Plenary, 19 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, June 19, 2003

Official Report 752KB pdf

---

Holyrood Project

The first item of business this afternoon is a statement by the First Minister on the inquiry into the Holyrood project. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions during the statement.

I thank the Presiding Officer for giving me the opportunity to make a statement today on my plans for an investigation into the Holyrood building project. As I indicted previously, I am keen to move swiftly on the issue. I consider that an independent investigation into the escalating costs and construction delays that are associated with the new Parliament building should be initiated because the Holyrood building project, more than any other issue, overshadows the many real achievements of this young Parliament.

Following my discussions with the Presiding Officer, I announced last week that Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has agreed to investigate the matter on our behalf. I am today making public the remit for the investigation, which I have agreed with the Presiding Officer, Lord Fraser and the Auditor General. I have given copies of the remit to the party leaders and placed a copy in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

The investigation will review the policy decisions that were taken in relation to the project prior to and since its transfer to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on 1 June 1999. The investigation will build on the Auditor General's existing findings in respect of procurement strategy and cost control and contractual and project management arrangements and extend consideration of those issues to cover the subsequent stages of the project.

The investigation will produce a full account of the key decisions and factors that have determined the costs and value of the Parliament throughout the life of the project. It will also identify the lessons that are to be learned for the procurement or construction of major public buildings in the future.

The investigation will report to the Parliament and to ministers as soon as reasonably practicable, taking account of the Auditor General's intention to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources have been used at all stages of the Scottish Parliament building project.

The investigation will begin as soon as practicable, but both the Presiding Officer and I are determined that it should not do anything to impede the progress of construction or contribute to any further increase in construction costs. Lord Fraser is exceptionally qualified to lead the investigation by virtue of his experience as a former Lord Advocate and minister. He will be assisted by the Auditor General and by any other independent experts whom they may decide are required.

The investigation has been commissioned jointly by the Presiding Officer and me. It is important that it is properly resourced and staffed and it is important too that it is seen to be completely impartial and independent. For those reasons, Lord Fraser will be able to draw on the staff of the Auditor General to assist him with the investigation. It will be for Lord Fraser and the Auditor General to determine whether additional staff require to be seconded to them.

The investigation must also have full access to documentary evidence. I make it clear to the Parliament today that all requested documents that are the property of the Scottish Executive will be available to Lord Fraser and the Auditor General. Alistair Darling has made the same commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom Government as has the Presiding Officer in relation to parliamentary documents. Nothing that the Government or the Parliament has done, either before or after devolution, will be beyond the scrutiny of the investigation.

The investigation will need to supplement documentary evidence by interviewing a number of individuals, and there will be people who will wish to offer information. The Auditor General has well-established practices for covering that and it will be open to Lord Fraser to supplement those practices with such procedures as he considers will assist the investigation.

Lord Fraser's report will be submitted to the Executive and the Parliament. The Auditor General's previously planned value-for-money audit will be presented to the Parliament as normal. The Parliament will determine its own processes for dealing with the report and the audit document, including such committee consideration and the calling of witnesses as is considered appropriate. I guarantee that ministers will also consider and act on the report.

Two months ago, I said that it was time to move on and have an independent investigation. The public want answers; they do not want politicians blaming other politicians either in this Parliament or at Westminster, or civil servants, contractors or architects blaming one another. They want answers and they want action from us.

I do not want devolution to be symbolised by the Holyrood building site instead of the new schools, hospitals and railways that we have built. I do not want the only beneficiaries of devolution to be seen to be politicians, contractors or consultants at Holyrood. Devolution is for the thousands of children who have had their opportunities increased and the elderly people who now have dignity and security in their old age.

This investigation will get to the heart of the matter and provide the answers. In the meantime, Presiding Officer, I urge you to continue to do all that you can to keep costs under control and to meet the challenge of securing the completion of the building as soon as possible. I also give you my assurance as First Minister that Government in Scotland will act on the lessons that are learned from this investigation. We will ensure that mistakes are never repeated. I care too much about devolution and the Parliament's reputation to allow any repetition of this project.

In this new, second session of Parliament, our task is to move on, grow our economy, deliver excellent public services, secure strong communities and create a confident, democratic Scotland. I am determined that this Parliament will do just that.

The First Minister will now take questions on the issues that have been raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 25 minutes for that process.

I thank the First Minister for his statement and welcome his announcement of the establishment of this inquiry. I suspect that any judgment of the inquiry will be made against the very high test that the First Minister set himself on 4 May when he said that no questions would remain unanswered as a result of it.

I have a couple of specific questions. First, at First Minister's question time last Thursday, the First Minister said:

"I hope that, as a result, Lord Fraser will conduct a full and proper investigation that will make public all the evidence, all the information and all the key recommendations to stop such a fiasco ever happening again."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; c 731.]

