Finance Committee, 28 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 28, 2003

Official Report 334KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Building Project

The second item on our agenda is consideration of October's monthly report on all correspondence that we have received relating to the Holyrood project since we considered it on 23 September. Members have before them a copy of the monthly report that was issued on 23 October together with a letter from Paul Grice that is dated 27 October, which supplies us with additional information. Members also have a short paper from the clerk on the building project. I give members the opportunity to discuss any issues arising specifically from either the October report or the correspondence dated 27 October and I seek the committee's agreement on how it wants to act on those issues.

It is gratifying to see that the monthly report indicates that no cost increase is predicted and that there has been no further slippage in the predicted completion date. However, that optimistic view seems to be open to question, particularly in relation to the completion date. I hope that, as has been our practice, we will have the usual witnesses here before us.

I am especially concerned about the impact that any slippage would have in terms of the extra costs that would result from an extension of the estimated six-month double-running period. I am also concerned about this institution as a whole. If there is any further slippage, we will all suffer—rightly or wrongly. The Parliament building was supposed to have been completed by July 2001. The completion date then slipped to 2002 and 2003. The target is now July 2004.

I was concerned to read the recent press reports on the building, especially one by an individual reporter who spent about a week under cover and wrote about his experience. He and the workers on the site to whom he spoke did not feel that July 2004 was a realistic completion date. He also made the pretty serious allegations that materials were routinely thrown away, that money was wasted and that work was re-done unnecessarily. That graphic, first-hand account has raised significant questions. I would like the opportunity, as has been our practice, to raise some of those questions with the project director and the chief executive—who has overall responsibility—to fasten down how confident they are about the costs and the completion date of 2004.

The last thing that we want is any further increase in cost or any further delay. The witnesses might be able to address those concerns, but the committee would not be doing its duty if we decided that because, on the face of it, the information that we have received appears to give comfort, we should simply accept it without asking the individuals who are responsible to come before us and face any questions that members might have. The timing of such a meeting is a matter for the committee to discuss, but I hope that it will take place as soon as possible. Members will agree that there are questions that we need to ask if the committee is to discharge its function.

I have no objection to our holding another evidence session; however, the report shows that there have been no significant changes that the committee would want to ask about. I do not know what newspaper article Fergus Ewing is referring to—I have not read it. I would be concerned if we were to start to hold evidence sessions on the basis of journalists' undercover activities. I would be happy for us to hold another evidence session at any time, but I would be worried if that was what led us to such an evidence session. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for members to get copies of the newspaper article to which Fergus Ewing refers—I do not know whether the clerks have access to it—but I would advise caution.

My view is similar to Kate Maclean's. We are asked to consider evidence that has been presented to us. If Fergus Ewing has other evidence, he should have presented it to the clerk to be circulated among the members of the committee. It is rather disrespectful to other committee members for Fergus Ewing to move that we should call witnesses to give evidence on an article that we have not seen or been provided with.

We all read the newspapers. Jeremy Purvis is entitled to read them.

Well, they are not among the committee's papers, which are what the agenda asks us to consider.

It is not my function to provide committee members with copies of newspapers. We all have a duty to read what is in the news, and I have done so. Serious questions have been raised by several people, and I would like to have the opportunity to question the accountable people. I sincerely hope that members are not suggesting that we do not call them before us to put questions to them, as there is no other method of holding those individuals to account within the Parliament. There is no question time on Holyrood, and there is no other means—other than written questions—by which we can hold those individuals to account. I hope that no one is seriously suggesting that we abandon the move to bring the officials before us for a short period to answer our questions.

I am sorry, but I thought that it was obvious from what I said that I have absolutely no objection to our holding evidence sessions on this issue. Fergus Ewing should not try to give the impression that he is the only member who wants to hold people to account for this. That is not the case.

Has Jeremy Purvis finished what he wanted to say?

Yes, I have. I am happy to consider any evidence that is presented to us in the papers for the committee. However, ad hoc press reports are not a reliable basis on which to make informed decisions about how we act on the matter.

I read the article to which Fergus Ewing referred. It is in the public domain. It was a fairly major article in the Scottish Daily Mail. Whether members of the committee believe that the Scottish Daily Mail is a reputable newspaper does not really matter; the fact is that the article is in the public domain. Some of the criticisms that were made are extremely serious allegations about what appears to be going on at the Holyrood site, and it could be argued that the article should have been presented to the committee.

