Work Programme
Agenda item 4 is consideration of our work programme. Members should have before them the relevant paper from the clerk.
The first issue that is raised in the paper concerns the annual budget process. It is important for members to be aware that, due to the election in May, the normal cycle of budgetary consideration has been suspended for this year. As the paper sets out, that means, in effect, that the stage 1 process has been forgone and that scrutiny of next year's spending decisions will not begin until publication of the draft budget, which is expected to be in August. The clerks will prepare briefings for us as soon as possible after that and I would hope that the committee would be in a position to issue guidance to the Scottish Parliament's subject committees on what their approach to their examination of the spending proposals should be.
Do members have any questions?
Will this situation arise every four years because of the fixed period of our parliamentary sessions? If that is the case, what could we suggest to the Parliament to ensure that there would be a more regularised system of budget review for every year in which there is an election?
To be blunt, given the pattern of elections to the Scottish Parliament, the initial cycle of examination of the budget—stage 1 of the budget process—which takes place between March and June, will be overtaken by the election process every four years.
In the previous committee, I initiated a review of the financial scrutiny process and members have a copy of the report that was produced as a result. There was some concern within the previous committee that the three-stage budget process was, perhaps, over-onerous and that we needed to find ways of streamlining the process to ensure that we were not repeating ourselves and that we had time to get into the figures and decisions in more depth.
The position is complicated by the fact that, not only do we have to contend with the four-yearly election cycle, but we have to deal with the Westminster spending rounds. In a sense, every other year differs from what we would think of as the normal process. Over the next few months, I would like us to consult the Executive to agree on an effective cycle of budgetary review that takes account of the variations. That would allow us to channel our energies in the most effective way. The clerk, the committee's previous adviser and the Executive have been in on-going discussions on the matter and I think that we are close to concluding that process. I hope that proposals can be brought to the committee for discussion relatively soon.
I do not want to talk about the budget process, but about another subject that I think we should incorporate in our work programme. Would it be in order for me to make that suggestion at this point?
Before you do, I would like to say one more thing in relation to the financial scrutiny process. We should consider having a committee away day to give us an opportunity to consider the budget process. It would be useful to have that after the recess, in late August or early September. If members are agreeable to that, I suggest that the clerks contact members to identify a suitable date and venue and prepare an initial agenda.
That is a good idea. The documentation that we have received is helpful, especially in relation to the terminology that is used in this area, but I would appreciate having an opportunity to discuss the matter at length and remind myself of the detail of resource accounting and budgeting and so on. It would be good if we were able to question someone about areas that we might feel that we should know more about.
The detail of the budget process is quite complicated. Most members of the previous committee found an intensive briefing from experts in the field to be particularly useful to the committee's work. With so many new members on the committee, it would be useful to have such a briefing. Are we agreed that the clerks should take that suggestion forward?
Members indicated agreement.
The committee's remit includes a duty
"to consider and report on … any other matter relating to or affecting the expenditure of the Scottish Administration".
The Finance Committee's third report 2003 includes a section about cross-cutting reviews and a recommendation in paragraph 11, which says:
"We recommend to our successor committee that similar reviews are undertaken in future"
and that such reviews may be carried out on specific policy or budget areas or institutions.
I suggest that, over the next four years, the committee should consider the expenditure and operation of quangos, as it seems to me that that is an area that, although it was not entirely neglected in the first session, has not been the subject of specific focus. In particular, I suggest that one specific quango should be the subject of an inquiry by the committee—namely, Scottish Water. It has recently been the subject of huge controversy because water prices have risen by 94 per cent over the past 10 years, because the cost to consumers in Scotland is substantially more than that to consumers in England and because jobs are in danger because of a 500 per cent rise in some business water bills. Of course, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business have both expressed their concerns and made detailed representations.
My view is that it may well be found in the course of an inquiry that we could make substantial savings in Scottish Water's budget and divert them into the money that is spent on senior citizens, our health service and our education. Perhaps that is where our priorities should lie.
I understand from recent publicity that Scottish Water's boss and the water industry commissioner, Mr Sutherland, have been at daggers drawn. They have been blaming each other in public. That is unseemly and an indication that we require an in-depth analysis of the sector. Even if it means that we have to meet weekly, rather than fortnightly as formerly, we should get our sleeves rolled up and find out what is happening at Scottish Water, whether the water industry commissioner is carrying out a useful function, whether we are getting value for money for his approximately £2 million annual costs and what we can do to try to find savings in the sector that could be put to far better use.
