Finance Committee, 14 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000

Official Report 224KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Building (Reporter)

Colleagues, we have now been meeting for an hour and three quarters, so I would like to push on to the final item on the agenda, which is to consider the suggested remit for the reporter on the Scottish Parliament building project.

Last week, we agreed to consider this item. The clerks have since circulated a draft remit. In a moment, I will ask colleagues for their comments. I would like to suggest a brief insert in the final sentence to take account of the Spencely inquiry. I suggest that we insert, "SPCB report and" so that the sentence reads:

"Also to keep the Committee informed of any other relevant developments such as the SPCB report and progress of an inquiry by the Auditor General for Scotland."

We understand that the Spencely report is due to be published at the end of this month. The Scotsman reports today that Robert Black has agreed to undertake the inquiry that the Audit Committee asked him to undertake, although he will not take up his post as Auditor General for Scotland until 1 April. He underlined his aim to be finished before the summer recess.

I thought that it would be helpful for our reporter to have sight of the Spencely recommendations or conclusions. Would it be acceptable to broaden the remit in that way?

Members indicated agreement.

Does anyone else have any suggestions?

I agree that it would be sensible to take account of the Spencely recommendations but, as it stands, the remit is not time limited. I suggest that it should be. The time limit could be when that report comes out, or at the end of the year, or at some other appropriate point.

I take that point, but the phrase "watching brief" in the proposed remit suggests that the process would be on-going. We cannot be sure how long this will go on for, and there will be year-on-year impacts. It will be important to have reports regularly; we may want the reporter to do the job, stand down, and then come back to it. The implication of our discussion last week was that we want to keep this matter under review.

I support that—it should be an on-going brief, but if it appears that everything is on track, the reporter could stand down.

That struck an optimistic note.

I suggest that the remit should include some reference to the method of financing the project, especially the use of current expenditure for a capital project and the implications of that for the structure of the Executive's budget. That was brought up at the previous meeting and it could usefully be looked at, especially because of the continuing public debate and speculation on the issue. So, if you wanted a practical suggestion—

That is moving into a different area, Andrew.

No, it is not—

It is: that is not how the project is financed at the moment. That may change, but we are considering things as they are now and as they are likely to impact in the future. You are taking us into uncharted territory.

It is being financed from current expenditure, is it not?

As I understand it, yes.

That is Andrew's question; he is asking about the implications of that.

Yes. That is the point.

That is the point.

Financing can be sustained when it is £60 million, but the minute it becomes six times that it will have very significant implications for the structure of the financing—as you have said yourself, convener.

We will not know that until we get the reports and see just where things stand. All sorts of figures have been bandied about.

Quite. That is the point—I think that keeping an eye on that and reporting on it should be part of the watching brief. That is the whole point of reporting.

What would be your suggested wording?

After:

"In particular to report on the implications for the Scottish Executive's expenditure proposals of any revised cost estimate or revised date for completion of works",

I would add:

"and to consider the structure of the financing of the project."

Yes, that is fair enough. Are we all agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

All right, we now have two amendments to the wording. We now have to agree on who the reporter should be.

I nominate Ken Macintosh.

As he first raised the issue, I nominate David Davidson.

I second that.

There will be a vote. I will take the nominees in the order in which they were nominated.

Can we vote for ourselves? [Laughter.]

Yes. Every member of the committee has a vote.

Members voted by show of hands.

For Mr Kenneth Macintosh

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab)
Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab)

For Mr David Davidson

Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con)
Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP)
Andrew Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP)

The result is: Ken Macintosh 5, David Davidson 4.

I chose not to vote unless the result was tied. Ken Macintosh will be the reporter.

Meeting closed at 12:31.