Finance Committee, 29 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000

Official Report 233KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Finance Committee Tuesday 29 February 2000 (Morning)

[The Convener opened the meeting at 09:53]

I call to order the fifth meeting of the Finance Committee, and welcome members.

We have received apologies from John Swinney, Adam Ingram and Richard Simpson. Rhoda Grant sends her apologies for late arrival, as she is travelling from Orkney, but she will be here.

On a point of order, convener. Further to your interview, broadcast yesterday, about possible private finance initiative funding for the new Parliament building and the general furore over the costs of the Holyrood project, will you accept a proposal to set up today a cross-party group from within the Finance Committee to investigate the whole issue and its likely effect on the Executive's budget in other areas?

I was speaking yesterday as an individual. I cannot speak on behalf of the Finance Committee on matters that we have not discussed.

I appreciate that.

I think that the committee will want to consider that matter, which is obviously of some interest at the moment. If you wish that to be an agenda item for next week's meeting, I would be willing to accept it—it is not on the agenda for today.

Thank you.

Is it the view of members that we should consider the issue next week?

I strongly support the view that we need to review the Holyrood project. An independent review is taking place, and I hope that it will be carried out speedily. Given the implications for the budget and the predicted overrun, it is important that the Finance Committee gets to grips with the matter. Whether it should be a cross-party committee, I am not so sure, but the issue must be investigated as a matter of urgency before it becomes—quite frankly—a scandal that does irreparable damage to the Parliament.

May I respond to that, convener?

Yes—but before you do that, I am checking the forthcoming agendas. We are not scheduled to receive any evidence next week.

For the benefit of Andrew Wilson, who has just arrived, there is a proposal to discuss the projected overspend on the Holyrood building. I have suggested that we do so at next week's meeting.

I deliberately did not make any political points; this committee, ultimately, should be the vehicle for all discussions on the Executive's budget. We ought to have a view on anything that will affect that and, because of the current uncertainty, it is particularly important that the committee be seen to take a grasp of the matter on behalf of the Parliament. I suggest that that be done on a cross-party basis, because we need to get to the facts.

I do not want a discussion of the issue at the moment. I suggest that we put it on next week's agenda. The next seven days might indeed provide further information to that which we have now, which could inform our discussion. I do not want to have any more discussion on the matter now, other than to agree to put it on the agenda for next week's meeting.

There is not a meeting next week, is there?

There is a meeting.

I thought that we were not taking evidence.

We are not taking evidence, but there will be a meeting. There are other items which we will be addressing anyway.

I see that Kenneth Macintosh wants to add something, but we will put it on the agenda for next week—can we leave it at that? I would prefer to leave it at that and move on, because we are running a bit late.

Members will have received a revised agenda, containing item 1, "Preparation for evidence taking session". I felt it appropriate that we should have some preparation to decide on how we should take the evidence. At this stage, I propose that we go into private session to prepare us for the witnesses who are coming this morning. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting continued in private.

Meeting resumed in public.