Plenary, 12 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, June 12, 2003

Official Report 721KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-67)

I spoke to the Prime Minister earlier today and we speak regularly on matters of importance to Scotland.

Earlier this afternoon, the First Minister wrote to the Presiding Officer—I assume that that is now a matter of public record—to establish an inquiry into the Holyrood Parliament building project. In that letter the First Minister said:

"Nothing less than an independent investigation, with full access to the facts will suffice."

I very much welcome that remark. Will the inquiry that he has established jointly with the Presiding Officer have the power to compel ministers who were involved in decisions between 1997 and 1999 to give evidence? Will it have the power to secure access to all the relevant Cabinet and other Government papers from that time and will it be held in public?

For the information of the members who have not yet seen the letter, I clarify that I have written to the Presiding Officer outlining that Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has agreed to head up the independent investigation into the cost of the Holyrood building project. I have said consistently for a number of weeks that this complex situation requires serious thought and preparation. I believe that Lord Fraser is an independent, objective person with a reputation that commands respect from across the political spectrum and throughout Scotland and that he is the right and proper person to head up the inquiry. I hope that he will be assisted in that by the Auditor General for Scotland, who has clear responsibilities to the Parliament and to Scotland in his professional position.

As far as I am concerned, the inquiry should have full access to all the relevant information and I hope that it will also have access to the relevant individuals, although that will not be possible in every case, given the tragic events of the past few years. I certainly intend that Lord Fraser will have available to him any documents, information and advice that he requires relating to the Scottish Executive—or more particularly to the position before 1999. The Auditor General previously had access to that information in the investigation that he carried out, which is why I think that his involvement is a good thing. 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.

I thank the First Minister for his answer, but I want to press him for more specific detail on what he is proposing. Has he secured from the Prime Minister a guarantee that the information from the period 1997-99, which is, understandably, the property of the United Kingdom Government, will be available to Lord Fraser of Carmyllie? I noted that the First Minister said that he hoped that that information would be available. Will he confirm that all the information from that critical period 1997-99 that concerns the public will be available to the inquiry and will be made public as well?

As I thought I made clear, the Auditor General had access to all that information during his earlier inquiry. He is therefore in an ideal position not only to use the information again as part of the inquiry that Lord Fraser will lead but to make that information available to Lord Fraser if there are no other means by which he can access it.

I have absolutely no doubt that that information could, should and will be available. If that requires me at any time to intervene to talk to anybody, I will do so. I am determined that the investigation into the costs and the delays in the Holyrood building project will be full, open and transparent, that it will get to the bottom of things and that it will get the answers to the questions that the people of Scotland are asking. I am determined that no barriers will be put in the way of Lord Fraser producing a report that can stand the test of time and ensure that what has happened never happens again.

When the remit for the inquiry is constructed, I am sure that the First Minister's words will be studied very carefully to guarantee that the commitments that have been given to the Parliament today are honoured.

I ask the First Minister for a further commitment. The cost of the Parliament building rose from an original estimate of £40 million to £109 million. The figure rose to £195 million and then to £338 million, and it is now a staggering £375 million. Will the First Minister assure me that he will use all the powers of his office to ensure that not a penny more is spent on the Parliament building project?

In private and in public, I have made it clear to the Presiding Officer and, through him, to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that they will have my full support in taking as firm a stance as possible to ensure that last week's predicted cost increase, which was discussed in meetings on Tuesday, is not required in full and that any further increases are avoided, if at all possible. It is ridiculous that, within weeks of the start of the Parliament's second session, we find ourselves discussing even the possibility of a further cost increase, given that, as recently as a few weeks before that, we all received assurances that there would be no such further increase.

It is time that the matter was dealt with firmly and properly. This week, the Presiding Officer has done that exceptionally well. He will have my full support for the actions that he has already taken and for any further actions that he wishes to take on the matter.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland—assuming that there still is one—and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-66)

I intend to speak with the Secretary of State for Scotland later this afternoon.

That might be a last supper or a last conversation.

At their next meeting, I hope that the First Minister will discuss the proposed inquiry that Lord Fraser will conduct, to which Mr Swinney alluded. Some weeks ago, at the height of the election campaign, the First Minister said that there needed to be a full public investigation. Will he advise us whether he had the Secretary of State for Scotland's support for making that statement? He made references to the Auditor General's previous investigation into Holyrood but, as far as I am aware, that investigation did not include the questioning of the principals involved. If the powers of the proposed inquiry rely on what was available to the Auditor General, I assume that that will not be sufficient to do the job without the active co-operation of the individuals who were involved between 1997 and 1999. I invite the First Minister to comment on that.

