We now come to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body debate on motion S1M-2012, on the Holyrood project. The debate, which is already heavily oversubscribed, has to conclude at quarter to 5 to allow for other business before decision time. I appeal to those taking part in the early stages of the debate to take less than the allocated time so that as many members as possible get to speak. It will not be possible to call all the members who have requested to speak.

Let me deal first with the resignation of Mr Alan Ezzi from the post of project director. A press statement was issued by the SPCB on the matter, which made it clear that mutual expectations had not been fully realised.

As colleagues will recollect, the Holyrood progress group, which has general oversight of the project, was created at the instigation of Parliament. It is made up of three MSPs, together with independent professional advisers. The involvement of members ensures that this prestigious project remains a parliamentary project and that the design concept remains true to the principles of openness and accessibility.

The HPG has worked very hard in conjunction with the project team. The pressures on the post of project director are considerable and increasing. Mr Ezzi has maintained progress on a number of fronts but, as it turns out, each party has perceptions on how matters connected with the Holyrood project should be progressed. The SPCB has accepted Mr Ezzi's resignation, expressed its appreciation to him and wished him well for the future.

Architects are designing the building, engineers and quantity surveyors are contracted to achieve its completion and a firm of international reputation is responsible for managing the construction on the Parliament's behalf. In addition, there is a project team of highly qualified technical people and there is technical expertise on the progress group. There is no shortage of highly skilled professional and technical people. What is required is greater emphasis on co-ordinating the work of those highly skilled people to drive forward the project to completion.

The HPG has assured the SPCB that Ms Sarah Davidson has demonstrated outstanding co-ordination skills in her role to date. Ms Davidson enjoys the full confidence of the HPG and, in particular, of the independent professional people who serve on the group. On advice from the HPG, the chief executive, Mr Grice, has appointed Ms Davidson to the post of project director.

I hope that all members have had an opportunity to read carefully the report that has been produced for the SPCB by the Holyrood progress group. Over the past year, in our role as the legal client for the Holyrood project, the SPCB has met the progress group monthly. Throughout that period, our focus has been on ensuring that the project is progressing to the timetable, that costs are contained, that outstanding risks are properly identified and effectively managed and that the quality and functionality of the building is protected.

It has become clear to us from the reports that we have received from the progress group that factors such as inflation in the construction industry in Edinburgh, coupled with some tenders coming in over the estimated price, have reduced the amount left in the contingency. That means that—

Will Des McNulty give way?

I am sure that Margo MacDonald will get her opportunity to speak.

That means that the budget figure set for the project is now unlikely to be sufficient to meet the requirements of completing the building. With that in mind, the SPCB asked the project group to conduct an exercise to review current and projected expenditure, to identify the impact of inflation on the project and to conduct an assessment and quantification of outstanding risks, so that we would be in a position to report fully to the Parliament and to indicate as realistically and accurately as possible the state of play with the project.

The current position is as follows. The construction phase of the project is still scheduled for completion at the end of December 2002. Forty-seven per cent of the total cost plan value of the project has now been let and a further 35 per cent is going through the tender process, which leaves a balance of 18 per cent that has still to be tendered. Inflation aside, the overwhelming majority of packages have been let at a price that is broadly in line with the cost plan estimate. However, it is clear that inflation is affecting the project much more than could have been anticipated. Spencely's estimate of £195 million for the project was based on 1998 prices.

Estimates of construction industry inflation show that it is currently running at 16 per cent in the Edinburgh area. That has had a significant impact and will result in additional cost. Inflation has cost an additional £8.3 million on the tenders let and it is expected that it will affect the remaining tenders by £10.4 million. There have been cost overruns excluding inflation of just over £6 million, which have been partly offset by cost savings on other packages of about £3 million. Throughout the process, opportunities for cost savings have been carefully considered and a balance of judgments made to protect the quality and functionality of the building, especially in the public areas.

The Holyrood progress group is required to manage all risks and to be vigorous in keeping up strong pressure on costs. A risk register has been produced that categorises and quantifies all outstanding risks that might affect the project; they have been identified at £14.2 million for tender risk and £12.1 million for construction risk. It will be up to the HPG and the design team to contain any potential costs arising from those risks. We intend to provide the Finance Committee with information about any variations from the expected budget on a very regular basis so that both the Parliament and the Executive are informed at the earliest date about any impact on the final outturn costs.