I would not disagree with some of the things that Fergus Ewing has just said, but I thought that we would be discussing our future work programme in more detail at our away day. Fergus Ewing has not just raised an issue, but has started debating it. I am sure that other committee members would like to put in lots of bids for items that they would wish to be included in a future work programme. Are we to start putting in bids and going into detailed discussion about our programme today, or will we discuss it at a future meeting?
The issues will be discussed at a future meeting. I anticipate that we will have a preliminary discussion at our next meeting. That will cover our receipt of the paper that was passed on to us by our predecessor committee, which makes some recommendations about the kind of cross-cutting review that it might be appropriate for us to undertake. It will be for the committee to make its decisions based on a series of options. That is the pattern that the committee has adopted in the past.
I remind Fergus Ewing that the management of Scottish Water comes under the remit of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Ross Finnie. By implication, scrutiny in that area would, in the first instance, be a matter for the Environment and Rural Development Committee. We should be careful not to encroach directly on the affairs of another committee. Having said that, I am not hostile to examining infrastructure issues. Those could include Scottish Water in a cross-cutting way. However, the time for a discussion on that is once we have a paper in front of us suggesting options and alternatives. That is how I intend to take things forward.
I, too, am not hostile to the suggestion that we examine the operation of quangos. I would draw the committee's attention to the suggestion about the financial memoranda of bills and to a criticism that members made in the previous session, that the Parliament had not considered financial memoranda sufficiently seriously. I imagine that we need some information from the Executive about the likely time scale around the production of financial memoranda, so that we can plan our important work of scrutinising proposed legislation.
In its last year, the predecessor committee adopted a practice of selectively considering financial memoranda in some detail. The criticism that was applied to the previous process, under which the Finance Committee did not consider the memoranda in sufficient detail, did not apply in the last year of the previous session, when the committee subjected a number of bills to detailed criticism and went on to make recommendations at stage 1.
I was not so much speaking about that criticism as pointing out that, as we will be required to scrutinise financial memoranda again, we need to find out from the Executive the likely time scale for the work involved.
We will work with the Executive to establish such a timetable.
Do we agree to consider the future work programme as an agenda item at our next meeting? Any suggestions that members may have for topics for the committee to investigate can be forwarded to the clerk. We will discuss them at our next meeting and perhaps at our away day if we deem that necessary. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
One further issue that I would like to raise is the Holyrood building project. I have written to the Presiding Officer, alerting him to the committee's interest and role in relation to the project, and I have received an indication from him that a written report will be made available to the committee. Members might still wish to take evidence from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body at the next meeting. Does the committee agree to contact the Presiding Officer, asking that members of the SPCB make themselves available on that basis?
That certainly comes under the role and function of the Finance Committee. Over the past four years, when I sometimes attended the committee as a non-member, representatives of the corporate body regularly appeared before us. We obtained an assurance, I think in March this year, that the costs of the project were going to be £338 million.
I believe that the First Minister indicated during the election period that he is to promote an inquiry into the project. We have heard that the matter has exercised the First Minister considerably over the past few days.
Given the fact that it is the legal responsibility of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to deal with the Holyrood project, and being mindful that it is our parliamentary duty and job to scrutinise the role of the corporate body, I suggest that we write to the First Minister, inviting him to specify his plans. First, what is the remit of the inquiry into the Holyrood project that he proposes? Secondly, by whom, in his opinion, should such an inquiry be carried out? Thirdly, will the inquiry have untrammelled, open and complete access to all the documents, so that the First Minister can fulfil the pledge that he made before the election, that no questions shall remain unanswered?
Can we obtain from the First Minister a detailed exposition of precisely what his plans are in relation to this important matter, which I am sure is of concern to all MSPs? The First Minister has no legal responsibility in this regard, but we do. Therefore, as I presume the clerk will confirm, and as the convener said to me before the meeting began, we have an obligation of scrutiny on this matter. I assume that we will take the matter very seriously, and that we will write to the First Minister, asking him to give full clarification on all these matters. I suggest that we secure that clarification before we have members of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body before us as witnesses next week, so that we are absolutely clear about what the First Minister is proposing.