Obviously, I did not discuss that matter with the secretary of state. It is right that such an initiative is a matter for the First Minister, the Executive and the Scottish Parliament. It will also be important to discuss with Lord Fraser the exact terms of reference relating to the conduct of his investigation. That is necessary not only to pay proper respect to Lord Fraser, but to ensure that the terms of reference are as complete as possible. We will ensure that he is involved in such discussion in the next week. That is why, in my letter, I offer to make a full statement to Parliament before the end of June.

Lord Fraser will want to consider how best to conduct the investigation. That should involve the questioning—others may prefer to use the word "grilling"—of key people who have been involved during the past four to six years. Lord Fraser will have that opportunity and I am sure that he will want to take it up. If he requires any assistance from me in that task, he will receive it.

The First Minister will acknowledge that people in Scotland expect a full and independent inquiry. Anything less than that will be seen as a whitewash and will not command public confidence.

The First Minister said that he would discuss the terms of the remit with Lord Fraser, but I was concerned to note that the First Minister's letter to the Presiding Officer states:

"A detailed remit for the investigation should be agreed between ourselves, Lord Fraser, and the Auditor General before the end of June."

I suggest to the First Minister that, in that group that will determine the remit and powers of the inquiry, the one important party that is conspicuous by its absence is the Scotland Office on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

The inquiry must be able to cover the period prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive. Does the First Minister agree that, if the inquiry is to be comprehensive, if witnesses are to be compellable, and if all the relevant information is to be available, the Scotland Office should be a party to the discussions that determine the powers and remit of the inquiry?

It would have been interesting to see what the response would have been if the letter had said that we intended to agree the terms of reference of the investigation with the Scotland Office. Presumably, Mr McLetchie would have accused me of being under the thumb of the Scotland Office and of allowing the Scotland Office a veto over the terms of reference.

The nationalists might have done so, but the Tories would not.

Perhaps both those parties would have done so.

It is important that the inquiry's terms of reference are properly agreed with Lord Fraser, with the active involvement of both the Presiding Officer and the Auditor General, given their important roles in the matter. As Mr McLetchie is aware, I believe that it is important that I discuss the matter with all the party leaders in advance of any final decisions. I also intend to ensure that the conveners of the Finance Committee and the Holyrood progress group are kept fully informed. Having made the matter clear to Parliament, I would also wish to ensure that the Scotland Office has a chance to discuss the matter with me over the next week.

I have no intention of giving anybody a veto over the inquiry. I want to agree proper terms of reference so that the inquiry can get to the bottom of this story, provide the answers that the people of Scotland desire and ensure that this never happens again.

I ask that the next three questions and answers be kept tight so that we can revisit the Holyrood issue under question 5.

In the light of recent reports that the UK Department of Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority may consider the closure of rural lines, and in the light of the remark by the rail minister, David Jamieson, that no branch line could be considered sacrosanct, will the First Minister make it clear to Westminster colleagues that the Scottish Executive is committed to, and expects to be supported in, maintaining and extending Scotland's current rail network?

As we are about to hear in this afternoon's transport debate—which some members did not want to have—the Scottish Executive is very committed not only to not closing lines in Scotland but to opening new lines or reopening old ones. People are looking forward to that investment in communities across Scotland, not least in the Stirling to Dunfermline area, in the Airdrie to Bathgate area in central Scotland, and in the Larkhall to Glasgow area, as well as in other parts of Scotland that are referred to in the partnership agreement and in our other plans. Our objective is to expand rail services in Scotland; it is certainly not to decrease them.

---

European Single Currency (Preparation)

To ask the First Minister what action has been taken to assist the preparedness of public and private sector organisations in Scotland for adoption of the European single currency. (S2F-79)

Where there are practical benefits, we already encourage public bodies to use and accept euros—I believe that some taxi drivers in Edinburgh currently accept euros, and that is certainly to be welcomed. More generally, as part of preparations for the possible UK adoption of the euro, we have a Scottish changeover plan, which feeds into the UK plan. Both the Deputy First Minister and I plan to participate in the Scottish preparation committee that was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Monday.

Will the First Minister join me in commending the work that has been undertaken by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to raise awareness of forward planning? Is the First Minister aware that it is difficult for business and the public sector to make contingency plans for the euro without a definite Government commitment? Will the First Minister work with those local authorities and businesses that are keen to prepare to ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged in advance of the chancellor's decision next year?

We are very keen to work not only with public bodies and businesses in Scotland, but with the voluntary sector and others who will have an interest in this matter. We want to ensure that, right across Scotland, bodies public and private, and individuals and organisations, are ready for the decision when it comes. We firmly believe that, at the right time, the introduction of Scotland and the rest of Britain into the European currency will be the right thing to do—but we must do it at the right time. We must be prepared, when it comes, to take full advantage.

