Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 11 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 11, 2000

Official Report 87KB pdf

---

Hampden Park

The committee will be aware that, prior to the Christmas recess, Mr Sam Galbraith made a statement that indicated that a package to finance the Hampden Park project was being put together. Yesterday evening's reports suggest that that package is no longer on the table. Unfortunately, the minister is unable to be with us this morning, but he has indicated that that is partly because he is trying to have further discussions with those involved in the deal to find out why negotiations have collapsed at this point, given that, at this time yesterday, it was assumed that the deal was about to be signed and sealed.

The minister is unable to attend this meeting, so we cannot ask him any questions, but he has promised to make a statement on the matter to Parliament, either tomorrow or first thing on Thursday. All MSPs will then be able question him about the present state of the Hampden package. Although I am happy to try to answer any questions that members may have, I have to be honest and say that I have no further information. However, if members wish to register questions, we can forward them to the minister, who may pick them up in his statement.

First, I am pleased to hear that the minister will make a statement in Parliament. His statement on 16 December was very much a non-statement, as it gave only hints about what the Executive hoped would happen. Obviously, those hopes have turned out not to be the reality.

Given that the committee did not get its promised pre-briefing before the previous statement, have you received assurances from the minister that we will have a pre-briefing this time?

I think that that is very unlikely. The reasoning behind the decision not to hold a pre-briefing last time was that discussions were on-going right up until the preparation of the statement. It was judged better to make the statement to Parliament than to lay it, brief the committee and perhaps not have an opportunity to make the statement to Parliament at all because of the pressure of time—we were about to go into recess. On this occasion, it is unlikely that there will be any information until immediately before the statement, because the situation has arisen out of the blue. I think that the Executive will want to make a statement as soon as the information is available.

If members still have questions that they want to pursue once the statement has been made, it is open to the committee to invite the minister for questioning.

The situation is very fluid and at times it seems that the Executive—in particular the minister—is running to catch up. There is a danger that the situation will change further during the week. In light of the statement before the recess, it is important that the Parliament—either through the committee or preferably at a meeting of the whole Parliament—is updated this week, whatever the situation. Whatever the state of affairs, the Parliament must be briefed on the latest situation by Wednesday or Thursday, even if the minister is not in a position to say that matters have been resolved. We have a right to know exactly what is going on.

I want to be very clear on two points. First, until yesterday lunchtime, the minister and everyone else involved in creating the package were assured that the deal would go ahead and would be signed and sealed yesterday. That did not happen, as Queen's Park took other action. Secondly, the minister will definitely make a statement to Parliament; the uncertainty surrounding the timing of the statement is down to the Presiding Officer, who is trying to find a space on the agenda. There will be a statement to Parliament, regardless of how much further on we are.

I support Fiona McLeod's comments. The situation is extremely regrettable. Before Christmas, we all thought that the stadium had been saved, that the future was secure and that a package was in place. A great deal has to be asked of Queen's Park Football Club about why it found itself in such a situation yesterday, but did not feel the need to inform anyone yesterday morning, even though we believed that the deal was to be signed in the afternoon. I hope that those questions are being asked as we speak. Once we have some answers, the committee will be in a better position to take a view on the further detail of what is happening.

Thank you for that information, convener. It strikes me that two ministers are responsible for the matter. While I appreciate that the senior minister may be otherwise engaged, it might have been possible for the junior minister, Rhona Brankin, to attend. It is disappointing that there is no one for us to question on such an important issue.

I have heard from media reports—I do not know how much currency this has—that the difference between the two parties is some £100,000. Perhaps you could take that matter up in advance of any statement, convener.

I welcome the statement—I called for it—and I think that it is proper that it be made before the whole Parliament. However, the briefing is a separate issue. We asked for a briefing because there is a consultants' report, which we have been told is confidential because of commercial aspects, but it is important that we are able to speak to the minister to obtain details that, understandably, he is not willing to give out publicly. Why are we still unable to get a briefing that will give us detailed knowledge of the background? Like the public, we are left surmising, guessing and trying to work out what has happened—that is not good enough. Although I welcome the statement, the minister or junior minister should give us a briefing on the background at our next committee meeting.

I am happy to ask for that. It is extremely relevant that the committee wanted additional information that might not be made available publicly. I will follow that up and speak to the minister.

There would not have been much point in having the junior minister here while the minister was involved in discussions—I do not think that she would have been able to throw any more light on the matter. I am assured that no disrespect was intended to the committee—it was simply a case of wanting to get the information as quickly as possible to resolve the situation.

At this committee, the junior minister has a record of not throwing light on the matter—I seem to remember that she stonewalled us for more than an hour. The constant message from the Executive was, "Trust us, we know what we are doing." My colleague Fiona McLeod questioned that message in August and the committee questioned it in September, again in October and again in November—it has been running since last August and each time we have questioned the Executive, we have been told that everything will be fine.

We can draw a lesson from this. When the committee and members of the Parliament request information, the Executive should be open and transparent; it must come and talk to people. What we have now is spin and counter-spin—allegations about the deal and allegations that Queen's Park is involved in some kind of brinkmanship. We do not know whether that is true. In privacy and darkness, such allegations can flourish. We should have had an open account from ministers at the very beginning. The price that is being paid for the failure to provide such an account is the mess that we are now in.

I hope that the committee will reflect on that, follow the suggestions made by Fiona McLeod and Brian Monteith and interrogate the minister about the matter. We must drive home the need for openness and transparency, which should be the keystone of our new democracy in Scotland, but seems to be turning into a millstone round the neck of the Executive.

It is clear that everyone hopes that a deal can be put together to ensure that Hampden Park flourishes as the national stadium. I do not share your view, Mike, that there has been a lack of information—a statement was made to Parliament and members had the opportunity to question the minister then. However, we now have a completely different situation, which arose only yesterday afternoon. I am more than happy to ensure that the minister comes back to the committee to answer any outstanding questions.

We need to reassess the entire story in the light of what has happened. Despite the minister's assurances, the deal was not done and that has led to this potential crisis. It seems that £65 million may have been spent on a national stadium that we may not have.

We will all be unhappy if a deal cannot be struck. We must give the minister the opportunity to make a statement on the matter.

Following what Mike Russell and Brian Monteith have said, we must go one step further than asking the ministers to come to the committee to explain what has happened. It is too important—we are talking about £65 million and our national stadium. We held an excellent inquiry on the national arts companies; we asked questions and got answers that people did not necessarily want to give. We will produce a report that will be useful to the future of those companies. The committee must take on responsibility for Hampden—we must begin our own inquiry to find out what is happening.

I hope that we can look for the light. I agree with the drift of what is being said, but I do not want to start blaming people until we understand the situation. Light can be thrown on the matter when the minister makes his statement—let us hope that we get the light before we get the heat.

I suggest that we revisit the matter after the statement. We should put it on the agenda for our next meeting. Once we know where we are, the committee can make a decision on how to proceed.

Members will be aware that we have a full agenda for our next meeting. However, given the importance that we attach to this matter, I am happy to include it on next week's agenda.

I am happy to agree with Karen's suggestion, but it does not detract from my other point, which is that we should have a briefing.

Yes. That concludes item 4.

Meeting continued in private until 11:35.