Plenary, 15 Jun 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Official Report 464KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body

---

Environmental Performance

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what action it is taking to improve the Parliament's environmental performance. (S2O-7238)

I call John Scott.

We had expected John Scott to be present to answer that question, but I can give the answer, provided that Mr Harper goes easy with me on the supplementary.

The SPCB is developing an environmental policy that will commit the Parliament to improving its environmental performance. An environmental management system based on the international standard ISO 14001 will be used to implement the policy. The system will comprise objectives, targets and action plans to improve the environmental performance of our use of energy, waste, resources and travel. An important element of the system will be a communication and training plan for the building occupants.

I welcome that answer, particularly the news about ISO 14001. There is huge scope for the Parliament to set an example and reduce its environmental impact. I invite Robert Brown to expand on the commitment to involve staff because, for environmental policy to be effective, it is essential that we get feedback from the people who work with the Parliament's systems and that staff be fully involved in producing the policy. Will the SPCB ensure that that will happen?

Will the SPCB agree to improve the level of communication within the Parliament on progress on its environmental policy and performance? For the Parliament's performance to improve, it is essential that we receive feedback on how we are doing. For example, information could be posted as a monthly bulletin on the Parliament's website.

Although Mr Scott has now arrived, I ask Mr Brown to answer because Mr Scott was not here at the beginning of that supplementary question.

Robin Harper will forgive me if I am not word perfect on the answer. He raises issues that are primarily to do with staff communication. We may be able to write to him with detail on those issues but, as I have mentioned, we will develop an energy strategy to reduce energy use, an energy audit will be undertaken to identify areas of inefficiency and a communication plan will be rolled out. At the moment, an MSP survey is going round. That survey covers broader issues, but it will take on board some of the issues that Robin Harper asked about.

It is important that we understand what systems are in place in the building. As Robin Harper was involved in discussions with officials at an earlier stage, he is aware that, from the beginning, the intention has been to make the building as environmentally satisfactory as possible. Accordingly, we do not have mechanical heating systems in most parts of the building, and there are issues that are to do with that. I am well aware—as are members—that there are heating issues in the building that will take time to sort out. The advice that we have from facilities management is that we need a year to allow the system to settle, but I am not entirely persuaded that we can leave it as long as that, as there are issues with the management of the system. Some circulars have been sent round about opening windows and various other means of ventilation that will be an important contribution towards resolving the issues.

Perhaps we could write to Mr Harper with further details, given my slightly inadequate reply on that question.

Why is our power to vary the temperature in our offices as limited as the Parliament's power to vary the rate of income tax? The standard temperature is controlled centrally and we can vary the temperature up or down by only 5(. Am I the only member here who at times finds my office atmosphere to be like a sauna? That is not conducive to efficient working or to the efficient use of energy.

I begin by making an unreserved apology to the Parliament for my lateness in arriving to answer these questions. I have no excuse, other than that I was in my office.

Which was too hot.

Yes—it was too hot.

The original brief for the building specified that it should be an environmentally friendly, low-energy building. That specification means that there is no air conditioning in the building. As such, it is naturally ventilated. I expect that my colleague Robert Brown said that we are taking a year or so to allow the computers to address the temperature control situation. We believe that we must give the system time to bed in, and indeed it will.

Nonsense. [Laughter.]

Can we have some order, please?

We have just heard the concerns about heating control. Knowing what we know now about the performance of the building, does the corporate body agree—retrospectively, of course—with what I said about it being a bit hasty to accept the building research establishment environmental assessment method, or BREEAM, rating, which is the industry-approved standard of environmental performance, when the building was under construction? Now that the building is constructed, we know better.

In essence, I refer Ms MacDonald to my previous answer. We took on the design brief back in the 1990s. That is what we have to make the best of now.

My question concerns the wasted use of electricity in lighting. In some parts of the building, the lights go off and on automatically in response to movement. That is not the case in the MSP block. Some lights in the MSP block, in both the corridors and our staff's offices, are on permanently. Could the system that operates outside the committee rooms and in other parts of the building be extended to the entire complex so that, when there is no movement, lights that are on go off, thus saving energy?

An energy audit will be undertaken this year to identify where further savings can be made. The lighting management computer has been programmed to ensure that lights are not inadvertently left on. Its programme will be further refined over time as building occupancy patterns evolve. For areas that are not on the system, procedures are being developed and rolled out to ensure that lights are not left on.

---

Guided Tours (Revenue)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what the total revenue has been from guided tours of the Parliament building. (S2O-7232)

All visitors to the Scottish Parliament can explore our exhibition in the main hall and watch business in the chamber and committees for free. Guided tours are offered from Fridays to Mondays, and seven days a week during recess. The tours offer expert professional commentary on the building design and art, devolution, elections and how the Parliament works. Up to the end of May 2005, more than 370,000 people had visited the Parliament. Of those, more than 65,000 took a guided tour of the building; that represents almost one visitor in five opting for a guided tour. The total income, including VAT, in the period from October 2004 to March 2005 was £115,790.

Shocking.

It is shocking—thanks for the prompt.

Does it sit comfortably with the corporate body that the taxpayers of Scotland paid £431 million for this building, yet a private company, at £3.50 a time for a tour, is making money out of the building? The profit does not come back into the Parliament. Will the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body consider making that tour service free for the people of Scotland, and providing it in-house instead of giving the work to a private company? There is a tendency not to show the building as the political home of the Scottish people but to get as many bottoms on seats as possible, which causes problems.

All visitors have access, which is absolutely free, to the chamber, the committee rooms, the petitions process and MSPs. Visits that are provided by the education service remain free, as do publications about the Parliament. Pass holders can also offer free tours to visitors.