Can I get clarification of the committee's legal responsibility, to which Mr Ewing referred?
My understanding is that the legal responsibility in relation to the Holyrood project lies with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body; it is responsible to the Parliament. The agreement that was reached at an earlier stage in the project was that the committee would receive quarterly reports that focused specifically on budgetary issues. It would be appropriate for us to seek clarification from the First Minister. We could perhaps remind him of the committee's role in the process and gather information about the process, conduct and timing of an independent inquiry.
I should declare what may be a relevant interest, which is that I am a visiting professor in the business school at Strathclyde. That is a generic declaration of interest.
The complexities of the Holyrood project are not lost on any of us. We should focus on what there is unanimity about: that the procurement process has not been optimal and the specification process has not been optimal but has changed through time, as has responsibility for the project. In process terms we must take into account the role of the SPCB and understand the role of the Executive. The inquiries that have been the most, shall I say, revelatory in another context have not been assisted by having three parallel inquiries. It is typical for important lessons to be learned by means of an authoritative investigation.
I am not clear whether scrutiny by the SPCB or the investigation that the First Minister has proposed will provide that focus. Before we delve into any detail, it might be helpful to try and understand the respective roles of the SPCB and the First Minister. It would also be helpful if the clerk could provide a paper that detailed how the First Minister's inquiry would proceed, the decisions that the SPCB will no doubt make later today on how it intends to pursue the matter and any implications that such processes would have for the committee's scrutiny role.
Although I am not suggesting that we have no role in this matter, I think that the only way forward for us in an issue that will clearly be of public interest over the next year is to understand our role in the inquiries that will be pursued by the First Minister and the SPCB. It would be excellent if the clerk could provide some clarification on process by the next meeting; however, our foremost duty is to clarify our role in the two parallel inquiry processes. If that requires two meetings, so be it. The danger is that, instead of providing some depth to one of the two inquiries that are already under way, we might create the impression that there will be a third parallel inquiry.
Convener, I presume that a letter will be sent to the First Minister along the lines that you have suggested. I hope that some of the points that Wendy Alexander and I have raised will be incorporated in it. I agree with Wendy's comment that the procurement and specification processes in the contract have not been optimal, although I might use a slightly different word in that respect. There is common ground as far as that matter is concerned. However, it might equally be said that reaching such conclusions might prejudge the outcome of any inquiry. In order to find some consensus on this issue, I think that the committee would welcome the First Minister's early clarification of aspects that the convener has mentioned such as the remit, scope and process of the inquiry and who will carry it out. If we send a letter to the First Minister along the lines that the convener has suggested and make it clear that we would appreciate a very early response, we could build a consensus around such an approach.
I have proposed to write to the First Minister to signal the committee's role, to highlight our specific remit and to seek information from him on his announcement of an independent inquiry. I presume that he will respond appropriately; his response might even cover all the issues that have been raised. However, it is not up to me to give him a shopping list of information that he should provide. After all, he is accountable to Parliament for what he does as First Minister. We are responsible for scrutinising the SPCB's activities, and we also seek some clarification about the inquiry that the First Minister has proposed.
Although I recognise that the First Minister has set the wheels in motion for an inquiry into the Holyrood fiasco, I think that it would be remiss of the committee if it did not get its shoulder behind the matter and come at it from as many different angles as possible in order to attack the incompetents who have made a laughing stock of politicians in Scotland. We inherited this situation from Westminster, and it was two years on the go before this Parliament got a grip of it. However, we cannot sit here and do nothing about open-ended contracts that allow incompetent people who do not do their jobs properly to get paid overtime in order to catch up. Such a situation costs more and means that the people who underwrite the contracts end up in a better financial position than they were in before. In the real world, those people would be taken out and summarily fired. As I have said, as members of a committee that looks after the country's financial affairs, we would be more than remiss if the committee did not attack the matter as hard as possible.
We will carry out our role in that regard. Obviously, the Audit Committee also has a role in examining the more retrospective aspects of the issue. Our focus is on budgetary issues and on holding the corporate body to account over its financial proposals.
We seem to have reached agreement. I will write to the First Minister and the Presiding Officer in the terms that I have suggested and we will discuss those issues at our next meeting.
For clarification, does the committee have responsibility for considering the costs of whatever inquiry might be held? An inquiry should not be allowed to hold up the project still further. Equally, we should be considering the costs of an inquiry, because that will mean yet more money—some might say that it would be good money thrown after bad.
