Plenary, 26 Jan 2005

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Official Report 453KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY

---

BBC Scotland (Videotapes)

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will request BBC Scotland to make the material gathered on videotape for "The Gathering Place" regarding the decision-making process on the Holyrood project available to the Parliament. (S2O-5046)

It is great to break new ground.

I thank Margo MacDonald for her question, and observe in passing how wondrous are the workings of what I am assured is a random ballot, even though it resulted in the first two questions being from Margo MacDonald and Fergus Ewing.

The Parliament made its views on the tapes known in a motion that was passed on 31 March 2004, when it strongly encouraged the BBC to allow the Fraser inquiry access to the tapes, while supporting the independence of the BBC against political interference.

As the First Minister told the chamber during First Minister's question time on 31 January this year, he, too, has made the BBC well aware of his views on the matter. The Presiding Officer has made it clear that he did not intend to become involved in the matter without invitation. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body sees no point or advantage in raising the issue further at this stage.

May I remind the SPCB of the powers of this Parliament in a situation in which it is felt necessary to require the attendance of witnesses or the submission of material? I put it to the SPCB that the situation has changed since the views to which Mr Brown referred were given, in that the television programme is unlikely to be shown before autumn because of the pending general election, during which time Lord Fraser's investigation will be kept open—quite artificially—and the SPCB will have to go to court to defend its decision making, a record of which can probably be accessed only on those dates.

Can we come to the question?

I have asked the SPCB whether it will invoke the powers of the Parliament. That was my question.

I think that you can probably answer that in one word, but on you go, Mr Brown.

I can answer it in a sentence. Ultimately, the matter is one for the Parliament, which has already made a decision. The corporate body is the trustee of the Parliament and would follow the Parliament's directions, if the Parliament was so minded and if the situation arose. Beyond that, we do not intend to take further action on what Margo MacDonald suggests.

May I ask on a point of order then—

You are going to bite very deeply into other people's time, Mrs MacDonald.

I am very sorry, Presiding Officer, but I say, with respect, that this is important. In what way will the corporate body accept an expression of the Parliament's opinion on the matter?

That is a question, not a point of order. I remind members that the normal rules for framing and asking questions apply in this session as much as in any other session.

---

Sir Robert McAlpine Court Action

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will ensure that the defence of the court action against the claims by Sir Robert McAlpine will be fully prepared, including taking precognitions from those who were involved in the decision to select Bovis as the construction managers. (S2O-5162)

The SPCB has already stated clearly that, in the interest of the public purse, it will vigorously contest the cases that have been brought by McAlpine's. I confirm that the SPCB will ensure that its defence to the court actions is fully prepared. The preparations will include taking precognitions as and when appropriate.

I make it absolutely clear that, as far as I am concerned, the SPCB is not the target or the enemy but has accepted legal responsibility for a matter that arose before the Parliament existed. In that spirit, I ask whether, given that Lord Fraser concluded in his report that there was no satisfactory explanation for the selection of Bovis, Robert Brown agrees that, unless there is an explanation, the lawyers who are entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the case will be in a vulnerable position. Further, will the precognitions that Robert Brown says will be taken include responses to unanswered questions from all the civil servants who were involved and aspects of the selection process?

Quickly.

Will the SPCB ensure that that task is pursued vigorously in the short term?

Fergus Ewing rightly points out that the legal responsibility for liabilities post-devolution was determined by transfer orders that were made under the Scotland Act 1998. It is in consequence of that rather than of any actions of the corporate body that we are the defenders in the action. At the end of the day, we will be advised on the matter by counsel and, in the interests of protecting the Parliament and the public purse, it would be inappropriate for us to try in the chamber to double-check, redo or shadow the court process. It is the court, not the Parliament, that is charged with making a decision on the matter—due respect must be given to that reality and to the status of the court.

I say to Fergus Ewing that if he thinks certain issues might not have been raised or thought about, we are willing to receive from him any input that he might want to make in that regard.

Does Robert Brown share the concern that was expressed in the final report of the Holyrood progress group that the performance of the design team, the cost consultants and the construction managers in fulfilling their responsibilities to the Parliament, as the client, left something to be desired? I choose those words with some caution. Will he give an undertaking that the corporate body will be robust in its approach to the settlement of fees of consultants who did the work, and that it will be even more resolute in resisting the long-delayed claim from a company that did not do any of the work at Holyrood?

I think that John Home Robertson will understand if I take the view that the Fraser inquiry has published its report, which is in the public domain, and that it is not appropriate for the SPCB to comment further on particular aspects that relate to that.

Suffice it to say that the corporate body intends to defend the action robustly and thinks that we have good defences. We have taken advice from senior and junior counsel on the matter and will report to the Parliament in due course.

---

Crèche Facility

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what success the crèche facility has had so far in improving the accessibility of the Parliament for people with young children. (S2O-5047)

As she campaigned hard and successfully for the Scottish Parliament to become the first Parliament in Europe to offer a crèche facility, Elaine Smith will be pleased to learn that the crèche has had more than 200 bookings since opening. Every booking means that someone—or a group—who might otherwise have been unable to access the Parliament could do so.

I am sure that other members join me in picking up Duncan McNeil's point and commending the facility, the only one of its kind in Europe, for providing a unique opportunity to achieve greater participation rates among parents and others who care for young children who visit the Parliament and family-friendly support services for staff and members. Does the SPCB plan to take action to promote greater public awareness of the facility? Will it consider reviewing and extending the service that is provided to staff and members, by prioritising breastfeeding mothers' babies, for example?

