Education, Culture and Sport Committee, 22 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 22, 2000

Official Report 134KB pdf

---

Hampden Park

Item 2 is the inquiry into Hampden national stadium. The paper in front of members suggests a remit for the inquiry, from whom we should take evidence, and a timetable for the inquiry. Can we have members' comments on each of those so that we can agree to them?

I have a few comments on each section. Do you want me to go through them all or section by section?

We will take comments on the remit first.

The first bullet point is

"to review the contribution and future use of the national stadium".

That is redundant. We have made the decision. Hampden is our national stadium, so that point is not part of the discussion. To reopen the old discussion of whether the national stadium should or should not be Hampden is redundant.

The second bullet point is

"to review the recent financial difficulties and future viability of stadium".

We should also be looking at the original financing and contracts, because the past is relevant to what is happening in the present and what will, I hope, inform a more secure future.

The third bullet point is

"to consider the role of and funding by public agencies".

On that point, we need to consider how and by whom the funding package was monitored.

I would add a fourth point. We should review the negotiations that have been on-going since August, because the fact that they have dragged on for eight months is a matter of fundamental concern. We should be looking at why they have taken so long. We should also ask why the negotiations have come to the brink on the four occasions that deadlines have not been met, the most recent being last Friday. We should find out what has been causing the problems throughout.

I agree with all of that. I would like to extend our inquiry into monitoring. Rather than just ask what has happened, we should look at the kind of monitoring that will be in place to ensure that we do not have a crisis this time next year. I would be interested to know what kind of monitoring is in place and what information we can receive in future on the viability of the stadium.

I go along with those comments, especially Fiona's comment about the first bullet point, which I agree is redundant.

I have pencilled in an alternative remit. The second bullet point should be first, and the review of the financial difficulties that it calls for should be put in the context that Fiona described. The next bullet point should be to look at what is required in any rescue package, and to ask why that has been so difficult to achieve. The bullet point after that should be

"to consider the role of and funding by public agencies".

That point has an impact on the evidence that we should take, which I will touch on later.

With those amendments, do we agree to the remit?

Members indicated agreement.

Fiona, you said that you had comments to make on the evidence.

Yes. The list of witnesses is good, but it is not complete. We should take evidence from the contractors, Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd, which began the crisis when it issued a writ. We have to look at how the contracts were awarded, so it would be useful to hear from that company what its problem was.

I suggest that we hear evidence from Steve Morrow—he would be an independent voice—who is a former lecturer at Heriot-Watt University specialising in football finance. It would be useful to get his perspective as an academic.

It must be very interesting to spend one's life looking at football finance.

In terms of written evidence, it would be worth adding to the list the Scottish Football League, which seems to have found it easy to have faith in Hampden and to use it for its semi-finals and league cup games. However, the Scottish Football Association seems to have had difficulty using Hampden under the administrators. Written evidence would be sufficient to satisfy ourselves that the SFL was happy with the arrangements that were in place for the use of Hampden by, essentially, outside bodies. That evidence might satisfy us or at least throw light on matters.

In the paper, Gillian Baxendine mentions the Millennium Commission, which usually has a great deal to say, but which has been significantly quiet throughout the period. At this stage, I am content to receive written information from it, although we should note when we approach the commission that we may require oral evidence from it at a later stage, given that it was a significant financier of the project.

We have added some witnesses to the suggested list. Do committee members feel that any of the proposed witnesses would not be required? If not, do we agree to the list of witnesses?

Members indicated agreement.

Finally, we have the timetable.

I have grave concerns about leaving the inquiry until after the summer recess. As I said, this matter has been on-going since August. I understand that there are problems with timetabling but, given the amount of public money involved and the public interest in this issue, it would be remiss of us to put it aside and look at it a year after the crisis started.

