Transport and the Environment Committee, 27 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 27, 2002

Official Report 145KB pdf

---

Finance Committee Inquiry (PFI/PPP)

Item 4 concerns a letter that we have received from the clerk to the Finance Committee on that committee's inquiry into the public finance initiative and public-private partnerships. The Finance Committee will undertake a series of case studies of projects to test the oral and written evidence that it has taken for the inquiry. A reporter group will examine an infrastructure project and will take a waste water project as its case study. I understand that the project concerned will be the Seafield waste water treatment works.

The letter invites the Transport and the Environment Committee to nominate a member to join the reporter group. It is envisaged that a visit will take place on Tuesday 19 March—that is also my birthday, so remember the cards—and that those present will include representatives of East of Scotland Water, which developed the plant, three members of the Finance Committee and one member of the Transport and the Environment Committee. The visit will consist of a short tour, followed by a board-style meeting.

Before I ask any other members to comment, I give Des McNulty, who is convener of the Finance Committee, the opportunity to say something on the proposal.

The Finance Committee has conducted a fairly in-depth inquiry into PFI/PPP. Before completing that project, we will consider some examples of PFI and PPP projects. We have taken three categories: health projects, education projects and what might be roughly called infrastructure projects. Within the infrastructure projects category, we have selected water and sewerage projects. That is partly because we want to build on some of the work that this committee did in its inquiry into water and the water industry, in which the committee spent a lot of time investigating PFI/PPP in the water and sewerage industry.

The Finance Committee's interest in such projects is as snapshots of the mechanisms of PFI/PPP. We acknowledge that the subject committees have a continuing interest in the areas that we have chosen. It would be helpful to have somebody from the relevant subject committee on the Finance Committee reporters groups so that they could contribute their expertise and their knowledge of the work that has been done and give the Finance Committee's work continuing relevance to that of the subject committee.

I take it that we are agreed that it would be appropriate for the committee to nominate a member to take part in the work, particularly given that we have investigated PFI/PPP in previous work on the water industry. If we are agreed that it is appropriate for us to assist the Finance Committee in its work, are there any indications of interest from members who wish to participate?

I am interested.

Does anyone else wish to participate?

Absolutely not.

I make an observation about the size of the committee. I think that almost every member of the committee is acting as a reporter in some capacity or another. Adjusting the number of members on the committees was a retrograde step. Our numbers are not sufficient to undertake the work that I hoped that committees would do.

I note your comments, but the decision on the size of committees is ultimately one for the whole Parliament.

I agree, but I make that observation at this point because it is relevant.

Can I say something about that?

I would prefer that we not get into a debate about that matter right now. The committee cannot change its size. That is a matter for the whole Parliament. If members feel that it is a problem, I suggest that they take it up within their parties and ask their business managers to consider the issue.

Is it agreed that Angus MacKay be our reporter on the Finance Committee's work?

Members indicated agreement.