Chamber and committees

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body regards details of the amount of fees paid to professional consultants as commercially confidential since the publication of such information could prejudice consultants' legitimate commercial interests and impede fair competition between them and their competitors. Disclosure would be in breach of the individual tender agreements and could not be made without the agreement of the firms involved. The Spencely report correctly treated the individual fee amounts as commercially confidential, whilst indicating a total figure for professional fees.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body remains of the opinion that to compare the construction costs of recent major public works projects in Scotland such as schools, museums, hospitals, courts, offices etc with a Parliament building would be inadvisable. Spencely's "rough and ready" comparisons of "fit out" and different building usage areas were indicative and fit for the purpose of his report. Indeed, he makes it clear that he had difficulty finding "comparable equivalents" for two of the three examples used. The SPCB and the Holyrood Progress Group are of the view that to commission a full exercise to obtain and collate such information - which is not readily available - would be time consuming, expensive, and unlikely to lead to any meaningful conclusions. My answer to question S1W-579 on 3 August 1999 took full account of advice from Scottish Parliament officials including the Holyrood Project Team.

The Scottish Parliament's Procurement Manual states that "openness and accessibility must be promoted except where the disclosure of commercially sensitive information would be likely to cause significant damage to the legitimate commercial interests of a supplier or tenderer or of the Scottish Parliament." and at paragraph 2.30 that "the protection of private and sensitive third party information will be strictly observed.". The Procurement Manual is based on guidance from EC Procurement Directives which advise that, "certain information on [a] contract may, in certain cases, not be published where release of such information would impede law enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest, would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private, or might prejudice fair competition between contractors." HM Treasury Procurement Guidance states that "information provided by tenderers should be regarded and treated as confidential" and that "price and other details must not be revealed in a way that enables the information to be seen as applying to an offer from a particular firm". All Parliament tenders are issued and submitted on a commercially confidential basis, and disclosure would also therefore be in breach of the individual tender agreements.

The SPCB and the HPG recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the principles of openness and accountability and the need to safeguard against prejudicing the commercial interests of both client and contractor. Having considered this matter carefully, we remain of the view that the value of individual contracts relating to the Holyrood project should not be made publicly available while the possibility remains of similar packages being tendered. In due course, and with the consent of the relevant contractors, it may become appropriate to release information of this nature.

I understand from the Convener that all members of the Holyrood Progress Group are updated on this information on a fortnightly basis.

Under normal circumstances, a public body would not publicise the sum of money set aside for contingency before or during a major capital project in order to protect its negotiating position. This is in line with standard public procurement guidance and my answer to question S1W-233 is consistent with that position. However, in the context of the debate surrounding the project in March this year the SPCB took the view that it was of paramount importance to publish the Spencely report in full and thereby put all available financial information before Parliament at a time when the future of the Holyrood Project was being considered.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has established internal working practices which include operating on a collective basis. Under these arrangements, no detailed information on costs will be divulged unilaterally by any member of the SPCB to individual party Members or to party groups. The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Holyrood Progress Group will report on progress and expenditure to all MSPs no less than quarterly, in accordance both with the "Memorandum of Understanding" agreed by the two bodies, and the terms of the resolution passed by Parliament on 5 April 2000.

The Convener of the Holyrood Progress Group has informed me that the group has established internal working practices, which include operating on a collective basis. Under these arrangements, no detailed information on costs will be divulged unilaterally by any member of the HPG to individual party Members nor to party groups. The HPG and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will report on progress and expenditure to all MSPs no less than quarterly, in accordance both with the "Memorandum of Understanding" agreed by the two bodies, and the terms of the resolution passed by Parliament on 5 April 2000.

I have asked Graeme Munro, Chief Executive of Historic Scotland to respond. His response is as follows:

An application for scheduled monument consent in respect of emergency stabilisation works to the north-west curtain wall of Caisteal Tioram was received on 27 April. Consent was granted on 19 May, subject to conditions, and it is understood that the works have now been carried out.

An earlier application for scheduled monument consent for the conservation of Caisteal Tioram, which includes the consolidation of the curtain wall and the consolidation and re-roofing of the standing buildings, was received on 23 February 1999. On 30 April 1999 the applicants were informed that the Secretary of State (now Scottish Ministers) was minded to refuse consent for this restoration. The applicants have exercised their right to ask for a hearing, which will take the form of a public local inquiry. The Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit is now making arrangements for the inquiry.

I refer to my answer to question S1W-8805 on 21 August 2000. A single Public/Private Partnership contract for the M77 and the Glasgow Southern Orbital could only proceed if East Renfrewshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council are able to complete the statutory procedures for the Glasgow Southern Orbital. The current programmes for the Glasgow Southern Orbital and the M77 extension between Fenwick and Malletsheugh will permit construction of a combined scheme in line with the timetable for the M77 which I published last November in Travel Choices for Scotland: Strategic Roads Review.

Copaxone (Glatiramer) has been recently licensed for use in the treatment of certain patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. It is a matter for each health board to determine its prescribing policy on drugs, taking into account advice from local Drug and Therapeutics Committees.

The Health Technology Board for Scotland is at present carrying out an assessment of Beta Interferon and Copaxone in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.