If we exclude future inflation and the risk factors that have been identified, the project's outturn costs would be £197 million. Inflation for the tenders that have already been let is known and an informed estimate has been made about the likely impact of inflation on the outstanding tenders. Although the risk analysis has been commissioned to allow us to move towards greater certainty about the final costs, it is clearly the nature of such an analysis that a firm figure for the final outturn cannot be set at this stage.

We cannot ink in the final cost for Holyrood, but I make it clear that there is no question of giving out a blank cheque. Instead, the efforts of the SPCB and the HPG have concentrated on reducing uncertainty, controlling costs, identifying appropriate opportunities to make savings and managing all risk factors so that the project can be brought in on time, to standard and at the minimum cost consistent with the aspiration of achieving a fitting parliamentary building for Scotland's new democracy.

If the Scottish Parliament maintained the present expenditure level of £195 million—or even £198 million—what would be the consequences? Secondly, Mr McNulty has said that we cannot put a figure on the final construction costs, which is partly to do with the 16 per cent inflation in the construction industry in Edinburgh—a figure that is equal only to the London figure. Finally, I understand that even the Forth bridge was not constructed within its budget.

A building with which both John Young and I are familiar—Glasgow City Chambers—overran its cost. It would be very difficult to find anyone in Glasgow who would think it reasonable—

rose—

Will the member give way?

Excuse me—I am answering John Young's question. No one in Glasgow would say that savings should have been made in the construction of that building. We are well committed to constructing this building and it should be finished to the standard that Scotland expects.

If people want to ask why costs have risen, it is legitimate to highlight the factors identified by John Spencely and by David Davidson in his report to the Finance Committee. Spencely made it clear that the cost of the building is substantially a consequence of the number of people working in it and the functions that they must perform. The changes that took place in the design brief mean that comparisons between earlier estimates of the Parliament's cost and those that have been made in the context of the design brief are virtually meaningless. The design brief reflects the functioning of the Parliament as it emerged post 1999 and the work load that was generated by what members did and the expectations of the public.

The Finance Committee's report makes it clear that the scope for cost savings is limited. The report states:

"if the project is to be delivered to the agreed timescale, then drastic redesign to make large savings would probably not be cost effective."

That answers John Young's question. It is a matter of regret that the Holyrood progress group was denied the financial expertise of David Davidson, the knowledge of information technology that could have been supplied by David Mundell and the potential contribution of any member of the Conservative group, which contains a considerable wealth of expertise.

We are the first generation of members of the Scottish Parliament, and it is our lot to construct the building that will be the hallmark of the Scottish Parliament and, in many ways, a hallmark for Scotland. There is huge interest in our building elsewhere—not on the ground of cost overrun, but on the ground of the architectural quality and the functionality of the building that we are trying to construct. I believe that the building should be finished, that it will be genuinely representative of Scotland and that it will be something of which our successors will be truly proud.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the terms of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body's (SPCB) report of 13 June 2001; notes that £60 million of the construction costs for the new Parliament building has been committed to date and that a further £57 million (at 1998 prices) remains to be let; further notes that building industry inflation is currently estimated to be adding at least 16% to the costs of packages remaining to be let and that under the construction management contract there are additional and not fully quantifiable risks to which the project may be exposed between now and completion; directs the SPCB, through the Holyrood Progress Group, to work with the design and project teams to complete the project without compromising quality, while managing risks rigorously, and requires the SPCB, on a quarterly basis, to provide information to the Parliament's Finance Committee on the progress of the project in respect of inflation and materialisation of risk in order to inform the committee's consideration of the annual Budget Bill.

It is a matter of huge regret to all members that, once again, we are debating the Holyrood project not in terms of its advantages to the people of Scotland, the progress of Scottish confidence in its new democracy or substance with regard to construction and content. We are debating it in the context of further confusion, further adverse publicity and a further lack of transparency, which—regardless of the reasons for it—increases rather than decreases press speculation and public concern.

The SNP and many members of other parties believe that we must get a grip on what is happening once and for all and attempt to regain the confidence of the people of Scotland in this institution. The endless rows about the Holyrood project are damaging the reputation of Scotland's new democratic institutions and, by extension, damaging Scotland. However, we do not avoid dispute by insisting on the false unity of the graveyard. We overcome disputes by honest debate and by tackling the problems of the past. My amendment seeks to do both those things.

