Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a follow-up question. I think that you have allowed a 3 per cent contingency for the four large vessels that are currently being constructed in Turkey. It was good that you put on the record some of the pressures and strains that exist at the moment. Is that 3 per cent figure adequate, or do you expect that it might need to go up? Will you need to use it?

I will briefly go back to the question about liquefied natural gas propulsion. There has been a lot of discussion in the press about whether the carbon emissions are higher or lower, and there was a discussion earlier about the weight of the vessel and everything else. I take it that neither the Glen Sannox nor the Glen Rosa will be part of the UK emissions trading scheme, because of their weight. Is that right?

That would avoid all the conjecture about whether carbon emissions are higher or lower.

Surely that is the point of the emissions trading scheme—you have a verifiable and monitored system in which there is agreement on what the emissions are, and you take into account not just what you are burning on the ship but where it comes from. If it comes from Saudi or wherever, you might have a higher carbon footprint.

That is good. Vicky, can you say how that change relates to the staff survey work? Is there a package of other measures around that work that fits with the 35-hour working week? What impact will it have on the organisation?

That is a useful answer. As you say, it is quite a marginal change—15 minutes a day. My team in Parliament operates on a 30-hour week, and that does put a lot of pressure on productivity.

I just wonder how that change and a package of other measures might impact on your recruitment and retention. You are projecting a 5 per cent vacancy rate. Is it difficult for you to pin down what the vacancy rate will be? Are you working towards bringing that down and towards an outcome where you are more competitive? It might be difficult to match the salaries in the private sector, but what is the attractive package that you can offer?

For somebody who has caring responsibilities, 35 hours a week is better than 37 but it is not 32; it does not take half an hour off of each day to enable them to pick up the kids or go and see an elderly parent.

I am thinking about people who are making career choices to go with you rather than the private sector and about bringing down the vacancy rate. Is the reduction competitive alongside other actions that you are taking? How does it impact your budget? That is a bit of a holistic question.

Okay. I will stay with questions on productivity. You have identified one relatively minor best practice change within the organisation in relation to time. Will you take further actions in the next year to improve efficiency and productivity? We will come to questions about the audit modernisation project later, but can you point to anything else on productivity and efficiency that you are working on that benefits staff and helps them to do their jobs?

That will obviously benefit staff as well. Thank you.

Good morning. I want to ask you about productivity, particularly in relation to the move from a 37-hour week to a 35-hour week. I suppose that it is a bit of a chicken-and-egg question. Have you been able to increase productivity to the point at which you feel comfortable reducing working hours to a 35-hour week, or do you think that a reduction to a 35-hour week will enhance productivity to the point that it is beneficial for your work in the organisation? I am interested to know about your decision making in that space and its relationship with productivity more generally.

I am sorry, but I would like to continue.

If one goes to other global cities that have iconic parks, such as Central park in New York, they will see that they have in place traffic restrictions and speed enforcement. The aspiration of a car-free Holyrood is a good one. It is disappointing not to see more consideration of what restrictions and limitations could be included in the strategic plan.

As I continue my morning run up the hill past Dunsapie loch, other things strike me, as well. There is a lack of interpretation for visitors. Given the extent of the archaeology, geology and history, and the protected nature sites in the park, there is a story to be told, so it is disappointing not to see more interpretation provided.

I also see that the footpaths on Arthur’s Seat are pretty wrecked. That is not surprising, given the huge number of visitors who enjoy the park every year. However, there is a need for investment and for the strategy to consider those things.

Finally, as I head back to Holyrood, I pass the gates that are currently restricting access to the Radical Road, which have been in place since 2018. They are clearly out of place. We need the Radical Road to be reopened. I would like HES to provide a clear timetable on that in the new year.

HES has taken a very risk-averse approach. We have seen that with the high-level masonry programme, which has partially closed many attractions across Scotland. We are talking about a public path that is prone to rockfalls. There is learning to be taken from elsewhere—such as from our national cycle network—about how to manage those risks. HES could learn from Sustrans about how to open up the Radical Road in a responsible way. It is good to see that commitment in the strategy.

Again, I thank Lorna Slater. I look forward to seeing the improvements that will come, I hope, when I am out on my morning run in the years ahead.