The fourth item on the agenda is consideration of the responses to the committee's request for views on the current position of Scottish Water. The information has been collated by Scottish Water, and we must agree how we want to proceed on the matter. Members have a copy of a note from the clerk, a briefing note from the Scottish Parliament information centre and copies of the responses that were collated by Scottish Water. I remind members—as I did earlier—about the weight of business on our work programme until Christmas. If we were to do substantial work on Scottish Water, it would almost certainly need to be done after the Christmas recess. I invite comments from members, especially on that proposition.
There are three options in the bullet points in paragraph 4 of the clerk's paper, which are—as it says in paragraph 5—not mutually exclusive. I would not support our taking the action that is suggested in the third bullet point. The actions that are suggested in the first two bullet points are the way in which we should go forward.
I agree that it would be worth while for us to appoint reporters to pursue the matter further. We have received a substantial body of evidence so far. Given the comments that have been made by the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland and others about buck passing between Scottish Water, the water industry commissioner for Scotland and the Scottish Executive, if we invited Scottish Water to give oral evidence, the panel should include representatives of all three bodies to enable us to get to the heart of where the responsibilities lie.
I am taken by the first two options. We should seek to augment the list with a contribution from Analytical Consulting Ltd. Jim and Margaret Cuthbert, the noted statisticians and economists, have submitted a paper to the committee and have given me a verbal briefing. The chemistry of this suggests that it might be better for our formal evidence session to take the form of one or two fairly interactive, almost informal meetings—around a notepad, a flipchart or whatever—at which we would bring together a blend of the contributors to see whether we could reach consensus. Through such a working session, we could try to get to the heart of the matter.
Nobody here should underestimate the importance of our holding some sort of inquiry into Scottish Water. Fergus Ewing and I had a spat earlier this year when he suggested that the committee should investigate Scottish Water. At that stage, we decided to defer such an inquiry because of the sheer weight of our business. However, we cannot keep putting off an inquiry into Scottish Water. From the responses that we have received, it is clear that there is much evidence for us to get our teeth into, and all members will have thoughts on the issue. The public will expect us to get our teeth into it, in some fairly detailed form.
There is certainly a big issue about accountability, which has emerged in the responses. I endorse that comment.
The case for a proper inquiry is now overwhelming. A half day simply will not be enough if we accept Kate Maclean's suggestion that we should give not just Scottish Water, but the various other people who have sent us detailed submissions, the chance to give evidence. That will require more than a half day: it will require two half days at the least, and possibly more.
I absolutely agree with Fergus Ewing that it is crucial that we get on with the inquiry. I worry, however, that if we rush at it and try to squeeze in meetings this year, we will be unable to take the full amount of evidence or to do justice to the inquiry. We will be able to come to a conclusion more quickly, but it might not be of any benefit or use.
It is important that we try to get something planned for early in the new year, if that is possible. I have a practical suggestion. We are taking evidence from the minister about the Executive's relocation policy on 9 December. Given that the Scottish Water issue is possibly more pressing than the relocation policy issue, it might be possible to take evidence on Scottish Water at that meeting. I am not suggesting that we put back our evidence taking on relocation by a long period of time, only that we take it slightly later. That would allow some of the issues around Scottish Water to be examined before the end of the year.
Okay. If I am reading the committee right, the view is that we need to take some evidence, if we can, which will link into the evidence that we have received to date. There is also a view that, in order to progress the issue, we need to ensure that we do it justice. I agree with Kate Maclean that the best route to do that would be to appoint a couple of reporters to do more detailed work. The reporters can progress the issue on behalf of the committee. Having undertaken some preliminary work and reported back to us, the reporters could provide us with a route forward to a more detailed inquiry. It is inevitable that such an inquiry will have to take place after Christmas.
If we were to have Scottish Water representatives before us on 25 November, that would not preclude us from having them before us at the same time as the minister. If, as Elaine Murray said, there seems to a lot of buck passing, it would be useful to have certain witnesses before the committee at the same time. Having them before the committee once does not preclude us from having them here a second time.