We are in this mess not because of individual culpable error by members of the corporate body or the Holyrood progress group. I pay tribute to those who are working tirelessly to bring the project to fruition, not least my colleague Linda Fabiani, who is a long-term supporter of the project and whose skills and expertise are ideally suited to the role that she is fulfilling on the progress group. We are in this position because the original decisions that were made in the UK Cabinet Office by Westminster politicians and anonymous civil servants—together and separately—were fatally flawed.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I have a lot to get through.

Instead of being admitted and corrected, those errors were compounded by misinformation that was given regularly to the Parliament and the public. As recently as last June, the Parliament agreed to a cost ceiling for the project that was impossible to achieve even at that time. That mistake led directly to the terms of the motion that we are debating. That near-fatal mistake was made by new Labour and proposed by a new Labour member.

rose—

I apologise to Mr Gallie, but I want to get through the burden of my argument.

If those mistakes were admitted openly, we could still salvage something from the situation. I hope that we will hear that admission from ministers today. That point is dealt with at the end of my amendment, but there are two more important points in the amendment, both of which relate to the issue of public responsibility.

The Scottish Executive is the ultimate paymaster for the new building. When the original cost of £40 million was announced, it was assumed that such a sum could be met fairly easily from revenue expenditure. That cannot be the case for a sum of £250 million or even £300 million. It would add insult to injury if Scotland's young people, old people, sick people, homeless people and unemployed people were to suffer because of the flawed decisions of their representatives. Accordingly, the Executive must proceed to a new financial plan, treat the project as it would any other major capital project and seek loan finance at Government rates. That would reduce the yearly cost to a more acceptable level. I suggest that a Scottish trust for public investment would be an appropriate vehicle for that and I offer to lend Mr Wilson to the Executive so he can help ministers to sort that out—I promise that we will take him back afterwards.

The Scottish Executive must engage with this project as paymaster and begetter because it is the source of many of the mistakes that have been made. When the SNP agreed to nominate a member to the progress group, it was on the understanding that the Executive had not yet ruled out the possibility of a minister joining the membership. The Executive has still not acted on that matter. Neither have the Conservatives. I would have more time for the arguments that Mr McLetchie is muttering and for those of his more sane colleagues if the Conservatives were taking part in the debate as a party that was trying to find a solution. Perhaps Mr McLetchie will indicate later that he will nominate a member if the Executive does.

We have been saying that for two years.

Excellent. We have taken a step forward.

A minister attending every meeting of the progress group with a desire to help with the financing and the planning is an urgent imperative. Every day that goes by without such a nomination to a group that controls the largest capital project in Scotland serves to strengthen the perception that the progress group exists merely to carry the can rather than to solve the problems.

This is a parliamentary project and the Executive is part of the Parliament—in this case, it is an essential part of the parliamentary process. I want to make a positive suggestion as to who in the Executive might be able to help. Out of the great range of talent on the front benches, there is one obvious choice: the man who carries in his title the word "Parliament". The chamber knows that I have a great admiration for my friend the Minister for Parliament's skills in the arena of political fixing. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Mr McCabe cannot sit idly by at this moment of crisis for the Parliament—for that is the way in which the situation is perceived. The events of the past few days show that the addition of high-level political skills, which Mr McCabe has aplenty, and some clout in fixing can only assist the Holyrood progress group to achieve a successful outcome. I therefore challenge Mr McCabe to nominate himself to the job.

It is no great secret that I have never been convinced by the plans for Holyrood. It has been an ill-starred project from the beginning. Perhaps the most sensible investment would be in a feng shui consultant.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you. The Holyrood project remains a source of anguish and concern for most members, as does Mr Gallie. I would have been much happier if we had decided to wait in these premises for a while until we could judge what Scotland's new democracy needed. I would have been content if we had decided on a more modest vision and had moved to a refurbished complex in St Andrew's House and Calton hill. However, neither of those options was permitted by the UK Labour Government—we must never forget that it made the key decisions. The Liberal Democrats are not responsible and not even the Scottish Labour party is responsible. The responsibility lies elsewhere.

The determination of the Scottish Executive to do what it wishes was well summed up by the former project manager, William Armstrong, who was quoted in The Herald today as saying:

"The problem is the agenda. The building is going to be built whatever it costs and however long it will take."

He goes on to say:

"It is very sad because this should have been an icon for Scotland and devolution but it has become a bit of a Dome".

