- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 29 June 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 10 August 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether, with reference to the report in the Sunday Mail on 27 June 2004 that a claim made to an industrial tribunal, based on allegations of religious and racial bias, against the Water Industry Commissioner, Alan Sutherland, brought by former employee, William Hetherington, has been settled by a payment to Mr Hetherington of “nearly #30,000”, (a) the Executive will make a full statement on the matter, (b) the Executive's policy of 'ero tolerance towards racial or religious discrimination, such as remarks and abuse, applies to those who hold senior public sector posts, such as that of the Water Industry Commissioner and, if so, whether it has sought any explanation from the commissioner regarding this matter and, if so, on what date or dates, (c) whether such explanation was (i) sought and (ii) obtained before the commissioner was reappointed, (d) what sum has been agreed to be paid to the employee, (e) who will be responsible for paying the agreed sum, (f) whether Mr Sutherland will be responsible for paying the agreed sum and, if not, what the reasons are for the taxpayer meeting the cost and whether it is Executive policy that the taxpayer should pay the consequences of any racial or religious bias by public sector management and (g) whether there is any legal means by which an individual can be held personally responsible for the consequences and, in particular, the financial consequences of racial or religious bias and what steps the Executive will take to address this position, including whether a clause to this effect can be inserted into the contract of employment of such employees.
Answer
The Executive expects the Water Industry Commissioner to act in accordance with his responsibilities under the law and the code of conduct under the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc (Scotland) Act 2000. Ministers may terminate this appointment on a range of grounds including gross misconduct in the discharge of the appointee’s duties or conviction for a criminal offence. However, the allegations referred to above were neither the subject of a formal complaint made to the Executive nor were they substantiated through the appropriate due legal process. I understand the claim to the tribunal was withdrawn and a final settlement was agreed by both parties.
Any costs involved in reaching such a settlement must be met within the commissioner’s budget. The Race Relations Act 1976 provides for penalties (including financial penalties) where an individual is discriminated against by another person.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 29 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive what advice it has received about the legality of shooting deer from helicopters.
Answer
Section 20 (1) (a) of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 provides that any person who discharges any firearm or discharges or projects any missile from any moving vehicle at any deer shall be guilty of an offence. In addition to specific exceptions, Section 20 is subject to section 14 of the Act which provides exemption for Deer Commission for Scotland staff (and those with DCS authorisation) in relation to action in respect of a control agreement, control scheme or section 10 action. DCS has never made use of that exemption.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 06 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 28 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether, with regard to the Holyrood project, the sum due in respect of trade package 1510 of #2.2 million for tower cranes included payment to the operators of the cranes.
Answer
Yes.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Tom McCabe on 28 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will promote venison as a food that is low in fat, high in protein and a nutritious part of diet for children in order to promote healthy eating and tackle obesity.
Answer
The Scottish Executive isencouraging children to choose a healthy, balanced diet of which lean meat,including venison, forms an important part. In tackling obesity the ScottishExecutive is also supporting children and adults to take part in regularphysical activity.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Tuesday, 06 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by George Reid on 28 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether the contractual obligations incumbent upon Ballast Construction Scotland and Hewcon Ltd, in terms of the trade works packages awarded to them, were completed satisfactorily and whether each company has been paid in full.
Answer
The primary contractualobligations in both trade packages were completed and Certificates of PracticalCompletion were issued. Hewcon attended to all proven defects notified to themduring their defects liability period and have had all retention moniesreleased. Ballast went into Administration during the defects liability periodof their trade package contract, and were unable to complete outstanding worksor make good defects. This has now been attended to by other contractors, andthe costs will be off-set against Ballast’s retention monies.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 12 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Duncan McNeil on 28 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, further to the answer to question S2W-1861 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 28 August 2003, whether any ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ' staff have been adversely affected by the decision to cease making pension payments by direct debit and, if so, whether any details of any such cases were reported to the SPCB.