Any budgetary matter or expenditure issue is within the committee's remit. It is therefore open to the committee to consider that aspect in the same way as it considers any other.
I agree with John Swinburne that heads should roll, but with the caveat that there should be a fair trial first—call me old-fashioned. The issue is complex and I am sure that John Swinburne would agree that, before we line anyone up against the wall and carry out a summary execution, there should be some kind of investigation into what happened. Some of us might feel that we know what happened in relation to various aspects of the project, but that is another matter.
I also share John Swinburne's sense of urgency. The project has been a complete fiasco and the Scottish people would endorse what has been said about the sense of anger that was felt during the election. Convener, could we ask the First Minister to reply to the committee promptly, certainly before our next meeting?
I believe that we have a job of work to do; we should be prepared to meet weekly, not fortnightly, so that we can do that job. That is particularly important if we are to be serious about inquiring into how quangos spend their money. I notice that no one opposed that idea, so I hope that it will be supported. The Sunday Mail certainly believes that such an inquiry should be carried out, as does the SNP. However, if we are going to do that, we must have a weekly cycle of meetings. Convener, can you confirm that the next meeting will be next week and that, prior to that meeting, we will invite the First Minister to make clear his plans and his response to the sense of urgency that committee members have rightly expressed?
I can confirm that the proposed next meeting of the committee is on 24 June. On the Holyrood issue, it is perfectly reasonable that we give George Reid—who, I understand, is seeking answers from the contractors—sufficient time to gather information and present us with a written report, which in turn we must have time to consider. Therefore, I do not think that there is an argument for holding an additional meeting before 24 June. I will certainly include in the letter to the First Minister a request for a response well in advance of 24 June so that we are clear about the terms of the independent inquiry that the First Minister has proposed.
There might be some merit in having a working session in which we make formal input into the inquiry process, defining the questions that we want answered and specifying the data that we want to be made public and the format in which we would like it. Perhaps we could also encourage the production of long-term guidelines on the management of budgets. We are reviewing the early part of the budget process, but we have an intrinsic interest in ensuring that the budget outcome is as optimal as possible.
That is fair. Once we have received a response from the First Minister, members will be able to consider what input they want to put into the process.
I want to pursue the issue and try to find some sort of consensus. You have quite rightly said that we need to know what George Reid and the corporate body say. We must have that before us before we can move on. We need to be able to analyse the information that they gleaned from today's important meeting with the Holyrood project team and the consultants—particularly the cost consultants, who have some explaining to do—as well as Bovis Lend Lease Ltd.
I remind members that we were promised that the report would be made available to the Finance Committee today or tomorrow. My understanding, from press reports and other advice, is that the information will be made available very soon, although the clerk may have other information for the committee. However, waiting for the report is not a reason for delaying our consideration of the matter. I am sure that none of us would want to be seen to be kicking the issue into touch.
I am not suggesting that we decide today that the work load of the committee dictates that we should have a weekly rather than a fortnightly schedule of meetings. However, in view of the anger that is felt on the Holyrood issue, I suggest that we meet next week to discuss the matter. We will have the corporate body's report long before our scheduled meeting. I also suggest that we ask the First Minister for an answer next week. The issue is whether we have a meeting next week, rather than leave the matter for a fortnight, and I am prepared to push that to a vote.
We should show Scotland that we are taking the issue seriously and that we are trying to push on before the summer recess. We are all aware that the matter could quite easily not be finalised until after the summer recess. If that were to happen, it would be most unfortunate. We should be ready to put our shoulder to the plough.
I hope that we can avoid having a vote on the issue. I want to propose a way forward. The discussion has focused on the First Minister's inquiry and on its remit and role. It is clear that the focus of that inquiry will be retrospective, as it will examine what happened in the past.
The members of the corporate body are now responsible for stewarding the project, but part of their discussions today will look backwards to matters that overlap with those that are the subject of the First Minister's inquiry. More important is the fact that the corporate body will look forwards. As Fergus Ewing hinted, the Finance Committee might need the appropriate resources to fulfil its role, too, of looking forwards. The Audit Committee has a role to scrutinise the First Minister's inquiry into what happened in the past and the Presiding Officer's investigations.