That would be a terrible epitaph for Scotland's new Parliament, but the SNP's amendment offers us a way in which we can avoid that. It will bring honesty and rigour into the process. It will allow the Scottish Parliament to say that we will watch what is happening and that all of us will take responsibility for it.

I will support the amendment in my name. I will abstain from voting on the motion if my amendment is not accepted, because it will not deliver the honesty, the rigour and the joint responsibility that the project demands.

I move amendment S1M-2012.3, after "rigorously", to insert:

"calls on the Scottish Executive to work with the SPCB to agree a financial plan for the completion of the project which has no adverse implications for revenue expenditure on public services in Scotland and which recognises that the project must be funded through normal procedures for major capital works, for example through borrowing at government rates; further demands that the Scottish Executive appoint a minister to attend the progress group in order to engage the Executive fully in the project and its financing; notes that the financial and other problems of the project now being tackled by the progress group are a result of deeply flawed decisions made by Westminster politicians prior to the establishment of the Parliament and by repeated misinformation thereafter from New Labour and the Scottish Executive on the likely costs of the project."

The public views the Holyrood project not as a monument to democracy in Scotland but as a national folly that brings politics into disrepute. It is small wonder that far too many of our people are apathetic and cynical and have turned their back on the democratic process when they witness the cavalier, self-seeking behaviour that has characterised the ill-fated project from the outset. Michael Russell was right when he said that it brings disgrace on the Parliament and on the institutions of democracy.

The scandal of the escalating costs of the Holyrood project is well documented. The issue is where we go from here. I believe that there is only one way forward: the Executive must put schools and hospitals before political egos and false pride, finally get a financial grip on the project and rein in the expenditure. We should not authorise the expenditure of one penny more on the Holyrood project until we get real answers on the cost-cutting and funding options that are available to the Parliament.

However, the talent of the Holyrood project team seems to be for spending money rather than saving it. Mr Ezzi's resignation and the cloak of secrecy that surrounds it demonstrate that apparently, rather than implement the cost-cutting measures that Mr Ezzi thought were necessary, he and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body agreed to part company.

As Mr McLetchie was making those strictures, I wondered why the Conservatives did not put a member on the Holyrood progress group who would have been involved in the decisions and would have had an opportunity to have an influence on matters.

I have answered that question a dozen times or more. We have made it clear from the outset that the Scottish Executive has financial responsibility for the project, that it should be represented on the project group, that it abdicated that responsibility and that we are not prepared to be part of the progress group until the Executive takes on its financial responsibility. I am pleased to see that Michael Russell and the SNP now realise that they were a bunch of mugs for being part of the group in the first place.

The fact is that Mr Ezzi has a long track record in project management and is well used to working on high-profile projects such as the Museum of Scotland. Suddenly, he has given up his position after a mere seven months, apparently because mutual expectations were not fully realised. Mr McNulty—I think—talked about different perceptions. If Mr Ezzi was not pushed, why has he been gagged? Why will not the SPCB and the Holyrood progress group tell us exactly why he left? Why all the secrecy if there is nothing to hide? What price, I ask Jamie Stone, freedom of information now? The suspicion is that the so-called confidentiality is nothing to do with protecting the rights of Mr Ezzi as an employee, but is all to do with protecting the backs of the people who are allowing the project to escalate out of financial control.

It is perfectly obvious that public services will lose out to the Holyrood project. Every extra pound that is squandered on Holyrood is a pound less for public services, such as schools, hospitals and roads. Aneurin Bevan stated:

"The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism."

Clearly the Executive has a warped sense of priorities and a belief system that defies belief.

When I asked the First Minister earlier, he said that the money was coming not from health or education but from a magical thing called reserve. Did he imagine that he would hand that reserve back to Gordon Brown? No he did not. Would not that reserve have been available in this year or later years to spend on health, education, roads or any of the other things for which we are responsible? Yes it would. It is therefore true to say that every pound that is poured down the Holyrood money pit is a pound less for public services in Scotland. No amount of financial sophistry from the First Minister about reserves can disguise that fact.

In March 2000, when I asked the late First Minister Mr Dewar about the Holyrood project and its financing, he said that he thought that it could be managed

"without impacting on other things" and that he was

"certainly prepared to listen to suggestions about other methods of funding"—[Official Report, 30 March 2000; Vol 5, c 1226.]

Unfortunately, nothing was done. The Executive refused to put a minister on the Holyrood progress group and sat on its hands.