I do not see in the First Minister's statement any commitment to publish all the evidence that will be seen by Lord Fraser or all the evidence that has already been seen by the Auditor General and that will be seen in the course of the investigation that is under way. Will the First Minister confirm that all the evidence that is heard by the investigation will be made public?

My second question refers to a sentence in the First Minister's statement. He says:

"The investigation will need to supplement documentary evidence by interviewing a number of individuals, and there will be people who will wish to offer information."

I am sure that people will wish to offer information. However, some people will not wish to do so, even though they might have important information to contribute to the inquiry. Will the First Minister confirm that there is a mechanism by which individuals can be compelled to give evidence to the investigation? Moreover, will the evidence and particularly the interviews that are given be in public or in private?

I am grateful to Mr Swinney for welcoming my announcement, which I assume means that he will help and co-operate fully with the inquiry. That is also to be welcomed.

In my view, any decisions on what is made public as a result of Lord Fraser's investigation should rest with Lord Fraser. As he is the independent person in charge of this investigation, it would be right and proper not to put constraints on him. However, it is also right and proper that we give him the opportunity to exercise his judgment. For example, at First Minister's question time last week, I was asked about people who might wish to give evidence or information but who would want to remain anonymous. Lord Fraser must have the ability to exercise his judgment in that regard.

Moreover, Lord Fraser must also have the opportunity to exercise his judgment in relation to people whom he wishes to interview either in public or in private and the way in which he would want to conduct such an investigation. I am perfectly comfortable with such an independent and respected individual making such judgments. I have no doubt that he will make the right judgments and I will back him in whatever judgments he makes.

I thank the First Minister for providing in advance a copy of his statement.

The First Minister, of course, described the Holyrood fiasco as

"the biggest single disappointment of devolution."

Few would disagree with him, but some of us would put it a lot more strongly than that. It is a matter of regret that it has taken four years for certain parties in the Parliament to waken up to the scale of the scandal and to the lack of public confidence in the Parliament that it has engendered.

The First Minister acknowledged that the inquiry's powers to obtain evidence—to which Mr Swinney alluded—will be crucial to its success. Can he confirm that other wide-ranging inquiries, such as Lord Cullen's into Dunblane, derived powers from the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921? Those powers gave the Dunblane inquiry all the powers, privileges and rights that are vested in the Court of Session. Can the First Minister tell us whether Lord Fraser's inquiry will have powers similar to those of previous wide-ranging public inquiries—for example, the powers to compel and enforce the attendance of witnesses? Will such witnesses be examined on oath or under affirmation? Will the inquiry have powers to compel the production of documents?

I have a further point. The First Minister will be aware that the Parliament passed the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which contains exemptions that relate to

"the formulation or development of government policy"

and "Ministerial communications".

Can the First Minister tell us whether similar exemptions will apply to Lord Fraser's inquiry, or will all such information be made publicly available to him? I use the phrase "publicly available to him" because, as the First Minister will recall, the investigation by Parliament into the Scottish Qualifications Authority affair did not involve the public disclosure of exempt documents. Instead, as I recall, conveners were given a quick squint at documents that were then taken back. What will happen in the Fraser inquiry with regard to documents that fall into the category of so-called exempt information?

The inquiry is not being established under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 or any similar legislation. The inquiry is being established because it is the right thing to do. Lord Fraser was appointed because he is an independent, respected individual who is capable of making the right judgments to get the answers that people in Scotland want. That is why he will have the right to request any documents, and any documents that he requests, he will have. I gave that guarantee in my statement.

On the powers and the status of the inquiry, I think that I have made it clear from the day back in April when I first announced that there was to be an inquiry that I do not want it to be another expensive event that simply lines other pockets, rather than getting to the answers. I believe that Lord Fraser can conduct the inquiry with the full co-operation of Government at all levels in a way that will get the answers that we require and which will demand—and get—the co-operation of all the individuals he might want to see.

If anyone outside Government is at all unco-operative with Lord Fraser, I am sure that he will be prepared to name and shame them. He will have my full support in doing so. If, when the Parliament reviews Lord Fraser's report, it wants to take action to supplement Lord Fraser's interventions and assessment of any non-co-operation, it has the powers to do so.

I am glad to hear the First Minister say that Lord Fraser will have the power to name and shame. The problem is that some of the folk that he might name have no shame, as we saw during the Finance Committee meeting yesterday when we asked to see minutes that should properly be the Parliament's property. According to the First Minister, all property of the Parliament will be available to Lord Fraser. Should not the property of the Parliament—namely, minutes that were taken at a meeting of the Holyrood progress group—be the property of the whole Parliament?

I have three further, brief questions. What happens if some people who might fall into the category of being named and shamed say, "No. We'll stick with the shame. It might cost us less money"?

