Hampden Park
Members have been circulated with a letter from Sam Galbraith on Hampden Park. I spoke to the minister today to find out whether there is any more news for the committee. The only additional information that I have is that Glasgow City Council has now confirmed that it will make a financial contribution to the package and that the minister hopes to continue with the discussions. He wants to reiterate that he is more than happy to meet the committee as soon as a deal has been reached.
I think that it is important that we invite the minister to attend the committee as soon as we have an opportunity to discuss the matter with him. I suspect that members also want to consider the matter in more detail; there might be advantages in considering an inquiry as soon as we know about the deal. That brings us to timing. There is no reason why the inquiry should happen immediately, but we could take the opportunity to consider how the matter has been handled.
I am encouraged by your comments, convener. I have always been supportive of allowing the Executive, as one of the co-funders of the project, the time to try to resolve the problem presented by the national stadium project. I have not been a supporter of the idea that the Parliament could take the job away from the Executive and get a better result.
However, over the past month or so I have come to think, "A plague on all your houses for not being able to resolve this matter more speedily." I have lodged a parliamentary question, the answer to which may enlighten us further, but the idea that the extra money that has been put in has helped only to line the pockets of lawyers, accountants and consultants, and pay the interest on the project's debt, has some credibility.
I hope that the Executive, with the other co-funders, such as Glasgow City Council, is able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. I would not want the committee to get in the way of that, but we have reached the point at which we should flag up the fact that we would be doing the Scottish public a disservice if we did not say that, once this issue is resolved—one way or another—we will take it upon ourselves to find out what went wrong. The committee did itself and the Parliament a great service by looking into the funding problems of the national companies, especially Scottish Opera. It would be remiss of us not to investigate the similar problems that have surrounded the national stadium project.
I hope that the committee can agree that, following the resolution of the problems surrounding the Hampden Park development, we will take on the job of trying to establish the facts about the debt and the rescue package and examining the roles of those involved. We can then report to the Parliament, which can take a view on the matter. That would also allow the public to be made aware of the situation.
My view is similar to Brian Monteith's. Glasgow City Council met at one o'clock and decided to put extra money into the project. The deal is at a very significant point. If we become involved at this stage, we will not add anything to the negotiations.
However, I have serious concerns. Having watched some of the television coverage last week in particular, and having heard some of Mr Reilly's comments about where he thinks things should be going, it is clear to me that there are obstacles to a deal. Something needs to be done. I know that all possible negotiations are taking place, but as soon as this matter is resolved I would like us to invite the Scottish Football Association, Glasgow City Council, the Executive, Mr Reilly and Mr Macdiarmid to appear before this committee. We need to examine the roles of Queen's Park, National Stadium plc, the SFA, Glasgow City Council and the Executive in this affair.
If we fail to do that, we will be failing the people of Scotland, who have invested a significant amount of money in the national stadium. Whether we wanted that stadium to be built in the first place is not at issue—it now exists and I want it to survive. I do not want it to fall into the hands of another company for a small sum of money, which may happen if this deal falls apart. We should make a clear statement that the committee will conduct an investigation once the deal has been concluded, one way or another.
I do not disagree with anything Karen has said, but we must be careful not to take on tasks that are beyond our remit and will give us enormous work load headaches. We have a role to play and it would be remiss of us not to look into this affair once it has been resolved, but it strikes me that some aspects of the affair—to do with the use of public money—go beyond our remit. Although the Executive has a role, this project began under the Tory Government.
Indeed it did.
We must acknowledge that. It could also be argued that monitoring how public money is used is not primarily our role. There is a strong argument for involving the Audit Committee in any investigation. Either this committee or the Audit Committee could explore the possibility of an Audit Commission report on Hampden and how public money has been used there. I understand that if the Audit Commission, through the Auditor General for Scotland, carried out such an inquiry, the report would, in any case, eventually be submitted to the Audit Committee of this Parliament. I am not quite sure how that would work, but I do not think that we need take on this inquiry entirely on our own. Other committees or agencies may be better equipped to investigate certain aspects of the affair.
You know my position, convener. Sam Galbraith ends his letter by saying that, after matters have been resolved and he has made a further statement to Parliament, he
"would be happy to brief the committee".
How many times are we to be told that the negotiations are at a sensitive stage and that it is D-day? I have counted three occasions so far when the committee has had this discussion but decided to back off. We did not back off from the national arts companies inquiry; we said, "That's a problem, that's a hole, that's £3 million of public money, and we want to know what is happening." The committee must address its responsibilities in this matter.
We are told that there are stumbling blocks. Perhaps things would have been different if we had been able to have an open table on to which ideas could have been thrown, but all we have to go on are press reports. One of the stumbling blocks seems to be the insistence on involving the SFA. What is that a stumbling block to? What is the problem? Why can we not be told about it?
As we understand it, 10 days ago Glasgow City Council offered an alternative rescue package or management plan, which was turned down. The convener is now telling us that at one o'clock this afternoon it agreed to put its money into something that 10 days ago it did not think was the best plan. What has happened in the past 10 days to make Glasgow City Council put council tax payers' money into something that 10 days ago it did not think was the ideal solution?