I seek to uphold the stewardship role of Parliament, the Presiding Officer and the corporate body. Although I am not opposed to having a meeting next week, if it is felt that that is appropriate, I believe that the Presiding Officer and the conveners of the Finance Committee and the Audit Committee have to have time to sit down together to establish the process.
As Fergus Ewing said, the report might be published tomorrow. We might find that there are no difficulties of overlap between the Finance Committee, the Audit Committee and the corporate body; if that is the case, that is fine. However, it is not in anyone's interest to compel the Finance Committee to hold a meeting next week, when the Presiding Officer and the two conveners might not have had a chance to establish the respective roles of the two committees. I ask Fergus Ewing to agree to leave the matter to the discretion of our convener, who will discuss our respective roles, responsibilities and the process for taking the matter forward with the Presiding Officer and the convener of the Audit Committee this week.
That is a welcome suggestion. The other issue is that the corporate body might wish to hold further discussions at its meeting next Tuesday. The information that is made available today might not be the final information that we will receive—the corporate body might find that it has other questions to ask.
There is no lack of urgency in the route that I have proposed. I want to ensure that the Finance Committee receives all the information that it needs to enable us to have a full and frank discussion. From our point of view, there is no sense in starting out with only partial information. I would rather that we followed the normal procedures, which are that the clerks receive information and circulate it several days in advance of our meetings. I want the committee to have as much of the information as possible.
Members can be as searching as they want to be, but their questioning and debate needs to be based on the information that they receive. I urge Fergus Ewing to accept that we will have a thorough discussion and progress the issues with the corporate body and the First Minister's inquiry. Members will have the appropriate opportunity to raise and thoroughly discuss all the issues at our meeting on 24 June.
I have listened carefully to what the convener and Wendy Alexander said about waiting two weeks so that we have the full information. However, given that we have waited four years but still do not have the full information, there is no guarantee that it will be available in two weeks' time.
Press reports and advice that I have received privately suggest that we will have a report from the corporate body within 24 hours. The effect of postponing our next meeting until 24 June would be to deny ourselves a role in the First Minister's inquiry until after the recess. I am sorry if other members feel that the matter can wait 14 days; I feel that it is a priority. The spiralling cost of Holyrood is scandalous. We are paying nearly £400 million for a building that was supposed to cost £40 million. I think that we should have a meeting next week and I am prepared to push the matter to a vote if members do not agree.
I would be happy to meet you, convener, along with the convener and deputy convener of the Audit Committee and the Presiding Officer. I will make myself available in that regard during the next few days. We should give total priority to the issue. It demands nothing less.
I support the convener. Fergus Ewing is being misleading when he says that we are waiting for only one report. As Wendy Alexander said, to ensure that there is some value in this and other committees examining the matter, it is important that the correct committee or group of people examines the correct information.
Fergus Ewing might say that there is a danger of the public thinking that the issue has been kicked into the long grass, but there is also a danger that people might think that he wants to rush ahead with the issue so that he can be presented in the banner headlines as the person who is trying to sort it out. However, he certainly does not have a monopoly of concern. During the election, prior to the election and since the election, the Parliament building has been the issue that has been raised most with me at every public or group meeting that I have attended in my constituency, so I am extremely concerned to get to the bottom of it as well. However, I do not want us to rush off at a tangent and not achieve anything. It is important that the correct information comes out of any inquiry that is held. The best way of ensuring that that happens is to discuss the process to make sure that it is correct, even if that takes an extra couple of weeks. That will deliver the best outcome for the people of Scotland and the Parliament.
It is a mistake to get hung up on how often the committee meets. I am sure that, like every committee in the previous session, this committee will meet as often as is necessary, whether that is weekly or, if the work load is heavy, at least once a week. It is not fair to suggest that people are being lazy simply because they do not want to rush into an inquiry in a hot-headed fashion. As Wendy Alexander said, no one is saying that we should not meet next week; we are saying we have to take a considered approach to our role.
The experience of the past four years shows that, when committees are focused, their reports are much more relevant and useful. Those of us who were involved in committees at the beginning of the previous session will remember that we tended to rush into huge, wide-ranging inquiries that got increasingly bogged down and did not lead to a focused conclusion.
I echo what Kate Maclean has said: the Parliament building was the biggest issue during and before the election. If we are to play a role in an inquiry into the matter, we have to ensure that our examination is as focused, logical and useful as possible. That might mean that we need to take a little time to reflect on how best to conduct the inquiry.
