Plenary, 24 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2000

Official Report 696KB pdf

---

Holyrood Project

At the beginning of this morning's business, I said that I would make a statement about the Holyrood project at the close of this morning's session.

Members will be aware from answers that I have given to parliamentary questions that the corporate body had intended to produce its fourth report on the Holyrood project next week.

Substantial progress has been made in taking forward the Parliament scheme, and details of the design are currently being prepared for the information of MSPs and the public at large. Unfortunately, the information on costs and time scales that is currently available does not allow the corporate body to provide the Parliament with sufficiently robust information. We have, therefore, commissioned an assessment of the current position of the project, which will be undertaken in conjunction with independent experts. We expect that to be completed in the next three to four weeks. It will allow the corporate body to place before MSPs a complete and detailed report, which will enable members to have a full debate on the Parliament project as quickly as possible.

On a point of order. Given the speculation concerning the figures, which is rife, I presume that the corporate body has received some estimates. What procedure would the Parliament follow if it wished to question the details that the corporate body has already received and to have an early debate on the costs, the estimates and the time scale, some details of which have already appeared in the public domain?

You say that details have appeared in the public domain, but what has appeared in the public domain is speculation. We, the five members of the corporate body, are saying that we are not satisfied that we have received sufficiently definite figures to give them to the Parliament.

But what procedure could the Parliament follow? Presumably, a question could be put to the corporate body.

Of course. However, I am suggesting that by pulling in independent assessors to examine the project we will be able to give the Parliament full and complete details on the basis of which we could hold a full debate, instead of simply taking a question.

On a point of order. I am concerned about the people who are paying for the hole in the ground and the potential catastrophe at the foot of Holyrood Road. That is why I am raising this point of order.

It seems that our ability to discuss in the chamber what is relevant outside it is incomplete. I therefore ask you to reconsider your decision not to take the emergency question I lodged this morning at a quarter to 10, asking that an immediate independent assessment be instituted by experts recommended by the relevant professional bodies, of the management, feasibility, costs and advisability of proceeding with the Holyrood project. We owe that to the people we are supposed to represent. It is not good enough to say that we will wait for four weeks to find out what most of us already know.

First, I have not seen the emergency question you lodged. Secondly, we are calling in independent experts so that we can provide the Parliament with the full information. That is being done now.

With all due respect, Presiding Officer, you said that the experts will work in conjunction with the project team. I am questioning the management of the project and would prefer to have completely independent assessments made by completely independent experts. Can you deny the robust figures that appear in today's press?

The figures in today's press are not robust. That is all that I can say about them. The corporate body will meet again this afternoon and I will report to it on what you have said.

On a point of order. Will the assessment and the independent experts report consider and inform members of the role of Historic Scotland in this matter, specifically the way in which matters discussed with Historic Scotland have impacted on, and perhaps increased the costs of, the project?

Without accepting the premise of the latter part of your question, I can say that the answer is yes. I stress again to Ms MacDonald that the experts that we bring in to examine the project and how it has been conducted so far will be independent.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—

On a point of order.

Before you make it, I should tell you that a letter is on its way to you.

Let us share the contents with everybody, in the interest of open government.

Are you in a position, Presiding Officer, to say whether you have reconsidered my request for an emergency question on the Holyrood project?

As you will find in the letter that you will receive in a few minutes, the answer is that our standing orders do not allow emergency questions to the Presiding Officer, so that is the end of that.

With all respect, Presiding Officer, that is only the start of that. There is a serious flaw in our procedures, if we cannot do that.

I accept that. I did not know until today that emergency questions to the Presiding Officer were not allowed. That is why I had not seen the question, because the clerks had so advised. A letter is on its way to you, so read it and see me afterwards, if you would like.