Answer
In total to date there havebeen 10 members’ staff (9 with plans with one provider and 1 with a plan withanother provider) affected by the decision to cease making pensioncontributions from the Parliament’s bank account by direct debit. The SPCB hasbeen kept informed of this issue, including the efforts made to resolve it. TheSPCB has not yet been informed of the most recent case but will be so informedwhen it meets again in September.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 12 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Duncan McNeil on 28 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether some pension providers require payments of pension contributions to be made by direct debit and will not accept payment by BACS and, if so, which pension providers these are.
Answer
Only the Halifax inrespect of one plan has enforced such a requirement.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 12 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Duncan McNeil on 28 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it is committed to ensuring that staff pension contributions are paid on time and at the correct amount and whether achieving this objective takes precedence over the SPCB's position on making such payments by means of direct debit.
Answer
In terms of the collectionand pay over of Members’ staff pension contributions, the SPCB acts as agentsfor members. The SPCB is fully committed to ensuring that the correct amount ofpension contributions is collected and paid over on time. The sums arecalculated and collected via payroll system and procedures are in place toensure that accurate records are kept and monies are paid over on time and withan accompanying schedule of payment, in line with OPRA rules. Under currentarrangements compliance with OPRA rules can be guaranteed which was not thecase under the former arrangements whereby providers could collect monies usingthe direct debit facility.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Monday, 12 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Duncan McNeil on 28 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, further to the answer to question S2W-1861 by Mr Duncan McNeil on 28 August 2003, why “experience has shown” that the SPCB could not guarantee to make payments by the 19th of the month following the pay run in which the contributions are collected and what that experience has been; why the SPCB is unable to make an arrangement which complies with this time deadline using direct debit, and when the SPCB will provide a full explanation of this matter to ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ.
Answer
Previously,contributions were paid by a combination of BACS, cheques and direct debits. Inthe case of the direct debit facility, it gave pension providers authority tocollect contributions direct from an SPCB bank account. However, experienceshowed that:
if anindividual’s pension contribution increased by a small amount certain pensionproviders continued to collect the amount previously agreed and refused toaccept any increases of less than £10.00 per month;
pensionproviders were able to take money out of the bank account in situations wherethe Personnel Office had not been notified that a pension wasin place;
pensionproviders were collecting contributions in lump sums making it very difficultto identify for whom the contributions were being collected;
pensionproviders continued to collect contributions for several months after anindividual had ceased employment despite being advised that their employmenthad been terminated;
once a pensioncontribution rate had been set some pension providers would not accept anyrevised amounts, for example, increases due to pay awards, changes to contractedhours or backdated payments.
More importantly, however, new pension legislation changescame into effect from 6 April 2001 which required the SPCB to review itsprocedures. Under the Occupational PensionsRegulatory Authority (OPRA) the new rules for employers’ state that they havean obligation to:
calculate the employers’ and employees’ contributions foreach individual member of staff;
pay the correct amount of contributions over by the 19th of the month following the pay run in which the contributions are collected;
maintain a record of payments made;
provide each pension provider with a schedule as a recordof payments made.
Because of the problemsbeing experienced the SPCB believed that it could not comply with the new OPRArules whilst the then existing direct debit arrangements remained and deemed itnecessary to review and change its procedures. The decision was taken to closedown the direct debit facility and pay all contributions either by cheque, BACSor by standing order. This change gave the SPCB control over this matter toensure that it met its obligations under the new OPRA rules. All pension providers were informed in writing of thedecision.
The SPCB does not believe itcould comply, on behalf of members with all of the obligations placed on themas employers under OPRA rules were it to reinstate the direct debit facilityand therefore has no intention of doing so. This full answer ensures that membershave a full explanation of the matter.
- Asked by: Fergus Ewing, MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Scottish National Party
-
Date lodged: Friday, 02 July 2004
-
Current Status:
Answered by Ross Finnie on 27 July 2004
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will recommend that representatives of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association experienced in deer management should be appointed to the Deer Commission for Scotland.
Answer
We will shortly beadvertising for new members for the Deer Commission for Scotland. Appointmentswill be made on merit and in compliance with the Commissioner for PublicAppointments’ Code of Practice. Members of the Scottish Gamekeepers Associationwill of course be free to apply.