What happens if the same sort of attitude pertains with regard to private information such as that which John Home Robertson was unable to share with us at the Finance Committee yesterday? That was supposedly down to commercial confidentiality, although the information is contained in the property of the Parliament.

I do not mean to be difficult over this, but I foresee some of the headlines that we will get if the inquiry—properly—incurs expenditure. Who will watch how much is spent on it?

My memory is that Lord Fraser, as a Government minister, was not always over-generous with public expenditure. Therefore, I am absolutely certain that he will conduct this inquiry in a way that minimises the cost to the public purse. That was not, of course, the reason why he was chosen to lead it.

It is important that Lord Fraser has access to all the documents that he wishes to have access to. He will get such access from Government. I am not in control of the documents that are in the possession of the Parliament, but I am certain that not only the Presiding Officer, but everyone else in the Parliament who is involved in decision making would want to ensure that Lord Fraser is the person who exercises the judgment about what is and is not made public, rather than that judgment being exercised by us. It is right and proper that Lord Fraser should do so.

I see no reason why information that might, in other circumstances, be described as commercially confidential should not be available to Lord Fraser initially on a confidential basis, so that he can then make the judgment as to whether that information should remain confidential or form part of his public evidence. The right way to conduct this inquiry is to take it out of the hands of the politicians in the chamber and to give it to a respected legal figure, who can exercise judgment on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Can the First Minister give any guarantee that people in the middle ranks of civil service departments or big building or architectural firms, who might wish to give information that could be damaging to their superiors, will be protected from intimidation or pressure? If they give evidence in good faith, will they be protected from legal action? What sort of protection will the whistleblowers get?

I can give a guarantee on that point for any Government employee in Scotland. I will ensure that anyone who wishes to give information or evidence or to contribute to the inquiry is not victimised or affected in any way. That is vital, and will be made crystal clear to the senior management of the civil service. I cannot speak for every individual organisation that might have a relationship with the project, but I would expect them all to do likewise. I would also expect Lord Fraser to provide in the procedures of his inquiry the opportunity for people to speak to him on an anonymous, confidential basis and to exercise judgment about that information.

I had a meeting with my own team of architects, RMJM, Bovis Lend Lease and the parliamentary team in 1999. I formed the opinion then that there was a real will to produce a building of the very highest quality. RMJM, Bovis, the parliamentary team and many other teams are still working on the building at the moment.

In his statement, the First Minister is vague about the timing of the commencement of the inquiry and about what information will and will not be made public. Will consideration be given to the people who are still working on the project and attempting to finish the building as soon as possible and at the lowest possible extra cost?

That is a very real issue and has needed careful consideration over recent weeks. It is vitally important that the building is completed quickly and that the project does not experience any further significant increase in costs. That is why Lord Fraser and the Auditor General will want to take those two factors into account in the timing of and preparation and plans for their investigation.

Neither the Presiding Officer nor I want to impede further progress. While we need to get to the bottom of the issues, decisions and factors relating to the project and to the costs and value of the new Parliament building, we also need to ensure that the building is completed properly as soon as possible.

At yesterday's Finance Committee meeting, we were told that we were not allowed to know the amount of public taxpayers' money that each of the project's consultants are to receive. That information has been kept secret, but the whole project has been bedevilled by secrecy. Today we have heard how, for the second time in a fortnight, an unelected peer is to be given huge powers by a democratically elected Parliament. That appears to place Lord Fraser in a position of some difficulty. His dilemma will be to publish or be damned.

In passing such huge powers to an unelected peer, should it not be arranged as a matter of urgency for Lord Fraser to appear before one of the Parliament's committees before the recess to explain the criteria on which he will base decisions to keep information secret or make it public? In that way, the First Minister's pledge that no questions will remain unanswered could be delivered rather than breached.

I have tried to approach the issue in as reasonable and as united a manner as possible over recent weeks, since the start of the discussions. Frankly, Fergus Ewing's comment is the sort of idiotic comment that will put off young people across Scotland from ever taking part in public life because of the way that they are treated by politicians.

Lord Fraser is not some sort of unelected peer. He is a former Solicitor General for Scotland and a former Lord Advocate. He is a figure who is well respected across all the political parties in Scotland. There was almost universal welcome last Thursday and Friday when I announced his name to head up the inquiry. I have had no previous political or personal associations with Lord Fraser. He is entirely independent of the current Government. That should be welcomed in the chamber, not criticised.

Lord Fraser's judgment, and the ability of someone in his legal position to exercise that—

Answer the question.

Order, Mr Ewing.

Presiding Officer, I think that that makes my point. That is the sort of idiotic behaviour that brings the chamber into disrepute.