---

Scottish Enterprise (New Chief Executive)

To ask the First Minister what arrangements are being put in place to recruit and appoint a new chief executive of Scottish Enterprise. (S2F-65)

Or a new chief executive of the SNP.

As I said last week and said again to Robert Crawford personally earlier this week, I want to put on record our thanks—thanks that I am sure will be shared across the chamber—for Robert Crawford's contribution to Scottish Enterprise over the past few years. The decision that he has made will have been difficult for him. Those of us in public life in Scotland will know exactly how he was feeling and will admire him for making the decision in the way that he did.

Responsibility for taking forward the appointment of a new chief executive for Scottish Enterprise lies with the board of Scottish Enterprise. I would, however, expect the new chief executive to take forward our strategy for a smart successful Scotland.

I associate myself and, I think, my whole party with the First Minister's comments about Robert Crawford. Also, for the benefit of Duncan McNeil, I declare that I have no interest to declare in the matter.

Does the First Minister agree that it is very unfortunate indeed that the perception exists, rightly or wrongly, that the existing chief executive of Scottish Enterprise has been hounded from office by a right-wing campaign to do in Scottish Enterprise? If we are to attract the right kind of talent to regenerate the Scottish economy, no public official should be subjected to the kind of unfair attacks that were made on Robert Crawford. That should not happen to his successor. It creates a bad image for Scotland; it is bad for the economy and bad for the future of our country.

I do not intend to speak for Robert Crawford; he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. He has made his points very clearly this past week. However, there is a degree of cheek around among those who are willing to jump on the bandwagon and try to make some political capital out of Robert Crawford's resignation, but who, at the same time, on the Conservative benches, have spent months campaigning for something like a £200 million cut in his budget. Although I accept that Mr Neil should have no responsibility for—and certainly none of the blame for—the SNP's manifesto for the election back in May, it is the case that other members of the SNP have tried to do the same thing. To campaign for months for a substantial reduction in the training and skills budget of Scottish Enterprise and then to jump on the bandwagon when the chief executive resigns is very false indeed.

We do not support organisations or individuals; we support action for enterprise in Scotland and that is what we are going to deliver.

---

Holyrood Building Project

To ask the First Minister what progress is being made regarding an investigation into the Holyrood building project. (S2F-78)

The prize for the most unfortunate question slot of the week goes to Janis Hughes.

Thank you.

As I said earlier, I have today written to the Presiding Officer outlining the latest position in relation to the investigation.

This may be a difficult slot to be in, after what has gone before, but it is an important one.

I am sure that I speak for most if not all of my Labour back-bench colleagues when I express my outrage at the situation that we find ourselves in. We are the people who repeatedly have to answer our constituents when they complain about the seemingly endless costs of the new building.

I welcome the inquiry that the First Minister has announced today, but can he give me a categorical assurance that the inquiry will be swift and—more important—that it will not lead to any further delays in the completion of the project? Will he tell us today that the inquiry will not add in any significant way to the already excessive costs?

I am determined, in bringing about this investigation, to do it properly and with due regard to all the current circumstances. That is why it has taken some time to get to where we are today and why it will take another week or so to finalise the plans.

It is critical that any investigation does not lead to a further increase in costs or to delay. Those factors have to be taken on board. It is also very important that any investigation does not become a substantial cost to the public purse in Scotland. The endless Government and parliamentary inquiries that have been held at Westminster have cost an absolute fortune in both time and resources. I do not want to see that situation repeated in Scotland. Enough money has been spent on the project already without making the situation worse.

It is also the case that we need to have a proper investigation in order for us to learn the right lessons. This morning, I was in a brand-new school in Glasgow—All Saint's Secondary School—which was built under the Glasgow public-private partnership. The school, which is an outstanding facility for teachers and pupils alike, is the sort of building that public money in Scotland should be spent on. I am determined that it is that sort of building that will benefit from public money in Scotland in the future.

I thank the First Minister for copying me in on the letter that he wrote to the Presiding Officer, giving me sight of it before question time today.

I seek two points of clarification, the first of which relates to a paragraph in the letter to which the First Minister referred in reply to an earlier question about the committees to which he would make a full report after the meeting that he is to hold with Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and the Presiding Officer. The paragraph says:

"I envisage that the report … would be submitted to the appropriate Parliament Committee to allow further additional scrutiny at that stage."

I ask the First Minister not to close his mind to establishing a separate, specialised parliamentary committee. Further scrutiny might well be needed and, under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, such a committee would be able to command evidence. I think that that was the point that was worrying Mr McLetchie.

