Official Report 1247KB pdf
The next item of business is Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time.
Contractors (Employment Terms and Conditions)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it has given to staff employed within the Parliament as contractors and whether they should have the same employment terms and conditions as corporate and MSP staff. (S6O-05226)
The corporate body is not the employer of contractor staff and has limited ability to stipulate specific terms or benefits in contractor employment contracts. The corporate body procurement function adheres to the fair work principles that are set out in the Scottish Government guidance for the public sector on fair work and procurement, which can be found at www.gov.scot.
I am glad that the Parliament takes the principle of fair work seriously, but no minister, MSP, clerk, researcher or anybody else would really be able to do their job if it was not for those who clean the building, maintain it to keep it safe or cater for the various other needs that contractors fulfil in the building. I think that we are all aware that not all those people have the same wage protection, security of employment, union rights and so on as other staff members. We will not be a fair work Parliament until that changes. What further steps is the corporate body able to take, or what changes in the law would be required, to allow it to take more steps to achieve the universal application of fair work principles?
Our position is slightly stronger than Mr Harvie suggests. The fair work first policy encourages businesses that bid for public contracts to commit to adopting the following seven criteria: paying at least the real living wage; providing appropriate channels for effective workers’ voice, such as trade union recognition; investing in workforce development; no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts; addressing workplace inequalities, including pay and employment gaps for disabled people, racialised minorities, women and workers aged over 50; offering flexible and family-friendly working practices for all workers from day 1 of employment; and opposing the use of fire and rehire practices.
It is under that policy that the SPCB has been able to mandate the payment of the real living wage for contracts that are being delivered in the Scottish Parliament. We review and seek to ensure that our external contractors abide by the provisions of the fair work policy.
School Visits (Inclusivity and Accessibility)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to ensure that visits to the Scottish Parliament are inclusive and accessible to all school pupils. (S6O-05189)
I know that, like the corporate body, Pam Gosal values the impact on people when they come into this building and experience the Parliament. Indeed, I am aware that she has raised the question previously with the corporate body.
For many people and schools, coming to Edinburgh is not realistic, given the distance and barriers that are linked to that. In our research, teachers told of the struggle to take pupils out of school because of lost learning time or because the teachers were needed to cover other lessons. For some, it is simply impractical to get local transport to Edinburgh and back within the school day, and they cannot afford residentials. Due to barriers such as those, our staff travel to schools throughout the year and provide online sessions for those who want them. Last year, they delivered sessions to almost 350 school classes across Scotland.
Educational visits to the Parliament give pupils a vital first-hand look at democracy in action. However, earlier this month, primary 7 pupils from Stanley primary school in Ardrossan missed out, just as Our Lady of Loretto primary school in Dalmuir did, because travel costs made their trips unaffordable.
Access to the Parliament is becoming a postcode lottery. At Westminster, schools can reclaim up to 85 per cent of travel expenses. In Scotland, there is no such support. What consideration has the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body given to introducing a scheme that helps schools to reclaim travel costs, ensuring that every child, no matter where they live, can experience their Parliament?
I do not have details of what those costs might have been for the school in Ardrossan and for Loretto in Edinburgh, or why they did not have other means of getting here. I know that other schools come here on buses from their local authorities. I do not know about those things but I can have a look at the issue.
You mentioned the UK Parliament—we looked into that scheme. The UK Parliament offers to pay up to 85 per cent of the travel costs, to the value of £2,400. However, even then, it welcomes a very small number of Scottish schools, because the travel costs are only part of the problem. I do not dismiss that part, but the main issue is the disruption to class activities, particularly at secondary level, and the cost if a class has to stay overnight on a residential trip.
We are continuing to look at that, but I must advise the member that it is a pretty tricky area. It is more complex than whether we can get a bus to get pupils to the Parliament and back. So far, if we cannot do that, we have parliamentary staff going out to schools in the likes of Shetland and Orkney to deliver contact and tell them all about the Parliament. Of course, that can be done online, too. We will continue to see what can be done.
I recognise the accessibility challenges for many of our rural schools in coming to visit and experience our national Parliament. Last week, I met pupils from Castle Douglas high school and took them on a virtual tour using my Surface via a Teams meeting link and reversing my camera. Students from Castle Douglas even spoke to the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. Does the corporate body member agree that virtual tours are a useful and innovative way to use technology to make this place and its people more accessible, especially to our remote and rural schools?
I thank the member—that was not so much a question as giving me advice. I will take that advice. It is certainly good if one can do those things, and I might even try it myself.
Protests (Policing)
Presiding Officer, I apologise for missing the start of these questions. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that my wife is a sergeant with Police Scotland.
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what recent discussions it has held with Police Scotland about the policing of protests at the Scottish Parliament. (S6O-05188)
Police Scotland meets annually with the SPCB to provide a briefing on security issues as they relate to both Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. In advance of the election next year, representatives from Police Scotland attended the SPCB meeting on 20 November. Several issues were discussed, including the policing of protests at the Scottish Parliament.
At that meeting, was the matter raised of the serious concerns from For Women Scotland and others about the way in which the police handled a counter-protest from one individual? What response was received from Police Scotland? The case of Susan Smith has been raised several times in the chamber. Was that raised, and were the actions that the police initially threatened to take—a recorded warning—which were later dropped? The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body should have asked for Police Scotland and the chief constable to apologise to Ms Smith for the actions that they took while she was legitimately protesting outside the Parliament.
The handling of the protests on 4 September was discussed. We relayed to Police Scotland the concerns that members had expressed to me during the urgent question in September. At that meeting, Police Scotland told us that it was undertaking a thorough review of its handling of the protests on 4 September. I cannot tell the member when that review is due to be completed, but Police Scotland recognises the concerns that were raised about the handling of the incident.
