organisers to make it easier to communicate quickly with those who are expected to attend events.

On the night in question, following the blockage of one exit by protesters, the Parliament’s security team directed members and guests to an alternative exit. However, it appeared that the protesters quickly moved to that new location and continued their harassment and abuse. I spoke with the people who were in the Parliament building that night, including young apprentices, some of whom were in tears. They spoke of concerns about their safety and treatment. Has the corporate body identified any involvement from a member or their staff in providing inside information to protesters? If so, what consequences will be applied to address that behaviour?

I understand that the member has corresponded with the Presiding Officer on those matters. At the time, there were suggestions that a pass holder was providing information to protesters on where to protest. The security office looked into that claim, including reviewing closed-circuit television and speaking to staff on duty at the time. However, no evidence has been found to support that allegation.

---

Education Services (Access)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will provide an update on how it is widening access to its educational services. (S6O-03548)

The education service is a key part of our public engagement strategy delivery and actively works to sustain and grow a wide reach of schools that use it. Our recent members’ feedback surveys reflected positive experiences, as well as the challenges that some schools are facing in travelling to Edinburgh.

As we have informed members previously, the subsidy review is part of the SPCB’s public engagement strategy. That is under a review that is due to conclude in the autumn. Any changes to the priorities of the education service would flow from that, given the important role that the service plays in its delivery.

Educational visits to Parliament provide pupils with a first-hand experience of the democratic process, and it is important for young people to witness the institutions that shape our country’s governance. Earlier this year, primary 5 pupils from Our Lady of Loretto primary school in Dalmuir, in my region, were denied that experience due to travel costs. Although Scottish schoolchildren can claim back 85 per cent of the travel expenses to visit their United Kingdom Parliament, the Scottish Parliament offers no financial assistance for travel. What consideration has the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body given to allowing a percentage of travel costs to be claimed back for school visits?

To give some context, in the school year that is just ending, the education service has supported more than 400 education establishments; welcomed 214 schools to Holyrood; visited 164 schools; and held online sessions for 59 schools. We have been in every constituency, with a good diversity of age ranges and education settings and reached into schools in areas of deprivation. We know the importance of the impact of visiting the Parliament, but travel is not the practical option or the highest priority for many schools, which is why we offer the digital and outreach services.

I hear, however, what the member has said about the UK Parliament, which the SPCB knows offers a travel subsidy based on distance from the building, starting at 30 miles. We are working with the UK Parliament to understand the impact that that subsidy has had on the profile of the schools that use the service. The policy intention that the SPCB will continue to address in the autumn is whether spending money on a travel subsidy will help to achieve our public engagement goals in the most effective way, in line with the Scotland Act 1998. We are still reviewing and considering the position.

---

Pride Month

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to recognise pride month, including how it supports LGBTQ+ staff and visitors by ensuring that the Parliament remains a visibly inclusive environment. (S6O-03587)

The corporate body recognises the benefits that a diverse workforce can bring and takes immense pride in the values and culture of this Parliament by providing a positive, inclusive working environment where LGBTQ+ inclusion is embedded in everything that we do. As an employer, the corporate body takes an intersectional approach to diversity and inclusion to address the on-going legacy of historic prejudice and the continuing barriers to full inclusion. We will work in partnership with the recognised trade unions and LGBTQ+ staff to ensure that Parliament remains a visibly inclusive environment.

Finally, the commitment to LGBTQ+ staff members, visitors and the public is long standing and non-negotiable. As in previous years, the corporate body this morning agreed to a request to fly the progress flag this year to mark pride day in Edinburgh.

I am delighted to hear about that decision regarding the progress pride flag.

I ask my question in the wake of the decision not so long ago to require Parliament staff not to wear rainbow lanyards—a decision that I regard as unnecessary and unhelpful. Members are still allowed to make that small, simple and utterly inoffensive gesture of inclusion and support. On the other hand, corporate body staff are not. Is the corporate body aware that, in the wake of that decision, some individuals who actively campaign against the equality and human rights of lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer people actively welcomed the decision? Is the corporate body troubled by that and does it recognise that it has a responsibility assertively to challenge such suggestions and to use pride month to reassert very clearly the inclusive nature of Parliament?

On that latter point, I agree with Mr Harvie. I hope that he will accept that my personal record on these matters is such that I would not be a party to a decision that was trying to promote the kind of conclusive outcome that some people might be trying to come to as a result of the decision.

However, political parties have political views; the institution of the Parliament does not. The Parliament is welcome, open and accessible to all visitors—it is rated as a five-star visitor attraction by VisitScotland and, in an assessment in June 2023, it scored 10 out of 10 for inclusivity—but it is important that people who visit the Parliament feel that the Parliament itself is not expressing any particular kind of view. That was the reason why the corporate body came to the position that it did.

I can squeeze in question 8, if I could please have succinct questions and answers.

---

Temporary Staff (Process)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether a simplified employment process could be introduced for temporary staff working for just two or three days, for reasons such as covering sickness. (S6O-03581)

I was caught off guard, Presiding Officer. I did not think that we would get to number 8.

The corporate body recognises that MSPs’ staffing requirements can fluctuate over time in response to a range of circumstances. The SPCB seeks to operate arrangements that meet MSPs’ needs, while ensuring that the provisions of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme are met and that MSPs carry out their responsibilities as employers in accordance with employment law requirements.

Sometimes, I employ somebody for just one or two days to cover, for example, a funeral, sickness, unexpected leave or jury duty. We are expected to have an 11-page contract issued and signed, which seems a little bit over the top.

I note the point that Mr Mason makes. If it is possible for people services to be given advance notice of the potential arrival of a very short-term employee, it can facilitate a discussion with the member about how that might be progressed.

However, where, in effect, the individual has been employed and we are notified of that after the event, there is a requirement for us to abide by employment law provisions. I know that Mr Mason is an assiduous attacker of bureaucracy in those regards but, unfortunately, it is nonetheless a bureaucracy that is required as a result of the employment law by which we are bound.

That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. I apologise to the one member who I was simply unable to squeeze in. I did my best to get us through as many questions as possible.

There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow front-bench teams to change position should they so wish.