There are options, even at this late stage. For example, why not sell off the MSP office block and lease it back? The Parliament will have spent the first four years of its life in leased premises; MSP constituency offices are all leased; and the First Minister's offices are apparently leased twice over—why not our parliamentary offices? According to the surveyors, DM Hall, that would recoup more than £20 million for the public purse immediately.

All the arguments that building projects of this scale cannot be brought in within budget because of inflation and building prices in Edinburgh are absolute nonsense. Only a few miles away, another £200 million building project, called the Edinburgh royal infirmary, is being brought in on budget and on time.

Will David McLetchie give way?

No, thank you.

That is because that project involves a true partnership with the private sector, which is something that we suggested and which should have been pursued by the Executive and the corporate body from the outset.

The fact is that the Executive is responsible for the Holyrood project and that members of the Executive parties—Labour and the Liberal Democrats—with a few honourable exceptions, have time and again voted to pour money down the drain. I plead with them to reconsider the issue and to authorise not one penny more until there is a grip on the project. They might not succeed, but they certainly have a duty to try.

I move amendment S1M-2012.1, to leave out from "without" to end and insert:

"within the previously approved cost ceiling of £195 million, and to this end calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body in conjunction with the Scottish Executive to consider alternative methods of funding elements of the project through partnership with the private sector which will achieve that cost target and avoid cuts in other budgets."

I am the first member of the Holyrood progress group to speak in the debate and I wish to make three points. The first regards our functions. In going for a quality building, I point out—I have spoken about this before—that we are making savings in the longer term. It is not jerry-building; it is about building properly, so that in 10, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years' time, we will see real value for money.

Secondly, I think that it is a bit tough that we in the progress group get shot at for being honest. When we put together the risk register, we put everything in there, from the sky falling on our heads to industrial disputes. It is all there, in black and white.

Will the member give way?

I will give way to Margo MacDonald in due course, but I want to get through my points first, because I am coming, as it were, from the coalface and I mean what I say.

We have been up front. For people to add figures together to make ever bigger sums is having a go at us. We do not deserve it. If we were less than honest and did not come to the Parliament with all the risks, we would be culpable. That is not the case.

Will the member give way on the subject of honesty?

I will come back to Mr Gallie in due course.

The Holyrood progress group leads from the front. We do not shirk making decisions and I am proud of that. We face the Parliament, the public and the press at our question-and-answer sessions. It is a pity that more people did not attend last night.

When I have spoken in the chamber before, I have sometimes amused members with things that I have done in the past. Once upon a time, I had a proper job. I worked for an international construction company, as the man in charge of putting together bid documents for construction projects, particularly in Saudi Arabia. I had to know my construction managers, my senior field engineers and my project directors. It was my job to consider the people and put seven, eight, nine or 10 names together. The names were then approved by a vice-president and the list went out. I might say that we were quite successful. We got the lion's share of the construction business in Saudi Arabia, including airfields and factories, so I know what I am talking about.

That leads me to the subject of Sarah Davidson, who has had what I think is very unfair treatment in some sections of the press. I want to go on record as saying that I am quite disgusted by some of the things that have been said about her. In my view, the job of project director is about communications; it is about team building; and it is about leading.

rose—

I will come back to Alex Neil in due course.

The job is about having the most astute political radar, because that is what we will need in the final stage, as we near completion of the Parliament building.

Let me put it the other way round. If we take a single-skilled project director, such as an architect or engineer, there is a danger—in my experience—that they will concentrate on their own discipline to the detriment of the other important disciplines, and in particular to the detriment of co-ordination and communications.

Will Jamie Stone take an intervention?

Will the member give way?

I will come back to members. I want to make this point. I will give other members a chance to intervene if I have time at the end.

Let us think about Sarah Davidson for a second—she has been mentioned in the press, so I have no qualms about mentioning her now. In fact, she is in the chamber. In any other project, had a bright, able, young Scottish lady advanced in this manner, we would have said amen and hallelujah to that, but because it is the Holyrood project, she has been shot at.

There is also something slightly blacker at work, which I do not like the look of.

Will the member give way?

I will not. This is serious. If a bright, clever young man were appointed to a position such as this, there would a tendency in society to say, "Well done. He is getting on." I appeal to every female member in the chamber, from all parties, to support me on this—they know that what I say is true. Because Sarah Davidson happens to be female and young, it is suggested that she is incompetent. That is disgraceful; in our heart of hearts we know that.

