Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, further to the answer to question S6W-34464, what its position is on whether MSPs should be able to participate in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, in addition to the armed forces visits programme, should they wish to do so, in light of it being a structured 15-day course with one of the armed services, and it also offering the opportunity to enrol on a Royal College of Defence Studies postgraduate degree level course in strategic leadership and international strategic studies, and it therefore being different in nature. (S6O-04476)
I thank Paul Sweeney for his sustained interest in these matters. As a member, he is aware that the Scottish Parliament’s armed forces parliamentary visits programme was established relatively recently, in 2017. Since then, many members, including me, have participated in outward visits to defence bases across Scotland as well as reciprocal visits to the Parliament. I say that as an enthusiastic former member of the Combined Cadet Force.
The current programme is a good fit for the Scottish Parliament and its members, and, although there are no plans to review it at the current time, Mr Sweeney has highlighted some differences between the two schemes. Accordingly, the corporate body has asked parliamentary officials to contact the armed forces parliamentary scheme to inquire whether members of the Scottish Parliament may participate in those programmes. We will update Mr Sweeney and members on that in due course.
I welcome the response in relation to exploring the idea with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust. It would be welcome if members of the Scottish Parliament and other devolved legislatures were able to participate in the programme. Given that it is governed by an independent board of trustees and funded largely from industry, that would not necessarily come at any cost to the Scottish Parliament, and it would provide an opportunity for members to augment the existing excellent and well-attended visits programme, which I have also had the opportunity to attend, with a deeper engagement with our armed forces.
I do not disagree with that. However, in the first instance, I and the corporate body would encourage more members of the Parliament to participate in the scheme that we have, which is the armed forces parliamentary visits programme. Members will be aware that a communication has gone out in the past couple of days, which identifies opportunities that will be available later this year. Too few MSPs have participated in such opportunities, and I encourage others to do so. It really is a great experience.
There is a brief supplementary question from Rachael Hamilton.
I am sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—I pressed my button because I have a lodged question and you were looking at me.
Thank you for the clarification, Ms Hamilton. I will try to avoid doing that too much in the future. [Laughter.]
Catering Products (Companies Involved in Activities Related to Israeli Settlements)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consider removing from its catering outlets any products made by companies identified by the United Nations human rights office as being involved in activities related to illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. (S6O-04478)
The catering services at the Scottish Parliament are provided through our service partner Sodexo Limited. Sodexo has been monitoring any supply requirements, and it has no original sources or suppliers within occupied Palestinian territory. I understand that Sodexo continues to review its supply chain, working with supply chain partners to understand risks and challenges related to issues such as international conflict, political instability and logistics.
I am grateful for that answer, and I take on trust the assurance that there are no specific products produced in the occupied territories. However, there are products produced by companies that are complicit in activity in the occupied territories. All of us would rightly be horrified if there were products on sale that were profiting companies that were benefiting from the illegal Russian occupation of Ukraine. It seems to me that exactly the same principle should apply in relation to companies that are complicit in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
I urge the corporate body to consider more deeply the question and whether we can have a stronger position, agreed with catering partners, to ensure that such companies are not profiting from the custom of either staff members or visitors to the Parliament.
It is important that the corporate body operates within the legal framework. Through the Scottish procurement policy, we ensure that all our contractors comply with all legal requirements. They also adhere to the United Kingdom Government’s embargoes and sanctions list, which was updated in October last year.
Nevertheless, I hear Patrick Harvie’s concerns. He might be interested to learn that our catering contract is due for renewal and that it will be put out to tender soon.
Is Patrick Harvie’s question not just another example of his student union-style obsessive politics? Should the parliamentary catering service not continue to focus on delivering good service and value for money, especially in the eyes of the taxpayer?
I recognise that Patrick Harvie and Stephen Kerr have different views on some important issues. I say again that our catering service meets all its legal requirements and that we will be putting the contract out to tender quite soon.
Stamps
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what information it has on for what reason stamps that are issued in the Parliament’s post office are not Scotland country-definitive stamps by default. (S6O-04474)
The corporate body is not responsible for the commercial decisions of the on-site post office. My understanding is that it stocks the standard range of postage stamps that would be available in all high street post offices to cater for customers’ everyday mailing needs. It has confirmed to us that country-definitive postage stamps are available for purchase. On checking at the post office this morning, I found out that it has 300 first-class Scottish stamps and that more can be ordered on request, which would take one to two days.
I accept the point that the situation is the same in post offices outside the Parliament, but the Royal Mail has gone to considerable effort, under pressure, to produce what I think are excellent first and second-class stamps for Scotland. This is Scotland’s national Parliament and we are selling rest-of-the-UK stamps. Does the member not agree that that is bizarre?
As I said, the Parliament’s post office makes its own commercial decisions, and a range of stamps—including Scotland-specific stamps—are available on request. The post office currently has Scotland-specific first-class stamps in stock, and it would be happy, if requested to do so by a member, to order a fuller range of stamps, including country-definitive stamps. I understand that, at the moment, it is also possible to get Spice Girls stamps and AC/DC stamps.
Scottish Parliamentary Pension Scheme
I declare an interest as a former trustee of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme.
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what discussions it has had with the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme trustees about investments in Tesla and any other companies that may conflict with the scheme’s statement of investment principles. (S6O-04477)
Although Mark Ruskell’s specific point is one for the trustees of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme and not the corporate body, I can advise that the SPCB’s duty, in accordance with the provisions of the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act 2009, is to nominate trustees to administer the pension scheme and manage its assets.