That is right. My previous involvement was on the Transport and the Environment Committee. We conducted two inquiries into water and found it quite a technical area. To make sense of the issues, in particular some of the finance issues, members need support. I am thinking not about accountability, as it is a wee bit simpler, but about the financial issues that require a considerable amount of consideration and detailed study. Members will not pick up those issues quickly simply by being told the figures in a short time frame.
Jim Mather and Jeremy Purvis have indicated an interest in becoming reporters. Do members agree to appoint those two members as our reporters on the issue?
In terms of an evidence-taking session, I ask Elaine Murray to clarify whether she was thinking of our meeting of 9 December.
I was simply making an observation that it was not essential for the relocation session to take place on 9 December and that that session could be rearranged to allow the session on Scottish Water to take place. Like Kate Maclean, I want to reiterate the desirability of having representatives of the Scottish Executive and the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland before us at the same time as Scottish Water representatives. If we do that, we can get to the root of the buck passing that was mentioned in some of the submissions.
So we are talking about a session at which we would seek to clarify some of the issues. The reporters could lead the questioning on some of the issues, but that would not form the end of their work. They would carry on with their work and consider some of the issues in more detail in January. Do members agree that that is what we are saying?
Will the convener clarify his suggestion? The reporters will produce reports—that is obvious—but all members of the committee should have an equal right to question witnesses.
Absolutely.
Is the proposal to invite Scottish Water representatives before the committee, along with the minister, for the first cut on 9 December?
I am not sure that we have decided whether we should invite them on 25 November or 9 December. We have to decide at which meeting the session could best be scheduled. I am trying to pick up from members whether they want to have a session before Christmas.
Absolutely.
Perhaps the reporters could bring a proposal to our meeting next week? They could prepare a bare outline of a timetable for the inquiry and outline proposals, which could include evidence-taking sessions. That would allow us to decide how to proceed.
With respect, although I see the logic in that proposal, those of us who served in the first session of the Parliament know that ministerial diaries in particular are extremely busy. Scottish Water's senior personnel—I assume that we are talking about Mr Hargreaves and Professor Alexander—are equally busy. If we are agreed that we would like to have a session before the turn of the year, it would probably be better, even as a matter of courtesy, to fix a date now. Otherwise, we might run the risk of finding that the minister or witnesses from Scottish Water are unavailable.
I suggest that we ask the clerks to explore informally ministerial and other availability and put that alongside our timetabling. I ask the reporters to prepare for next week's meeting a draft remit for the inquiry and a proposal about consultation. If they could do that, we could agree or vary the proposals and also consider the information from the clerks about availability. That would allow us to decide on the appropriate date.
It could be 2, 9 or 16 December.
It could be any of those dates. We will explore ministerial and other availability.
Can we also ask the reporters to examine Ross Burnside's excellent report on this matter? In particular, I seek clarification of the comment, in the report's third last paragraph, that the cost of operating the private finance initiative schemes over the past year was about £105 million. Those contracts run for between 20 and 40 years. That sounds like an enormous amount of money to pay to some organisation and is probably the reason why water rates for small businesses are increasing.
I think that the reasons are more complex than that. Perhaps that is one of the many issues that we need to explore in some depth and detail.
Are we also inviting the water industry commissioner to give evidence? After all, we might have some questions to ask him.
I think that you were right to suggest that we invite a group of people to the committee to explore some of the issues as a first cut at the subject and without prejudicing any decision that we might make to follow through on the matter in the new year. The reporters' task in managing the process will certainly not be light; indeed, it will be considerable. Do members agree to proceed in that way?
The clerks will get in touch with the reporters about working towards a remit and other decisions and a paper containing some concrete proposals will be circulated to committee members for discussion at next week's meeting. Are members agreed?
Elaine Murray and I are about to meet to discuss the relocation of Scottish Natural Heritage. Will the convener clarify for our benefit, and the benefit of other members, whether we have asked SNH for the report that was mentioned in newspaper cuttings and which estimated the cost of relocation at £40 million? When did the letter go off to SNH? Have we received an answer yet? Until we receive that information, we will find it difficult to report back to the committee.
We have written to SNH for a breakdown of the costs and have set a deadline of next Monday for a response.
Thank you very much.
On that basis, I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:02.