On a point of order. We have spoken on many occasions about the propriety of discussing civil servants in the chamber. I know that there has been unfair criticism in the press, but I think that Mr Stone is now erring very badly against the Presiding Officer's previous advice on the matter and against good sense.

Discussion of this point should be limited, as it is not good practice to mention civil servants in the chamber.

Sir David, you will be glad to hear that I am moving on to my third and final point.

Good. You are over time, so you will need to be very quick.

We are sick of this debate. I say to the leaders of the parties, particularly the leader of the Conservative party, that their troops are too. Mr McLetchie should hear what is said behind his back. I have received apologies for what was to come in this debate—no names and no pack-drill. Mr McLetchie has not read the temperature of his party. He should be careful. On this project, I say to him, "Do not do a Hague."

At the beginning, I said that the debate was heavily oversubscribed. It is now even more oversubscribed, so I will have to put a three-minute time limit on speeches.

I begin by thanking the members of the Holyrood progress group: Jamie Stone, John Home Robertson and Linda Fabiani. I mean that, because I do not envy them the job of having to make sense of all the demands that we place on them. I am and will continue to be four-square behind what they are doing.

I speak in support of Des McNulty's motion. All things considered, it sets out the right and only way forward. Mike Russell's contribution was quite helpful, as he accepted that the building has to be built. The first half of his amendment is constructive, but the second half is not. If Mike Russell were prepared to apply the same scrutiny to the SNP's financial commitments in its uncosted manifesto for an independent Scotland, perhaps we could take his views more seriously.

This is the hardest decision that the Parliament has had to make. We are all accountable for what we do and what we say. We are equally accountable for what we do not do and what we do not say. If members believe in this project, as I do, they should be prepared to stand up and be counted. Mike Russell is right to say that we need to get a grip on what is happening. I want answers and explanations and I want to hold the progress group to account for what it does, but it is right that the group should report to a parliamentary committee that has the power to get on with the job. I trust the Finance Committee to do that.

Most tenders have been broadly in line with the cost estimates. Those facts should be presented to the public, who have the impression that nothing has gone right, when quite a lot has.

Will the member give way?

No.

The project is suffering because it is the most publicly debated and talked about project around. That is as it should be, but it has a knock-on effect. An uncompetitive environment has been created and the complexity of the project has not made it appealing. Mike Russell's continued use of the word "crisis" is not helping us to get the job done.

Even in the fantasy world of David McLetchie, there must be an acceptance that there is such a thing as construction industry inflation. Are the Tories claiming that the construction industry is making it up? Mr McLetchie says that we should not spend one penny more, but he refuses to say whether he would use cheaper materials, to keep to an upper limit of £195 million. He must answer that question.

We know that the real problem is the Tories' lack of commitment to devolution. That is why they continue to refuse to participate in the progress group.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I am running out of time.

Nobody is gung-ho about committing this amount of public expenditure to the project—it is a serious consideration for us all and I expect that we will be asked to account for every penny every step of the way—but in 100 years' time we will all be held to account for what we said in this debate. All members should think seriously about what future generations will say about their contributions.

I do not apologise for repeating the same points that I made in the previous Holyrood debate. This is not just a building; it is a facility to encompass the democratic process. It is as much about the people as it is about the politicians. The cost is high but, to give us a building that is fit not just for the 21^st century but for the next 300 years, we must think seriously about getting it right. We cannot afford to get it wrong.

The Assembly Hall is a fine debating chamber. In my opinion, it is better than any new debating chamber could be. I support that view, but the Labour party and the Labour Government have decided that we will go to Holyrood, so that is where we will go. We should all be sensible and responsible when we address this issue.

When a project goes over budget, the first step any sensible person would take—and the first step we should take—is to consider ways of minimising the final expenditure. As the SNP's rural development spokesman, I met representatives of the Scottish Timber Trade Association, who told me that the wood that is being used for the MSP block windows is oak, which will be laminated, or glued together. The oak is not grown in Scotland but in America. It will be shipped to Thailand, laminated and brought to Scotland. It was suggested that, if we were to use a native Scottish wood such as Douglas fir, we could save up to £1 million on the cost of the wood alone. I do not know whether that figure is correct but, in the interests of finding savings, the point is certainly worth exploring.

I am pleased to say that John Home Robertson, who sits on the Holyrood progress group, agreed to a meeting, which the STTA and I attended. As a result, Mr Home Robertson agreed to do an accelerated weather test—he will not conduct that test personally, I am pleased to say—to see whether the misgivings and concerns are well placed. If they are, we may need to reconsider.