Trustees are appointed by the Parliament on the passing of a resolution to approve their nomination. They perform an important role in ensuring the proper running of the scheme. They operate separately from the corporate body in holding scheme assets in trust for scheme beneficiaries. They must fulfil fiduciary duties, including the duty to act impartially, prudently, responsibly and in the best interests of scheme beneficiaries.
The trustees act in accordance with their investment strategy, while keeping the corporate body informed of changes as required. The corporate body does not expect the trustees to notify it of the investment decisions of its fund managers.
It is quite clear that Elon Musk has promoted extremism and misinformation. He is part of a Trump Administration that has shown utter contempt for human rights across the world. He is a toxic individual. That is just one of the reasons why the value of shares in Tesla is collapsing right now, which will impact on our pensions. Therefore, I welcome the news that Baillie Gifford, which runs our pension funds, has been reducing the amount of funds in Tesla. I would like to see total divestment from Elon Musk’s companies as well.
Will Maggie Chapman reflect on the fact that, this month, the SPPS is to conduct its triennial review? As an employer, the SPCB could and perhaps should encourage all members of the scheme to give feedback on such ethical issues in relation to the ethical investment policy, which is an important part of the governance of our collective pension funds.
As Mark Ruskell knows, I, too, am pleased that the triennial review will get under way imminently. As he will be aware, as a former scheme trustee, it is the main duty of trustees to act in the financial interests of the scheme beneficiaries. It is also important to be clear that the fiduciary duties of the scheme are taken into account in advice, and I am sure that Baillie Gifford will be taking note of changes in the valuation of Tesla.
I am aware that, in previous sessions, the pension scheme administrators met the corporate body on a more regular basis and that that has not been routine during this session. I therefore undertake to go back to the corporate body and request that. If we decide to take that forward, the corporate body will ensure that there is consultation and discussion with scheme members. I will get back to the member about that in due course.
That question is another example of student politics. Does the member agree with me that, if we were to extrapolate what is being asked for here, we would need to look at the whole supply chain behind any manufacturers or investments and that that would be an impossible task?
I gave a pretty full answer in my response to Mark Ruskell. It is clear that the fiduciary duties of the scheme trustees are taken seriously and that supply chain considerations are taken into account. As I said, the corporate body will have further discussions about how best to consult members of the pension scheme, whether or not that is part of our role and responsibility, and will come back to Parliament on that.
LGBTQ+ Staff (Support)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what measures it is taking to support any LGBTQ+ staff whose welfare may be negatively impacted by any increase in the use of language in the chamber and committees that may be perceived as trans-exclusionary. (S6O-04479)
The corporate body takes its duties under health and safety legislation seriously and has a range of measures in place to promote good mental health and wellbeing for all staff. Those include regular discussions between managers and staff, during which welfare concerns can be discussed and resolved. Staff can also access the free and confidential employee assistance programme, which provides a range of support, including access to counselling.
The corporate body opposes all forms of unlawful discrimination and will take a zero-tolerance approach to and appropriate action against any individual displaying such behaviour. As part of that, staff can access an independent support service, including advocacy support, to help them to address any concerns and to seek an appropriate resolution.
The corporate body’s commitment to all staff, including LGBTQ+ staff, is long-standing and non-negotiable.
According to the most recent census, trans people make up less than 0.5 per cent of Scotland’s population. However, just this year, their rights to access public services, seek support following rape or abuse, work in the public sector, serve on public bodies and even be mentioned in schools—in short, merely to exist in the public realm at all—have been challenged in this Parliament on no fewer than 10 separate occasions.
We have a duty of care to all who work in the building. Would those completely disproportionate attacks on a group with a characteristic that is protected under the Equality Act 2010 be tolerated in connection with any other marginalised group?
I refer the member to my response of a moment ago, which is the corporate body’s response and attitude to the issue.
The uses of language and other incidents to which the member referred have happened within the chamber and in committee meetings, and they are therefore not a matter that falls within the responsibility of the corporate body. The Parliament’s standing orders say that
“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner and shall respect the authority of the Presiding Officer”
or, in committee meetings, the convener.
Legislation Team (Resources)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what recent assessment it has made of the resources given to the legislation team. (S6O-04475)
A comprehensive review of the staffing resource required for session 6 was undertaken in 2021. As a result of that review, additional staff were brought on stream in 2022-23 across the clerking function, including within the legislation team. A flexible resourcing model is operated across the clerking teams, enabling the movement of staff across functions to support peaks in parliamentary business throughout the session. Senior leaders within the parliamentary business directorate continually assess and reprioritise staff resources to ensure the effective delivery of business. Additional resources are being allocated to the legislation team in the forthcoming weeks to increase its staffing complement until the end of the session.
I am pleased to hear that additional resources are being allocated to the legislation team in the next few weeks, but there has been a noticeable decline in the standard of bills that are presented by the Scottish Government. The legislation team plays a really important role in supporting members of the Scottish Parliament, but the poor standard of Scottish Government bills is resulting in an increased need for significant and complex amendments, which is causing delays in the parliamentary process.
Does the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body share my concerns about the quality of the bills that are being introduced by the Scottish Government, which is having an impact on parliamentary resources and the welfare of the staff here?
Although the corporate body acknowledges that, in the current session, a number of bills have been subject to delays during the scrutiny process for a variety of reasons, none of those relate to the resourcing of the legislation team. Legislation team officials work with their Scottish Government counterparts via established routes to ensure that business is prioritised and programmed appropriately and to avoid pinch points wherever possible.
I appreciate that that does not address the member’s question in full, but it is not the corporate body’s role to take a view on the quality of bills that come to Parliament from the Scottish Government, as Rachael Hamilton suggests.
That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. Before we move on to the next item of business, there will be a very short pause to allow the front-bench teams to quickly change positions.
Air adhart
Portfolio Question Time