We are told that this is not the place for an inquiry, but we keep having these discussions and making statements about our preferred options, without formalising what those are. We keep saying that we cannot have a role in the process, but we have discussed our preferred options on at least three occasions. How long can we sit back and say that this is not a matter in which we can get involved? As Brian Monteith pointed out, and as we all know, the debt is continuing to mount all the time.
You have galvanised everybody into action—now everyone wants to say something.
I am a member of the Audit Committee, which may well have an interest in this matter. I do not think that the initial step should be to refer it to the Audit Committee. I did not infer from what Nicola Sturgeon said that this is not the right committee to conduct an investigation into this affair. I think that she was saying that the Audit Committee could play a supplementary role.
When the Hampden situation is resolved, this committee should carry out an inquiry into it. I do not have close knowledge of the detail of what has gone on, but my main concerns are not about the use of public money or the activities of public agencies—although those are part of it. If something serious has gone wrong, I suspect that it has not been in the public sector. If we find that the problem is partly a public expenditure problem, the Audit Committee will be only too willing to look into it.
I want to echo what Lewis just said. I still think that it is not the role of this committee to get involved in negotiations, but it is our role to investigate any misuse of public money and what use the national stadium will be put to from now on. The longer the saga goes on, the angrier I get—I think that I speak for the whole committee when I say that.
The parallel that I would draw with the national companies is that here, too, some people are playing fast and loose with the Executive's position. They know that the Executive cannot let the national stadium be handed over at a knockdown price for some private company to exploit, and they are taking advantage of that. I do not know whether that is the case, but it is not our role to step in and renegotiate.
We should find out people's motivation and what their roles were in each of the deals, but we have to wait until the deal is completed otherwise there may be no deal at all. We could make matters worse. As it is, as Brian said, hundreds of thousands of pounds may have been wasted on professional fees. Our involvement in negotiations will not improve that, and it could make matters worse.
Most of what I want to say has been said. I agree with Nicola and Lewis. We need to discuss this issue again. Ours might not be the only committee that wishes to discuss it. It is important that we do not draw parallels with the national companies, because the situation is different. The main funding for the national companies comes from the Executive, so we have a role to play. If we revisit the matter after the negotiations are finished, that would be fine.
I go along with Lewis. I agree with a lot of what has been said. We are nearing consensus on this matter. While there have been funding problems, many of which have been concerned with debt, it is clear from what Sam Galbraith has said to us in his letters and in the meetings at which he has addressed us that the problem is not so much the money as the decisions that have been taken.
The decision to hold the cup final at Hampden put a burden on the costs, but it was a political with a small "p"—or perhaps a sporting—decision that was taken somewhere by someone, but we do not know who. The decisions to change the specification were not funding decisions in the sense of the misuse of public funds; they were small "p" political decisions. That is why it is appropriate that this committee asks questions.
If we find that there has been a misuse of public funds, let us refer the case to the Audit Commission or to the Audit Committee, but I suspect that politics is involved in this matter. All the anecdotal evidence—I am aware that committee members have also provided anecdotal evidence—suggests that politics between Queen's Park and the Scottish Football Association is involved, which I suspect the Scottish Executive is trying to resolve. That is why our input is appropriate; it is also why I feel that the timing of our input is not crucial.
It is important that the matter be resolved. Taking into account our work load, we can take a distanced view, ask people to come before us, and ascertain what happened. It does not matter whether it takes another six months because we will be able to say, "This is the truth, in our estimation." I hope that, before then, the matter will have been resolved anyway.
I hope that it will, Brian.
Yes, we cannot do any more.
I will make a suggestion that I hope will be helpful. There is not much difference between the views that have been expressed. On the one hand is the view that we do not want to get involved in negotiations. Nobody disagrees with that. On the other hand we are all frustrated that the issue has been dragged out. We have been strung along and told, "Wait until this time, and you might get involved in the process."
I suggest that we follow the minister's deadline of 17 March. My concern is that on that date there will still be no deal and he will come up with an extension or something else. We should set that date as our deadline, and say that after that date, whether there is a deal or not, we will look at timetabling our own investigation and decide which other committees or agencies will be involved. In that way we will set down a time scale and not allow the matter to drift—and we will retain control of our own procedures.
I agree with Nicola and Brian. Brian will remember this, because he is a Hibs supporter.
He will not remember Hampden much.
The famous five was led by Last-minute Reilly.
He scored the winner at Wembley.
That name takes on a new meaning now. There is a danger that Austin Reilly, the chief executive of The National Stadium plc, will score an own-goal if he is not careful. He is in extra time and the whistle is about to be blown. We need to impose a deadline.
As an adjunct to Nicola's helpful suggestion, I propose that we set our deadline for Wednesday 22 March, which is when we next meet after 17 March. If we set that as the deadline, it will give us and the Executive some leeway, because it would not surprise me if, at the 11th hour on 18 March, the matter is resolved. We are programmed to meet on 22 March, so we could say, "OK, the issue has not been resolved. We will commission something."
This is not you trying to get out of reporting back on Cramond, is it?
No, it is not.
That sounds fine. We will give that date further consideration.
Why bring Cramond into it?
I have the programme in front of me, Brian. I know when you are supposed to be reporting on it.
It weighs heavily on me, bloody Cramond.
I hope that that is in the Official Report. Strike that from the notes.