Surely we should consider responsibly what we could do to effect savings. Surely that would be a mature and responsible decision, although it may not be interesting or grab headlines. Last night, during our question-and-answer session, a member stormed out of the chamber—I see that he is present today—and got great headlines for his contribution. When it comes to constructive debate, the Conservatives espouse the Rab C Nesbitt school of politics, as they have nothing positive to say—not even their leader.

This morning, when Mr McLetchie was asked on radio what savings he would make, he said, "That's not for me to say." I am extremely surprised that the Conservatives pursue that line. It seems that instead of the Conservatives using the slogan "carpe diem", we see them carping daily; instead of looking for savings, we see them grabbing headlines.

We should use Scottish businesses and materials wherever we can and we should find savings wherever they can be found.

Like many members, I am disappointed that we are having this debate today. I am disappointed that the costs have risen yet again and I am equally disappointed to hear the tired old arguments from those who have never accepted the Holyrood project in the first place. However, I would be more disappointed if I thought that costs were spiralling out of control, that the project was not being managed properly or that we were being ripped off in some way. That is not what is happening, nor is it why we are debating the subject today.

The most recent rise, which is likely to take the Parliament costs beyond the £195 million ceiling, comes from building cost inflation in Edinburgh and from the fact that we are constructing the Parliament building in a boom town.

Will the member give way?

I will press on, if Margo MacDonald does not mind. I will see how much time I have left at the end of my speech.

Rather than repeat the endless debates and rounds of recriminations, all members should lend their support to our colleagues on the progress group and the SPCB, to enable them to concentrate their efforts on managing the project as rigorously as possible. We must face up to our collective responsibility for building a Parliament that we can all be proud of. It is not the Executive's Parliament—it is our Parliament.

I am disappointed at the prospect of the Parliament costing even more than we had anticipated, but I am not that surprised. The architect John Spencely thought that £195 million was a tight target and that £230 million was a more realistic total. The Auditor General for Scotland, Robert Black, also warned of the risk of a cost overrun because of the very reasons that we are hearing about today. I also understand the project team's desire to minimise costs and to use tight targets and restraints as a tool to drive costs down.

There is no doubt that the process has not been very transparent. I am still uncomfortable with the fact that costs for road realignment are not included in the grand total. I understand that those costs are not within the competence or the control of the corporate body and so must be dealt with separately, but that does not add to the transparency of the process.

I believe that it is the job of us all in the Parliament to grasp the problems and to deal with them. We should not try to allocate blame; we should face up to and accept our responsibilities. It is disingenuous—if not downright hypocritical—of the Opposition parties to pretend that there are simplistic or cost-free solutions to our difficulties.

The turning point in the project was when the project group was established. I believe that John Home Robertson, Linda Fabiani and Jamie Stone have applied the effective scrutiny that the project needs. I also welcome Sarah Davidson's appointment. I was fortunate to work with her when she was clerk to the Finance Committee. Her ability and talent are not in doubt.

The Parliament building will not be for our personal enjoyment, nor, indeed, is it likely to house this session's crop of MSPs. This morning, SNP members talked about having ambition for our country, yet they will not face up to their responsibility for a building that will stand as a symbol of our place in the world.

rose—

rose—

rose—

I am sorry, but the SNP is trying to blame the Executive. It is our Parliament, not the Executive's.

Scotland has a tradition of architecture of which we can be proud. Edinburgh's Georgian new town, the Forth bridge and the Forth rail bridge have all stood the test of time.

Let me conclude with a story I heard earlier this week. It is about a young girl who is 15 years old and is at boarding school, who writes to her parents,

"Dear Mum and Dad,

I have bad news to tell you. I am pregnant. The father is the school gardener, but we love each other very much. He has a beautiful little house at the bottom of the school grounds where we intend to set up home. I look forward to you meeting him, as I know that you will like him as much as I do.

Of course, none of the above is true. What is true is that I failed my French higher, but I wanted you to get it into perspective."

We need to get things into perspective. We are building a Parliament that will last a hundred years. We need to take decisions today that will last the test of time. I urge members to support the motion.

Presiding Officer, since you have already said that the time for the debate is limited, I will give a wee piece of information and ask a question.

