Scottish Parliament Building

   

Construction continues on Enric Miralles' elaborate new Scottish Parliament Building in Holyrood park. The red tiled building is Queensberry House. Above and behind the new parliament is the neoclassical Royal High School, which was prepared for a previous devolved scottish parliament, but never used.
Enlarge
Construction continues on Enric Miralles' elaborate new Scottish Parliament Building in Holyrood park. The red tiled building is Queensberry House. Above and behind the new parliament is the neoclassical Royal High School, which was prepared for a previous devolved scottish parliament, but never used.

The Scottish Parliament Building is now the home of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, within the UNESCO World Heritage Site in Edinburgh. The Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) held their first debate in the building on Tuesday, September 7, 2004. The formal opening by the Queen took place on October 9, 2004.

The buildings

The Parliament Building is actually a complex of several buildings with a total floor area of around 29,000 m² (312,000 square feet), providing accommodation for the 129 MSPs and around 1,000 civil servants. The buildings include:

Debating Chamber

The Debating Chamber contains a shallow horseshoe of seating for the MSPs. Galleries above the main floor can also accommodate a total of 255 members of the public, 18 guests, and 34 members of the press. The roof, reminiscent of an upturned boat, is supported by a structure of laminated oak beams joined at a total of 112 stainless steel connectors (each slightly different), which in turn are suspended on steel rods from the walls. In entering the chamber, MSPs pass under a stone lintel that was once part of the pre-1707 parliament building, Parliament Hall.

Inside the debating chamber.
Enlarge
Inside the debating chamber.

Tower Buildings

Tower Buildings contain six committee rooms with curving white plaster vaulted ceilings, and the offices of Ministers plus parliamentary and goverment support staff.

MSP building

The MSP building contains offices for each MSP and two members of staff, fitted out with custom designed furniture. The building is between four and six storeys in height, and is clad in granite mosaic. At its north end the building is six storeys high (ground floor plus five) stepping down to four storeys (ground floor plus three) at the south end.

Canongate Buildings

Construced behind a retained facade, the Cannongate Buildings behind house IT, finance, procurement and infomation offices.

Queensberry House

Originally dating from 1667, Queensbury House has been extensively refurbished to provide facilities for the Presiding Officer, Deputy Presiding Officers, the Chief Executive, and various parliamentary support staff.

Media Tower

A separate Media Tower has been constructed adjacent to the Debating Chamber to provide media facilities.

Public facilities

The facilities for the public include meeting rooms in Tower Buildings, and a restaurant, education centre, exhibition space, and a shop below the Debating Chamber.

Construction

The construction of the Parliament Building proved controversial in a number of respects: the decision to construct a new building, the choice of site, the selection of a non-Scottish architect, the selection of Bovis as construction manager after having earlier been excluded from the shortlist, and serious cost and time overruns.

The then Secretary of State for Scotland Donald Dewar was adamant that a new building should be provided for the new Parliament. Work commenced in late 1997 with the demolition of a brewery on the site chosen. An alternative site at The High School of Edinburgh was rejected on grounds of size and location.

In January 1998 an international competition was announced by the Scottish Office to find an architect to build the Parliament, and in early 1999 the Catalan Enric Miralles was chosen, with the design work being awarded to EMBT/RMJM (Scotland) Ltd, a Spanish-Scottish joint venture design company created for the project.

Miralles' design was radical and highly complex, involving a series of towers and an open plan debating chamber. The most distinctive external feature was a roof in the shape of an upturned boat. Once the Scottish Parliament came into existence, in June 1999, the size of the building was increased by some 47%. The project was also complicated by the deaths in 2000 of Miralles and Dewar, and existence of a multi-headed client (consisting of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, the Presiding Officer, and an architectural advisor), who took over the project from the Scottish Office and Scottish Executive while it was already under construction.

By March 2004 the architects had issued around 18,000 orders for changes in the design, and the cost had reached the sum of 430 million pounds (compared to an original budget of 55 million in July 1998 when the architects were appointed). This equates to 85 pounds for each of the five million people in Scotland [1] (http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/grosweb/grosweb.nsf/pages/poprep1).

Fraser Inquiry

In May 2003 First Minister Jack McConnell announced a major public inquiry into the handling of the building project, headed by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. The inquiry held at the Land Court in Edinburgh heard evidence from architects, civil servants, politicians and the building companies.

In presenting his report in September 2004, Lord Fraser stated that he was astonished that, for year after year, the ministers in charge were kept so much in the dark over the increases in cost estimates. He also stated that the building could never have been built for 50 million pounds, and that he was amazed that the belief that it could be was perpetuated for so long. He believed that from at least April 2000, when the MSPs commissioned the Spencely Report to decide whether the building should continue, it should have been realised that the building was bound to cost in excess of 200 million pounds. Furthermore, approximately 150 million pounds of the final cost was wasted as a result of design delays, over-optimistic programming and uncertain authority.

Among the criticisms are that:

  • Despite having only an outline design, the designers, RMJM/EMBT (Scotland) Ltd, stated without foundation that the building could be completed within a 50 million pound budget, but despite this were apparently believed by the officials. The two architectural practices in the RMJM and EMBT joint venture operated dysfunctionally, and failed to communicate effectively with each other and the project manager. The death of Miralles also gave rise to a substantial period of disharmony.
  • The Brief emphasised the importance of design and quality over quality and programme, and was not updated despite considerable evolution of the design.
  • Ministers were not informed of grave concerns within the Scottish Office over the cost of the project, and officials failed to take the advice of the cost consultants.
  • The Scottish Office decided to let the construction work as a "construction management contract", rather than under the Private Finance Initiative in order to speed construction, but without properly evaluation of the financial risks of doing so, and - in a decision that Fraser stated "beggers belief" - without asking Ministers to approve it. This was one of the two most flawed decisions.
  • The second flawed most decsion was the insistance on a rigid programme. Office officials decided that rapid delivery of the new building was to be the priority, but that quality should be maintained, and that it was therefore inevitable that the cost would suffer. The client was obsessed with early completion and failed to understand the impact on cost and completion date if high quality work and a complex building were required. In attempting to achieve early completion, the management contractor produced optimistic programmes, to which the architects were unwise to committ. The main cause of the slippage were delays in design of a challenging Project delivered against a tight timetable, using an unusual procurement route.

Reaction to the report

Following the report Jack McConnell stated that the Fraser recommendations would be fully implemented, and that fundamental reform of the Civil Service was already underway, with trained professionals being recruited to handle such projects in future. John Elvidge, the top civil servant in Scotland admitted that they had not followed best practice and apologised for the way the project had been handled. He was not ruling out the possibility that disciplinary action might be taken against any staff.

Fraser recommendations

In his report, Lord Fraser set out a number of recommendations stemming from his inquiry. The recommendations cover the:

  1. Selection of designers, consultants or contractors
  2. Use of international architects
  3. Use of "construction management" contracts
  4. Importance of following European Union procurement rules
  5. Use of independent professional advisers
  6. Project governance
  7. Amendments to Scottish legislation
  8. Security measures
  9. Amendment of the procedures of the Scottish Parliament
  10. Importance of contracts, bonds and guarantees.

See also

External links

Parliament
The Fraser Report:
The architecture:


Retrieved from "http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Scottish_Parliament_Building"

This page has been accessed 179 times. This page was last modified 00:12, 16 Nov 2004. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details).