The facility is available for breastfeeding mothers and has been used. After extensive discussion, we agreed when we established the crèche that we would monitor use in the first year, establish demand and put in place a flexible contract that allows us to make amendments that reflect our needs and those of crèche users. I give the assurance that that will be done.

We have produced about 500,000 leaflets that highlight the facility, which are distributed across 5,000 venues in Scotland. However, more needs to be done to target mother and toddler groups, for example. We will also consider signage. The new print run will emphasise the fact that the facility is available for public use.

---

Temporary Security Passes

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will put in place a system of temporary security passes to cover foreign and other interns working in the Parliament. (S2O-5071)

Security passes that allow free access into and throughout the Parliament can be issued only when security clearance has been obtained. The corporate body has no plans to put in place any system of temporary passes that might compromise our security.

I have no desire for the Parliament to jeopardise its security, but I want the system for obtaining a security pass to work more effectively than it appears to at present. Recently, I took advantage of the services of an intern, who has been with me for six weeks. He still has no security pass or computer log-on details. Does the member agree that we need to do more to ensure that interns do not face the prospect of receiving their security passes and information technology accounts on the day that they leave their placements in the Parliament?

The faster the system works, the better for everybody. The rules are clear. The security clearance policy is based on professional advice from the police and security services. Members must take full responsibility for interns who are not security cleared and non-passholders must be accompanied at all times. If members know definitely that interns or new members of staff will work in the Parliament, they can contact the staff to allow vetting procedures to start before they arrive. That would help.

The time that is taken depends on the checks that must be made. There is no rule of thumb. Police checks have always been well within the maximum of 10 days' clearance, but when foreign Governments or authorities are involved, the process can sometimes be lengthy.

The ultimate priority must be to ensure that the system is as thorough as possible. That is in the best interests of all and for the well-being of everyone who works in and visits the Parliament. That is the corporate body's priority.

The issue of passes also applies to MSPs' staff. It is particularly difficult for staff to carry out their duties if they cannot get access to a member in a committee or in the chamber. Will the member assure us that the systems that are in place for MSPs' staff are identical to those that are in place for parliamentary staff who are employed on a temporary or contract basis? I understand that that is not quite the case.

Yes, I can give that assurance. The same rules apply to everybody. It is important that we make the system as safe, watertight and secure as possible, as that is ultimately in the best interests of everybody who works in or visits the Parliament.

---

Commissioners' Budget Allocations

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how it determines commissioners' budget allocations. (S2O-5044)

The commissioners' initial budgets were determined at different times in line with the legislation that established them and were the subject of appropriate resource transfers from the Scottish Executive at the time. Thereafter, commissioners have been asked to submit budget proposals that cover the range of their activities. It is a matter for the commissioners to propose a budget that is commensurate with the discharge of their statutory functions. The corporate body examines and discusses with commissioners their budget requirements. The budgets that are approved will then be submitted as part of the SPCB's overall financial requirements for the operations of the Parliament, which will be considered by the Finance Committee.

When Robert Brown negotiates next year's budget with the Scottish public services ombudsman, will he consider the way in which commissioners' statutory requirements are carried out and, in particular, their very narrow interpretation of their responsibilities and remits? Will he consider such things before next year's budget is allocated?

That is rather more difficult to do than Alex Neil suggests, as the SPCB has quite a delicate role in respect of commissioners. The various commissioners are appointments either by the Parliament or by the Queen. In either case, they are set up to be independent of all other bodies, including the Parliament. They were set up under the Parliament, rather than under the Executive, because the Parliament is the most independent body there is in the context. However, the SPCB has a statutory role with statutorily defined duties that have been laid down by the Parliament, and we cannot go outwith those duties, which does not allow us to do the sort of things that Alex Neil suggests.

That said, over time, I—in my corporate body role of dealing with the commissioners—and the corporate body have had a number of meetings with the commissioners individually and collectively in which a number of issues that are important to us have been discussed. There is an ability to raise issues in such meetings. However, if Alex Neil has particular problems in that regard, he should let us have further details of them and we will be happy to do what we can to follow them up.

I acknowledge that nobody is supposed to be beyond accountability to the people of Scotland in Scottish democracy nowadays. Does the corporate body have any plans to develop further into the role that Mr Neil suggests? If there is a sense in Parliament that commissioners must be held to greater account for how they undertake their activities, is there any more focused body than the SPCB to do that?

There are several ways of doing that. I stress again that the commissioners operate within legislation that was passed by the Parliament. To that extent, we all operate as the Parliament instructed us to do so.

As I have explained, commissioners' budgets come to the Finance Committee for agreement as part of the corporate body's budget. In the last round, there was discussion among the Finance Committee, the corporate body and the commissioners about issues that they thought to be important at the time. That is one channel. It is also no doubt open to the Parliament to amend the legislation, if it saw fit to do so. I think that I am right in saying that all the commissioners must make annual reports, which are laid before the Parliament. All those could be the subject of committee examination, bearing in mind the fact that the commissioners are set up as office holders that are independent of Parliament and others.

I am afraid that we must conclude questions, as we must proceed to the next item of business. I give my regrets to members who tried unsuccessfully to ask questions.