I certainly feel that we should take every opportunity that is available to question officials, as we have done in the past. That practice should continue. My only reservation is based on simple humanitarian grounds. The officials are under extreme pressure at the moment because of the amount of work that they have to do and the fact that they appear to be at the beck and call of a great many different groups that require their judgment.

Because the written information that we have received this month does not show any recognisable increase in costs, I wonder whether we could excuse the officials for a month and delay calling them before the committee. My suggestion is that we get back to them a month from now, when we will perhaps have more evidence to present to them.

Basically, we are looking at a bureaucratic catastrophe—there is no other expression for it. I lodged a question this morning about something that just occurred to me: what is the insurance cost for the building going to be? The insurance was originally going to cover a building costing £40 million, but that figure has now risen tenfold. If the building will now cost 10 times as much, the insurance cost will have escalated as well. That is one of the hidden costs that will come to light in the fullness of time.

I look at the project and ask, "Who is running it? Who is in charge of it?" It is being done in our names. I echo what Fergus Ewing said: the sooner that it is completed, the better. However, we should not hold our breath for 1 July 2004.

I support what Ted Brocklebank suggests. There is a balance to be struck between holding people to account and allowing them to get on with the job. We all agree that any further delay would cost more money and be detrimental. I do not think that there is anything specific to query in the committee papers. I do not read the Scottish Daily Mail, so I have not read the article and do not know how reputable it is.

If we are going to start taking evidence on the basis of newspaper reports, perhaps we should bring the journalists and the editors in so that we can quiz them on their comments, although I do not think that that is the committee's business. Ted Brocklebank is right—it might be worth delaying another evidence session until next month, when we would be able to track progress over a couple of months.

Every member has had an opportunity to speak except Jim Mather.

I wonder about the signal that we will give if we take a lackadaisical approach. If the market exists, we must be seen to react to it, even if only to check that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is reacting to it.

As a compromise, would it be possible to ask the project team to respond in writing to the specific points in the article? That would enable us to make a decision on whether we want to take evidence in more depth on the specific allegations that were made in the Scottish Daily Mail. Newspapers' undercover operations are not always the best way in which to get information. I worry that, if we respond to every such incident, we could be taking evidence for ever on the basis of what might be just rumour. I do not know whether we have the names of the people who commented on the Holyrood site in the article; I presume that we do not. If members are concerned about any specific points when they read the article, the convener could write to Paul Grice and we could make a decision based on his response.

I support Kate Maclean's compromise. In the past, the clerk has asked all members to put forward suggestions for questions and we have written to the Parliament's chief executive. I have been happy to suggest questions. Why do we not do that?

If the clerks circulate a copy of the article, that will allow all members to read it before we make suggestions for questions.

That is possible.

I did not know the meaning of the phrase "empty rhetoric" until I joined the Finance Committee. If we are to be subjected to another session on the Holyrood project, can we limit the witnesses to providing short answers—such as "Yes", "No", or "I don't know"—rather than allow them to give 10 minutes of empty rhetoric?

We have had a fair bat at the subject. In my view, we have two options. We can invite the witnesses next week or the week after to question them on October's monthly report and on other issues that relate specifically to it, or we can write to the corporate body to highlight some of the issues that members have raised today and to say that we will pursue those issues at the first meeting after production of the next report. We anticipate that that would be at the end of November. The real choice is between next week or the week after, and two weeks hence. That is a managerial issue for the committee.

The week after would be two weeks hence.

Next week is the first occasion on which we could consider the matter. I meant two weeks after the week after next week, which would be three weeks from next week. Depending on the availability of witnesses, the choice would be between 4 November and 11 November, and 25 November, which is when I would expect the next report to be available.

There is one other issue that we have not dealt with. The fourth paragraph in the clerk's paper states:

"the Holyrood Progress Group has been canvassing MSPs' opinions as to whether or not question and answer sessions on the Holyrood project should continue."

A member has contacted me to say that they are not happy with that proposal. Given the Finance Committee's scrutiny process, we might want to take a view—perhaps not immediately—on whether it is appropriate to discontinue the question-and-answer sessions. That would allow us to address some of the points that Fergus Ewing made about the perception of scrutiny of the project.

It is essential that the question-and-answer sessions be continued with, but I re-emphasise my point about the need to place a time restriction on responses, to ensure that they are intelligent, articulate and brief; I have more things to do with my time.