There may be some difficulty in completing a report in the period that is suggested in the inquiry document, but I see no reason why we cannot commission responses from witnesses before the date that is given. From this note, it seems that stage 2 of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill will take up most of May and that most of June will be taken up with the special educational needs inquiry. There will be some time in April when we may be able to invite written responses and, as our work load becomes clearer, we may find time either to have an extra meeting or to fit in oral evidence, if there is space, in that period. In September, we could be in a position to report, rather than just to commence the inquiry.

I share Fiona's concern about delaying this report. However, I have in front of me a study by the senior assistant clerk, David McLaren, which shows the number of clashes that we will have with other committees, even during the stage 2 process of the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Bill. That may mean that the inquiry will take longer than we envisage. The Local Government Committee and the Rural Affairs Committee are also looking at bills and so will also be having weekly meetings. The business managers will have to try to work out a solution so that committee members do not have to be in two places at once looking at two different bills.

The timetable for the education bill may slip, so I am reluctant to put anything else on the agenda, given the difficulties that I fear the committee will have. I am not opposed to asking for submissions from witnesses in order to start the ball rolling while this matter is still fresh in people's minds, but I do not want to give the committee the optimistic view that we will look at this matter in serious detail this side of the summer recess.

Brian's compromise is sensible. If we prepare the ground this side of the summer recess, we can come back ready to get into the subject in detail, rather than simply start the process then. If we commission evidence now, there is a danger that it will leak into the public domain, which we would all have to be careful about, but I see no reason why we cannot progress in the way that Brian has suggested.

We have to progress this matter before the summer, and Brian's compromise is probably the right one, although it is not as good as having the inquiry itself before the summer.

I would like to see the clerks' analysis of the timetabling, please, as it is obvious from a number of committees that we are running into a bottleneck. Some committees are overburdened with work and some are not. We will have to look at readjusting committees and their roles if we are to avoid a legislative crisis later in this parliamentary year or early in the next. We must look at the pressures on individual committee members, especially those who are members of more than one committee, and in particular those who are members of major committees that are dealing with legislation. We are experiencing serious problems. If I may have the analysis as soon as possible, I will pass it on to my colleagues in the Parliamentary Bureau and we will consider it as part of our urgent review of these matters.

If we have to take written evidence first, rather than oral evidence, I will accept that, but we have to treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

May I make a suggestion? In May, the Parliament will be in Glasgow, where Hampden and most of the organisations from which we wish to take evidence are. Is there any way in which we could timetable something for when we are there? As we are going to be on the doorstep of Hampden for three weeks, we should address this issue then.

We will be there as a Parliament, not as a committee. Committees are continuing to meet in Edinburgh.

Is there no way that we could schedule something?

I do not know.

Could we look into that?

On one of the Wednesday evenings after the meeting of the Parliament the committee could visit Hampden if nothing was happening there—which seems to be the case. It might be sensible for the committee to do that.

Is this going to be our only opportunity to get in to Hampden?

We could go to see Hibs in the semi-final.

Or Ayr United.

We could go to see Hibs lose the semi-final.

We could go to see Ayr United win the semi-final.

We will stop there.

I am keen that we start seeking written evidence, for the simple reason that all the players know that we are about to have an inquiry; if we postpone its commencement until September, they will feel that nothing has changed. They need to know that the Parliament is looking at what has happened and that we are serious, so it is important that we commence at least the written work. Moreover, there may be some flexibility that we cannot foresee in our timetable in the months before September; if that becomes apparent, we should give witnesses time to schedule oral evidence-taking in their diaries.

You have flagged up one of the other difficulties, which is that, even if there are gaps in our timetable, they may not appear in time for us to give witnesses notice. That is a problem, because other people have full diaries as well.

We hear what committee members are saying, and we will do as much as we can to progress this matter as quickly as possible. No one wishes the issue to be left on the shelf, but there are practical difficulties.

Is the next stage for us to have a draft remit with wording that is more usual, rather than just bullet points? Will that come up at the next committee meeting?

We can provide that if you would find it helpful.

If you feel that we are agreed, it would be worth while issuing a press release saying that the inquiry had been set up and outlining its remit. That would gain press coverage and show that the committee was looking at the matter.

I am happy to do that.