The guided tours are available as a value-added item. The charges for an expert guided tour service are set on a break-even, non-profit basis. The tours have proved popular and if we had not set charges they would have been funded fully by the Scottish taxpayer. We have various concessions for adults, families and groups, and children aged under five go free. Contracting out has enabled us to draw from a body of professionally trained tour guides who can respond to varying levels of demand, requests for different languages and so on, which results in a more flexible, cost-effective service than could be provided through an in-house resource. The decision was based on efficiency, quality of service and necessary specialisation.

Has any assessment been made of the adequacy or otherwise of the catering facilities for the public in the Parliament?

Yes. That is reviewed regularly. If the member has any specific items that she wishes the corporate body to take on board, I assure her that they will be followed through.

Does Mr Welsh agree that it is a matter of considerable pride that more than 350,000 people have visited the Parliament since it opened in October? Does he agree that encouraging more and more people to come to visit the Parliament will allow them to see the important legislative work that is done here, which might encourage them to demand further powers for the Parliament to extend—

Mr Swinney, sit down. I do not think that you should answer that, Mr Welsh.

---

Gaelic Language Plan

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will set an example to other Scottish public bodies by preparing its Gaelic language plan for the Parliament in advance of any formal requirement to do so by Bòrd na Gàidhlig. (S2O-7191)

Tha mi duilich, chan eil Gàidhlig agam. In spite of that, I am happy to encourage the language of the garden of Eden. Section 3(4) of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 states that a Gaelic language plan must

"set out the measures to be taken by the relevant public authority in relation to the use of the Gaelic language in connection with the exercise of the authority's functions".

The SPCB's language policy, which was adopted in November 2004, already does that. Our information leaflet, "Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament" gives further details. Both documents are available on our website.

Indeed, we already set an example. The Scottish Parliament was recently commended for its approach to Gaelic in the first report of the committee of experts on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and its application by the United Kingdom in April 2004.

We note from the legislation that a national plan will be created between one and five years after the passing of the act and we would naturally further review our position once that national plan is published.

Catalan, Basque and Galician are recognised languages used in European institutions and Irish will be the 21st official language in the European Union in 2007. Can we be assured that the Parliament will create a development plan that fits the requirement of Bòrd na Gàidhlig and shows ambition for our oldest Scottish tongue to be used much more often in the business of this Parliament at home and in its work in the European Union?

Indeed. I hope that we will continue our clear, on-going commitment to the use of Gaelic. The SPCB's view is that there are strong historical and cultural reasons for Parliament to carry out work in Gaelic. Our language policy shows the range of ways in which members can interact with Parliament in Gaelic as part of our parliamentary business. Witnesses can give evidence in Gaelic; Gaelic is incorporated in the Official Report; petitions can be written in Gaelic; and Gaelic speakers can find out more about Parliament through the Gaelic pages on the website. In our education programme, Gaelic schools can participate through the Gaelic outreach officer, as they did in Gaelic schools week in May 2005, when 250 young people from primary schools all over Scotland came to Holyrood on a visit conducted in Gaelic.

We have tried to incorporate Gaelic into recent presentations to community groups in Portree, Inverness and Stornoway, and there will soon be events in Benbecula, the Uists and Fort William. Detailed information on what we provide in Gaelic is available in the leaflet entitled "Gaelic in the Scottish Parliament", which I recommend to everyone as reading material.

---

Members' Bills (Support)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what criteria it applies in deciding whether members' bills should receive support from the non-Executive bills unit. (S2O-7239)

The non-Executive bills unit provides support to all members in developing their proposals for members' bills, and particularly in providing assistance with initial policy development and analysing responses to consultations. However, it has been clear for some time that the demand for NEBU's resources is likely to exceed its capacity as far as drafting assistance is concerned. The SPCB is well aware of the politically delicate nature of the issue, which has been anxiously considered at various times by the Parliamentary Bureau, the Procedures Committee and the corporate body itself.

Following the Procedures Committee's sixth report in 2004, the SPCB updated the existing criteria, which are incorporated in the standing orders. In brief, drafting assistance is provided only to proposals that are broadly within the Scottish Parliament's competence if there is no likelihood of legislative action being taken in the current session of the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster in the same area of law.

The SPCB is considering further measures to manage and prioritise the amount of drafting assistance that NEBU can provide. We are conscious that members' bills are the preserve of members and not of political parties or the Executive. At the same time, the bureau has responsibility for the parliamentary timetable, including the allocation of scarce chamber time.

If criteria are used that are based on how simple a proposed bill is judged to be, there seems to be an inherent danger that political decisions could be made by the SPCB about which bill proposals will command priority status for development by NEBU. Given that the new procedures for bill proposals ensure that only proposals that have both wide cross-party support and a proper policy development process are allowed to proceed, does the member agree that the time is right to increase resources to NEBU to ensure that proposals are given the best chance to be introduced as bills?

No, I am afraid that I do not agree. At the end of the day, the Parliament must manage its resources reasonably, and there have been constant attempts to judge the level of resources that NEBU requires. As the Procedures Committee commented, there is no conceivable way in which all possible demands can be met and there must, therefore, be prioritisation.

The issue has gone round the Procedures Committee, the bureau and the corporate body. There is a difficulty and I accept entirely that political judgments lie behind such matters, but we are trying to develop management proposals as far as possible on how to do things. We will have to consider issues such as complexity, the amount of NEBU's time that is involved, the extent to which a proposal will impact on other bills and the extent to which the bureau can find parliamentary time for a proposal.

The SPCB is clear that the Parliament should have the ultimate decision on the matter, probably on a recommendation or report from the corporate body. We intend to discuss with the Parliamentary Bureau a timetable for bringing the final decision to Parliament as soon as possible after the summer recess.