I am almost at a loss for words. Dr Murray, you are basically saying that, for the past four years, the committee has not been focused because, even though it has taken a long look at the affair, we are now in the position of having the project's costs approach £400 million, when they started at £40 million. That is totally unacceptable.
You have completely misinterpreted my point, Mr Swinburne.
This committee—probably the most important committee in the Parliament, as we control the financial incomings and outgoings of the Parliament—cannot afford to step aside for a fortnight at a time when the country is clamouring for answers. We have to meet in the meantime, even if it is only to make ourselves available to the country and to try to pose some questions that need answered.
I have every sympathy with the position that John Swinburne and Fergus Ewing have taken. The report on the way in which the cost of the project spiralled upwards during the past four years was my saddest piece of reading over the weekend.
The public perception is that the project has got totally out of hand. Rightly or wrongly, the public think that the Scottish Parliament has not tackled the issue as efficiently as it might have done. I believe that the Finance Committee should react to that perception and make itself available for the sake of the public, whether our next meeting be in seven or 10 days. We should not simply say, "Well, we have another meeting on 24 June, by which time everything will have come together." We should show that we are prepared to act as quickly as is necessary and get down to scrutinising the matter as soon as we can.
I want to be clear about what I am proposing and why. I am not saying that we should meet in two weeks. I am saying that the public correctly perceive that there is a lack of accountability in relation to the project. They want clear lines of accountability from now on. Accountability consists of at least three dimensions. First, who stewards the project operationally through to its completion? Secondly, who makes the decisions about additional expenditure that might be required? Thirdly, who exercises the backward scrutiny, in relation to the moneys that have been spent so far and the nature of the contracts entered into? If we are to have accountability from now on, our moral obligation to our colleagues is to clarify those matters of accountability before we plunge into the melting pot as the fifth body examining the project.
As I said, there are a variety of different forms of accountability, even in relation to the future progress of the project. We have to invite the Presiding Officer to sit down with the conveners of the Audit Committee and the Finance Committee to try to reach agreement about accountabilities—no doubt, that will include an agreement about who will scrutinise the Executive's actions. At that point, I would expect the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Audit Committee and the Finance Committee to sign up to those accountabilities.
I simply do not believe that it is possible for us to make decisions about accountabilities in isolation from those two other arms of the parliamentary process and to meet next week to do so would be disrespectful to our colleagues. There is genuinely no desire to cause a delay. I believe that our convener will expedite the process that I have described, as I cannot believe that those sentiments are not shared by the Presiding Officer and the convener of the Audit Committee.
I would like to make a suggestion that ties together the various strands of the discussion. The date of the next meeting is partially dependent on information that we do not have at this point. I suggest that we get in touch with the Presiding Officer to point out that members of the committee expressed an interest in getting the information from him and having an opportunity to question members of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body as soon as possible. We could ask him what the earliest date for that might be, consistent with our having as much information as possible. If it were possible to have that information before our meeting next week, that would be fine. If the Presiding Officer judges that it would be better to have that meeting on 24 June or at a later date, we would follow his advice. The important consideration must be that we have the information that will enable us to do the job properly.
Wendy Alexander suggested that I should speak to the Presiding Officer and the convener of the Audit Committee. I could speak to the clerks to the two committees to clarify the situation and then bring back a statement of the respective roles of the committees. There have been a number of misunderstandings and it is important that we are clear about our remit and about the remit of others.
The new element in the equation is the independent inquiry that the First Minister is proposing. We will obviously need information about how that will impinge on our role and on the roles of other people. That needs to be fed into the process, so I shall write to the First Minister and ask for that information as well.
That is a fair suggestion. If the committee is to be effective in carrying out its duties, we must ensure that we are confident that we are asking the right questions of the right people. I do not think that we are equipped to do that today, because we do not know what the remit of the independent inquiry will be or what information will be provided to the corporate body. It is not acceptable for the committee to make decisions on the basis of press reports anticipating other reports that might be published. We should deal in the facts that are presented to us, so I support everything that the convener has said about getting in touch with the convener of the Audit Committee, the Presiding Officer and the First Minister.