Managing protests outside the building is an operational matter for the police, but Police Scotland committed to a thorough review of what happened on 4 September.
Use of Facilities and Services
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review its interim position on the use of facilities and services at the Parliament, following the Supreme Court ruling, and seek specialist legal advice, in light of the Equality and Human Rights Commission withdrawing its interim guidance. (S6O-05224)
The corporate body is content that its interim position remains in line with the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling in April. The SPCB will continue to keep its interim position under review and consideration as part of the inclusive Parliament review, and will consider the impact of any future legal rulings and of the new statutory code of practice when it comes into force. In doing so, we will continue to seek specialist advice as and when it is required.
I am extremely disappointed to hear that. Given that the EHRC has withdrawn its interim guidance, which would have segregated trans people from cis people in facilities at the Scottish Parliament, I ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to revisit the matter in line with human rights legislation and the need to ensure that trans people feel welcome in the Scottish Parliament.
It is not for the corporate body to speculate on why the EHRC has withdrawn its interim update. The EHRC has not indicated that it has changed its position and the draft code of practice remains with the United Kingdom Government for consideration.
As I said, the corporate body will continue to keep its position under review and will consider the impact of any future legal rulings and the new statutory code of practice once it comes into force.
In April, the Supreme Court was clear: the meaning of “sex” in the context of equality legislation is based on biology. What further action will the corporate body take to ensure that the court’s judgment is followed throughout the parliamentary estate as we go forward?
For the avoidance of doubt, corporate body staff have not been asked to monitor or police use of facilities, but the corporate body has a responsibility to fulfil its legal obligations as an employer, a service provider, a workplace provider and an organisation that is subject to the public sector equality duty. Recognising that the Supreme Court’s judgment had immediate legal effect, officials took urgent steps following its publication to review the judgment in detail and consider its implications for services and facilities at Holyrood.
Staff Cost Provision (Consultation)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will consult MSP staff trade unions before deciding on uprating the staff cost provision in the 2026-27 financial year. (S6O-05223)
As noted in previous years—the answer is broadly similar—the SPCB will not consult the trade unions because it is not the employer of members’ staff. The SPCB is responsible for funding the members’ expenses scheme and for determining which indices are used to operate the overall provision, including staff provision. That arrangement is set out in the scheme as agreed by the Parliament. Therefore, our responsibility is to set the framework within which the salary increases can be agreed, but it is for individual members, as the employers, to determine any salary increase within the overall budget on their own or in concert with colleagues.
I recognise the point that the member makes that there is an unusual relationship in which the corporate body sets the overall budget but, notionally, the member of the Scottish Parliament is the direct employer of the staff. However, it would be helpful and a useful innovation for the corporate body to establish a relationship with the trade unions that represent parliamentary staff, at least to understand some of their concerns about cost of living issues and pressures.
It would also be helpful for the corporate body to note that a significant delta has emerged between the staffing budget that is available to Scottish members of the United Kingdom Parliament, which currently sits at £263,370, and that available to members of the Scottish Parliament, who have at their disposal only £162,000 as a baseline budget. That creates a lot of divergence in parliamentary employment opportunities and career progression within the Scottish Parliament vis-à-vis similar opportunities.
I encourage Jackson Carlaw to consider those pressures.
That question was broader in scope.
The chief executive has informally met and engaged with the trade unions, but the corporate body’s responsibility is to identify the indices by which all those provisions will be uprated.
The SPCB agreed in March 2020 to index the staff cost provision annually using a mix of average weekly earnings—AWE—and the annual survey of hours and earnings, ASHE. However, it moved to AWE in 2023-24 when we found that the ASHE index had become progressively unreliable. What members choose to do thereafter is entirely a matter for them.
Question 6 has been withdrawn. I am afraid that the member who was to ask question 7 arrived some 12 and a half minutes late to this item, so I am minded not to call them in light of their lateness.
IT Systems (Resilience)
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what assessment it has made of the operational resilience of the Parliament’s information technology systems, in light of the disruption to the stage 3 proceedings for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-05122)
The disruption to the stage 3 proceedings for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill was deeply regrettable. It was the result of a global outage of the Microsoft Azure cloud platform, which affected many organisations that, like the Scottish Parliament, utilise the platform to host business applications and websites.
The global outage was the first time in the five years in which we have been operating our hybrid voting application when we have experienced an unplanned disruption to the cloud platform that resulted in a decision being taken to reschedule business.
As part of our normal processes, any major incident that impacts services is reviewed to learn lessons and ensure that our information technology systems remain resilient and continue to operate with the high levels of availability and reliability that the corporate body expects.
I accept that it was an unusual occurrence, but we know that there are bad actors out there who are trying to replicate that kind of thing and disrupt Parliament and other bodies. What would be the fallback position if the system failed on the final day of the current session—25 March? Is there some kind of back-up that we could use at that point?
We are aware of the need to try to make our systems as secure and resilient as they can possibly be. The systems that we use are designed to be resilient against predictable failures but, as the member alluded to, failures due to bad actors might not be predictable.
There are resilience measures to enable us to have votes without technology. Those measures were not used for the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill due to the large number of amendments that were being considered, and the decision was made to reschedule business in that instance. However, should something similar happen on our last day, it is likely that non-digital, non-technological systems would be used. That would extend business considerably, but it is likely that that is what we would put in place.
That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time.
Air ais
Meeting of the ParliamentAir adhart
Portfolio Question Time