It is important that the limited opportunity that exists for Parliament to hold to account the people who are legally responsible for the management and finances of the Holyrood project should continue. Given the committee's remit, it would be wholly wrong for us to decide to express a view that question-and-answer sessions with the Holyrood progress group should cease. That would be incompatible with our duty to scrutinise. I hope that there will be fewer serious questions to be asked as time goes on, although that is not an argument for scrapping the extremely limited mechanisms for holding the authorities to account.

I finish on the thought that, if Parliament had made more effort to introduce methods of scrutiny at the outset—for example, by having a Holyrood question time, which I suggested—some of the serious questions might have been asked early enough for a difference to have been made. I made that suggestion to the first Presiding Officer. He rejected it on the ground that we could ask written questions, but he then refused to answer a series of written questions that I lodged earlier this year. It is not Parliament's business to dismantle the limited accountability options that exist; we must cherish and use them. If members are saying that there are fewer serious questions to ask, I sincerely hope that they are right.

I am slightly surprised that Ted Brocklebank did not declare a possible interest—I read his excellent piece in today's Scottish Daily Mail and I echo his comments about that paper. We should take seriously the fact that a journalist has gone undercover and produced a report. We should not in any way belittle the efforts of journalists in trying to bring out at first hand—rather than in an office or a committee room—the truth about what is happening at Holyrood. That is what the public want and that is what we should be about, as well.

Modesty prevents my advocating that committee members read the Scottish Daily Mail.

I am a trifle concerned that members of other groups appear not to get press cuttings daily. For good political reasons, I choose not to read The Guardian, but I am always interested in seeing the cuttings from it that come round our group. It is not much of a defence to ignore what the Scottish Daily Mail says on the ground that one would not choose to read such a Tory rag.

On Fergus Ewing's substantive point, it would be appalling if the committee were to withdraw from its regular questioning of the corporate body on progress at Holyrood—he is absolutely right.

No one is suggesting that. We are talking about the Holyrood progress group's formal question-and-answer sessions in the chamber.

Oh, I see.

I hope that we will not spend much longer on the present item. The convener suggested two good options; my preference is for the second. We should make a decision now and move on to more important issues than who reads what newspapers.

On the question-and-answer sessions for MSPs, the progress group was slightly concerned about the level of attendance. It might be that the timing of the sessions has not enabled good attendance, or there might be a problem with advertising them. If it is our view that the question-and-answer sessions should continue, we should suggest to the progress group that more effort be put into ensuring that MSPs know that the sessions are on, and into ensuring that they take place when people are able to attend.

Members indicated agreement.

I see members nodding in agreement with that suggestion—I think that there is consensus that we want the sessions to continue.

Two propositions on taking evidence were made: Ted Brocklebank's proposition was that we take oral evidence on or about 25 November, after the next report is issued; Fergus Ewing would prefer that we take evidence on 4 or 11 November. Do we want to vote on that or can we reach consensus?

Did you say that it was open to you to write to the chief executive in the meantime to raise any issues on which Fergus Ewing or other members want clarification?

Yes. If members agree, I would be willing to write to highlight the concerns that have been identified and to make it clear that we will take evidence.

I would prefer to proceed with a vote. Those involved should come to the committee as quickly as possible. That is what I understood George Reid to be suggesting when he introduced a monthly, rather than quarterly, report. If we had had a monthly report from the beginning, we might be in a different situation. The session next week might be short and we might not have as many questions and issues to raise as we have had on the previous two occasions, but that is no reason not to hold witnesses to account. The readers of all newspapers in Scotland would be surprised if the committee decided not to call people to ask them our own questions, which are not filtered through another source.

We have a difference of opinion. Who is in favour of our accepting Ted Brocklebank's suggestion that we defer oral evidence until 25 November or some date near then?

Mr Brocklebank indicated agreement.

Kate Maclean indicated agreement.

Dr Murray indicated agreement.

Jeremy Purvis indicated agreement.

The Convener indicated agreement.

Who is in favour of Fergus Ewing's suggestion?

Fergus Ewing indicated agreement.

Jim Mather indicated agreement.

John Swinburne indicated agreement.

We will take evidence on 25 November.

One other matter arises from the Fraser inquiry and from comments in George Reid's letter. It relates to expenditure that many of us consider to be part of the Holyrood expenditure—the £770,000 cost thus far of the film that is being made about the Holyrood project. I raise that because, under paragraph (d) of its remit, the committee has as a responsibility

"any … matter relating to … expenditure of the Scottish Administration or other expenditure".