The Finance Committee, with its new personnel, has a responsibility to contribute to the independent inquiry into the Holyrood project. We have a golden opportunity to put down a marker and to inject into that inquiry the questions that we want answered. That is the right thing to do and it is an important marker, which should register with every budget holder who presents a budget in future. It will say that the committee is serious, that we will go through the budget presentation process with substantial rigour and that, should things go wrong, we will be able to inject key questions into an inquiry. That will create a virtuous circle in which those questions that we are asking after the event this time can be asked before the event in future budget reviews.
I would like to respond to one or two of the points that have been made. I appreciate that we are all trying to find a solution, but I remind members that all that I am suggesting is that we should meet next week. That seems to me to be a remarkably modest proposal.
I would like to respond to some of the specific points that have been made, particularly by Wendy Alexander, who argued that there is a need for clarity about the process. Having read the Auditor General's report of September 2000, the Spencely report and the Auditor General's report on the Flour City fiasco, I feel that there is total clarity. Wendy Alexander asked who is responsible for stewardship. Under the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Presiding Officer leading it have the legal responsibility for stewardship. They are the paymasters—there is absolutely no lack of clarity about that.
This committee has a prospective function and the Audit Committee, as is in the nature of audit, has a retrospective function. There is no lack of clarity in that. We can have a paper on those matters by all means, but those of us who have been very much involved in trying to hold those responsible for the Holyrood fiasco to account over the past four years have a perfect grasp of the process. I do not think that that is a reason to delay.
Jeremy Purvis has said that we do not want to rush into a decision. I am not suggesting that next week we determine a remit of the inquiry. I am suggesting that we exercise our scrutiny function, which, as the convener confirmed to me before the meeting began, is our role. We should schedule a meeting next week and the Holyrood project should be an agenda item for that meeting. I am inclined to push that to a vote. I am sorry if I cannot take all members with me, but the matter is important, as Mr Brocklebank and Mr Swinburne, as well as the SNP members, have argued.
There is no question but that it is an important matter; the issue concerns the practicalities of the situation. Fergus Ewing is arguing that we should schedule a meeting for next Tuesday. My suggestion is that I liaise with the Presiding Officer to determine whether a meeting next Tuesday would be appropriate or whether it would be appropriate to have a meeting by 24 June at the latest.
The objective is to ensure the fullest possible scrutiny. The committee must have the fullest possible information before it does the work. It is also crucial to establish that the witnesses are available.
If we schedule a meeting today and something emerges tomorrow from the discussions that you have said you intend to have, we would look rather foolish. I would be happy to leave the matter to your discretion.
I think that Fergus Ewing is still keen to propose that we meet next week.
It is not a question of still being keen. I have been keen from the outset to ensure that we make progress. Frankly, I am a wee bit amazed that members are not willing to meet next week to take the matter forward.
That is absolute rubbish. We are absolutely clear that we wish to take the matter forward. However, I am concerned to ensure that we do so in the most sensible way, with all the information in front of us. If it is appropriate to have a meeting next week, bearing in mind what members have said about the urgency of the issue, I am happy to facilitate that. My suggestion is that, if a meeting next week is not appropriate—if we would simply be wasting our time and dealing with the matter partially or inadequately—the meeting should be deferred to the next suitable date. The important point is for the committee to deal with the matter properly. I would like to find out whether members agree with that proposition.
If I suggest that we have a meeting this afternoon to discuss the matter, would that show that I am more concerned and keener to demonstrate my concern to the public? If so, I would be happy to propose that we have a meeting in an hour to discuss the matter.
The serious point is that we have already been promised that there will be a report from the SPCB within 24 hours. Kate Maclean's point is therefore irrelevant and I propose that we schedule a meeting for 17 June at which the Holyrood project is on the agenda for discussion by all members.
I second that.
The question is, that we agree to meet next week. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Brocklebank, Mr Ted (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mather, Mr Jim (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Swinburne, John (Central Scotland) (SSCUP)
Against
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab)
Maclean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab)
McNulty, Des (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab)
Murray, Dr Elaine (Dumfries) (Lab)
Purvis, Mr Jeremy (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0. That is a majority against meeting next week.
My intention is to speak to the Presiding Officer to ensure that we get the earliest possible date for a suitable meeting.
Am I right in thinking that your feeling is that, if the information is made available, the meeting should be next week?
If we can secure all the information that is required, we will have a meeting next week.