The First Minister quite properly said that any individual who fails to co-operate with the inquiry would be subject to severe criticism and opprobrium. Is not the fact of the matter that the inquiry will have no powers of compulsion, and that if anyone chooses not to co-operate, Lord Fraser will have absolutely no sanction to take against the individual? The First Minister also stated that it would be open to Parliament to take sanctions. What sanctions does he have in mind?

The Parliament's committees can call witnesses to appear in front of them. Obviously, the Parliament can act in all kinds of different circumstances. The important point is that the inquiry gets the answers to the questions that the people of Scotland want answered.

We are putting in charge of the inquiry a senior legal figure who can exercise his judgment over whether to hear information in public or in private to ensure that he gets all the information that he requires. If that means that the inquiry does not have to sit with expert, trained lawyers who protect their clients by ensuring that they do not answer questions in a public session, that will be to the good of the inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is not to satisfy the various Queen's counsel in Scotland who might benefit from a full-scale public inquiry held under legislation from the 1920s.

We want to see that answers are provided for the people of Scotland. That is what Lord Fraser will do. He will have the right to make his own judgments about what the inquiry does in public and what it does in private.

Will the First Minister give us a guarantee that the politicians, senior public servants and finance ministers who approved the cost increases will be identified by the inquiry?

My other quick question is this: the Parliament building will presumably need to be paid for, so where will the money come from? Given the fact that the initial decisions were taken in Westminster, should we not be negotiating with Westminster so that the final costs of the Parliament building are met by Westminster over and above the block grant for services in Scotland? No service in Scotland should be affected by this fiasco.

Devolution is about taking responsibility for our affairs and not going cap in hand to others to have them finance our decisions. It is important that we accept and take seriously that responsibility. We should not run off to Westminster every time we have a nosebleed.

It is also important that we, as members of the Scottish Parliament, take seriously our responsibility for public money. It is precisely because all the additional pounds that have been spent on the Parliament building could have been spent on education, health, housing or transport in Scotland that I am so concerned about the escalating costs and want the inquiry to be completed and the lessons from it to be learned properly. I assure Frances Curran that the inquiry will leave no stone unturned. The decisions that were taken, the factors relating to them, the costs and the management of the process will all be subjects of the inquiry. No individuals will be excluded at any stage.

Can the First Minister indicate whether he is expecting the report of the investigation to be published next spring?

The First Minister said that Scottish ministers would act on the report. Given that many of the fundamental decisions made early on in the project were taken by the Treasury and the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland, has he been assured that they, too, will act on the report?

Given the publicity surrounding the Holyrood project and the importance of the issue, I would be very surprised if the new Secretary of State for Scotland were not prepared to listen carefully to any recommendations that are made and to act on them. However, that is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. I do not expect it to tell me what to do and I should not tell it what to do. It is vital that we ensure that lessons from the inquiry about major capital building projects are learned at every level of Government and by all political parties represented in the chamber and elsewhere. I hope that those lessons will be learned.

I have forgotten Mr Purvis's other question.

I asked whether the report would be published next spring.

We need to give Lord Fraser some leeway on the issue of timing. We should not set an artificial timetable. The inquiry should be completed as quickly as possible, because it is important that the lessons from it are learned quickly and that the issue is brought to a head as quickly as possible. It is also important that we do not set an artificial timetable that may affect the completion and costs of the building. In consultation with all the people with whom he chooses to discuss the matter, Lord Fraser will have to make a judgment on the timing of the inquiry.

I am concerned about the time scale of the inquiry. At yesterday's meeting of the Finance Committee, we heard that the final costs may not be known until months and possibly years after the Parliament building has been completed. What effect will that have on the inquiry? Will it slow things down?

I have read the Official Report of yesterday's meeting of the Finance Committee, but I do not imagine that the section of the discussion to which the member refers and its implications will have a specific impact on the timing of the inquiry. There is no reason for the inquiry to continue until every dot and comma of the costs of the building is finalised.

Does the First Minister agree that it is imperative that we wash all the linen in public—no matter how dirty it may get and who may be embarrassed or hurt by the inquiry's findings—because Scotland must move on from this issue?

I listened very carefully to what the First Minister said about how the investigation will build on the Auditor General's findings in respect of the procurement strategy, cost control and contractual and project management arrangements. The First Minister said a number of times that all documentation would be made available. Will Lord Fraser have the power to re-examine the Auditor General's findings in relation to the procurement strategy, cost control and contractual and project management arrangements and to see all the documentation related to them? Will he have the power to call witnesses, who will hopefully attend?

Both Lord Fraser and the Auditor General will want to discuss how they organise the process and to ensure that they have available all information that would help them to bring the inquiry to a full and complete end. I imagine that there will be full co-operation between the Auditor General and Lord Fraser and that any requests that are passed between them will be met. I have no reason at all to doubt that.