The £770,000 was provided in part by the BBC and in part by Scottish Arts Council and Scottish Screen grants. The first grant from the Arts Council was made in January 1999 and was for nearly £187,000, and subsequent grants have been issued. I understand that John McCormick of the BBC and Steve McIntyre of Scottish Screen are in discussions about a further £50,000 grant on top of the £770,000.

Before any further expenditure is handed over by any quango for which the Scottish Executive has overall responsibility, we should find out whether we are getting value for money. I understand that tape rather than film is being used and that the cost so far works out at £20,000 per hour. There seems to have been a complete lack of democratic scrutiny.

I am also interested to know whether the contract for the programme was put out to tender. Were any other film companies in Scotland, some of which have acknowledged track records and expertise in producing documentaries about architecture—I will not mention names, because that might be invidious—given the opportunity to bid or to be considered for producing the programme when it was commissioned in 1998 or 1999?

I know that £50,000 may not seem to be a lot of money compared with our earlier discussions about the £23 billion in the Scottish budget, but there is a case for the committee's considering issues that are of public concern, one of which is the matter that I just described. I am keen for the committee to invite those who are involved in the film to give a detailed explanation of how £770,000 has been spent and why the programme is apparently twice over budget. If another £50,000 is being sought, what is it for? Will that be the last application for a cheque, or will more public money—for which we have overall responsibility—be applied for? I believe that the film is to be called "The Gathering Place". As its costs appear to be rising out of control, is the film beginning to become a mini parallel Holyrood project?

I am not sure whether the committee has competence to deal with those matters—I do not doubt that the convener will rule on that in due course. However, I echo much of what Fergus Ewing said. The fact that the documentary appears to have spiralled out of all budgetary control has been an extreme concern of mine for several months. I discussed with a clerk at an earlier stage whether the committee should examine the matter, but as I received no response, I assumed that it was not within the committee's competence.

To a lesser extent, I am concerned about the method of commissioning the project, over which question marks hang, but—like Fergus Ewing—I am gravely concerned about the cost. He talked about costs' having doubled, but I understand that the original budget for the project was £190,000—under £200,000. If the latest increase from Scottish Screen is obtained or if more public money is given to the project, we could be looking at £800,000 or £850,000 for a programme that is to be screened only in Scotland. That would be a grave misuse of public money and somebody, somewhere—whether this committee or another body—should be concerned about that.

If a retrospective question of abuse of public money is involved, that is clearly a matter for the Audit Committee rather than for the Finance Committee. Fergus Ewing talked about a request for an additional £50,000; I suggest that I write appropriate letters to seek additional information about the facts. I will send the responses to committee members, who can consider how best to proceed in that context.

I thank the convener for that response. Could the points that Ted Brocklebank and I made be put to Steve McIntyre and John McCormick, to elicit their responses?

In the first instance, I expect to write to the Minister for Finance and Public Services to seek information, but I will discuss with Fergus Ewing the appropriate mechanisms for what has been suggested.

The board of Scottish Screen is accountable. I suspect that if the convener writes to the Minister for Finance and Public Services, the minister will reply that the Executive has no direct control over Scottish Screen. An inquiry should probably be directed to Scottish Screen.

That is why I want to seek advice about the most appropriate routes.

Dr Elaine Murray is correct to say that the Minister for Finance and Public Services does not have the power to step in and to make individual decisions for Scottish Screen, because—as I understand it, although I could be wrong—the minister has no power of intervention or direction. However, having read Scottish Screen's annual reports and papers, I think that the Scottish Executive has overall responsibility and some powers to approve Scottish Screen's overall plan. That means that a clear locus exists.

I suspect that if we write to the Minister for Finance and Public Services, we will be told merely that the matter is not up to him. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, I ask that we write to Scottish Screen's chief executive and to Mr McCormick, as well as to the Minister for Finance and Public Services. The other reason for doing so is that if we do not act quickly, I suspect that the quango, the BBC or a mixture of the two will just hand over £50,000. It will then be too late to do anything about the matter, despite the concerns that members have expressed. It is reasonable to write to all three bodies to seek information on their views and roles.

We can raise with the Minister for Finance and Public Services the issue of the £50,000, because that money would come from the consolidated fund. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Audit Committee's convener, to identify the locus of different committees in proceeding with the issue.

I undertake to seek the appropriate information and to put it before the committee as quickly as possible.