Secondly, I seek clarification on the position of people who find themselves unable to say all that they know of the project. I refer in particular to past construction managers and project managers such as Bill Armstrong and Alan Ezzi. We need to know that people can blow the whistle on decisions that were taken in the past. We also need to know that people will have an amnesty and that they will be released from some of the promises that they had to make not to speak about contracts.

On the first matter, it is important that the Parliament retains responsibility not only for the establishment of committees but for the way in which the committees do their business. An earlier draft of my letter included a reference to the Audit Committee, which would seem to be the obvious committee to look at any report that was prepared. The Audit Committee could also call witnesses in public hearings if that was required. Decisions on the issue of committees are most properly in the domain of the Parliament and not of the First Minister. I will make the report available and the Parliament can decide what to do with it.

On the second matter, I think that it is important that anyone who has any information that could help Lord Fraser or the Auditor General in their investigations is able to give the information freely and openly in a way that does not make them feel concerned about their own position.

I intend to make that point clear inside the civil service. I hope and presume that the Presiding Officer will do the same for Parliament staff. I also hope to discuss with Lord Fraser how we can achieve the same result for others from outwith those two staffs.

I shall exceptionally allow a further two questions.

I want to raise two matters with respect to the First Minister's letter. First, the First Minister states that he has invited the Auditor General to examine issues of financial probity. Is the First Minister concerned that there has been a lack of probity?

Secondly, the First Minister states that people in Scotland rightly expect answers to all their questions. We agree with that, but, as the First Minister is aware, before we can get at the truth, we need to have access to all the information. Up until now, that has been denied on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Will those documents be made public? If not, the public will never know what happened.

As I stated earlier, Lord Fraser will be able to publish all the evidence that he wishes to publish. I hope that he will have full access to all the information; not only to the information that he wants to see, but to information that members in the chamber want him to see. We will take steps to discuss that matter with him over the next few days.

I stress that I do not want any of the statements in the letter that I submit today to the Presiding Officer to imply a particular perspective on any matter or an acceptance of any accusation. A number of claims and accusations that have been made about the project need to be, and certainly should be, investigated.

The one statement in my letter that is perhaps not objective is that we want to get the matter cleared up once and for all. I am determined to do that, and I hope that this process will lead to that conclusion.

The Holyrood building is almost complete and will speak for itself as a

"bold statement of Scotland's standing in the world"—[Official Report, 3 June 2003; c 319.]

if I can borrow that phrase. Very serious questions need to be answered; however, does the First Minister agree that this is no time to lose our nerve about completing this important building?

Members of the Holyrood progress group will whole-heartedly welcome an objective inquiry into matters such as the construction management contract and the role of the concept architect. We, too, want answers to those questions. However, will the First Minister endorse our determination to get this excellent building finished as soon as possible and to drive down the fees and charges of contractors and consultants as demanded at the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body meeting on Tuesday?

Again, I think that I am on record as saying that, now that the Parliament has come this far, it would be ludicrous to leave the building unfinished. However, it is also important to do all that we possibly can to support in any way those who are responsible to ensure that costs are capped wherever possible and controlled as much as possible. That remains my objective and I am sure that it remains the Presiding Officer's objective. He has my full support in achieving that.

That concludes this extended question time—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you make a statement on the costs of this fiasco? The leader of the SNP, John Swinney, referred to a figure of £375 million. The First Minister referred to a cut in costs. Will you tell us and the people of Scotland what the project's cost is that will not rise again? Is it £375 million or more than that?

That is not really a point of order. It is transparent that on Tuesday of this week I went with the earliest possible information and I will continue with that practice. I shall continue to make information available as it becomes so.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In the light of the decision that was announced by the Fire Brigades Union just over an hour ago to agree a deal on the pay settlement, will you through your good offices ensure that time is made available next Wednesday at the earliest for a ministerial statement on the future of the fire brigade and the outcome of the current dispute?

That is of course a matter for the Executive. As of now, I have not received any communication from the Executive on that point. Perhaps you should pursue the matter with the Executive.

Did I understand that there were further points of order? [Interruption.] I am sorry, but members who are leaving the chamber should do so. I am taking points of order and must hear them.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In yesterday's debate on stage 2 amendments to the Education (School Meals) (Scotland) Bill, Tommy Sheridan alleged that, on the issue of swipe cards, I had knowingly picked up Carolyn Leckie's comments wrongly. However, the Official Report shows that Carolyn Leckie clearly stated what I said she had. She said:

"A child who is entitled to a free school meal does not get the same portion".—[Official Report, 11 June 2003; c 591.]

As a result, I ask Mr Sheridan not only to make an apology but to accept and admit when he is wrong. After all, that is what he told other people to do yesterday.

That is not strictly a point of order; it is a clarification of a previous day's debating point. Undoubtedly, the members referred to will take your points on board.