My views on the project are well known. I do not quibble about the cost of a magnificent Parliament; I quibble about whether it is guaranteed to be magnificent. I also think that, just as our democracy is ill served by retrospective legislation, it is even more ill served by retrospective spending, which is what the motion asks for. I see no reason to believe that the project group has shown such management efficiency and expertise that we should continue to trust its judgment, which is what the motion asks us to do.

Just before we came here today, John Home Robertson admitted in a television interview with me that he knew nothing at all about a planned closing ceremony. Although I am told that it is being planned, I am not at all sure that it has been budgeted for. Who knows about a closing ceremony? How much is it costed at? Is it just another figment of my imagination?

I also want to correct the misapprehension about inflation in the building industry in Edinburgh which, once again, the motion rests on. The motion claims that inflation is 16 per cent. Last night, we heard from the progress group, which estimates that inflation of 16 per cent has been built into the contracts that have been let and that are about to be let. Because only British indices for inflation exist, it is difficult to get a figure specifically for Edinburgh, but according to the Halifax house price survey, we should allow for 8.5 per cent inflation for house building in Edinburgh. That is half of what is being claimed. I suggest to the progress group that if it had a professional manager running the project, he might tell them that contractors sometimes—only sometimes—add in a little bit to cover contingencies. Perhaps that is why we estimate inflation to be twice the rate that everybody else who is building in Edinburgh just now is working to.

I said that I would not take any more time, Presiding Officer, but I sincerely hope that my friend and colleague Donald Gorrie will be given time.

Because of your brevity, I can call Donald Gorrie next.

I am obliged to Margo for her generosity. An author of soap operas might, for a plot, be tempted to draw on the saga of the Scottish Parliament enterprise. The only problem is that the public would never believe it. The whole thing passes any human belief because of the series of mishaps and mistakes.

My quarrel is not with the progress group or with Sarah Davidson—and, in that context, the headline in The Sun is entirely fabricated. The progress group has been given what in rugby is called a hospital pass.

My quarrel is with the shadowy coalition of people who have been promoting this project from the start and who are described in David Black's excellent book. Those people have promoted the project relentlessly, they have treated the Parliament with complete cynicism, contempt and dishonesty and they have traded on the decent loyalty of many members to Donald Dewar. The previous two votes were presented as votes of confidence in Donald Dewar and not as votes on the new Parliament. On both occasions, we were given totally fictitious figures.

rose—

We have heard too much from Jamie Stone already—sit down.

We were given totally mendacious figures of £109 million and then £195 million. There were then comments like, "We did not really mean £195 million." However, a successful amendment—S1M-720.2—talked about completing

"the project by the end of 2002 within a total budget of £195 million".

We were given totally dishonest amendments.

There is now a change of tactic: we are told to write a blank cheque. That is at least a step forward for honesty, but it is totally unacceptable. I appeal to members not to support the motion. This is no longer an issue of confidence in Donald Dewar and it is no longer an issue of whether to have the Parliament on one particular site. We are obviously going to complete the Parliament, so it is now an issue of management and democratic accountability. It is not acceptable for the Parliament to be asked to write a blank cheque and for the people in charge of building just to go ahead and do what they can. That is just not on. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. None of us would run our private affairs in this way. Why should we run the nation's affairs in this way? No other organisation would run things like this. Even in much-maligned local government, if this sort of thing happened there would be resignations and early departures. In this project, nobody has ever carried the can for anything. It is a complete scandal and I urge members to vote against this awful motion.

I speak on behalf of the progress group. Some people have suggested that that must be a difficult position for a member of the SNP, but it is not. SNP members have a free vote on the motion, which is the responsible position to take. I have no difficulty in supporting the SNP amendment because it is absolutely right. It reflects what the corporate body, the progress group and the Scottish Executive—once it came into being—inherited: an ill-thought-out project that suffered from a lack of honesty.

I am pleased to say that for the first time we have absolute honesty in the project. The corporate body and the progress group are to be commended for that. I do not mind patting myself on the back because it has taken a lot of hard work to get here. I also pat Andrew Welsh and the rest of my colleagues on the back. My colleagues had the strength and the public commitment to say, "We were handed this. It was done completely wrongly and we accept that, but now we are moving towards a Parliament for the people of Scotland. We must take part in that." We will work collectively to ensure that what we get at the end is a Parliament that is fit for the people of Scotland.

I was not going to be political, but I will reply to Ken Macintosh, who accused the SNP of being irresponsible. What we have been doing has not been irresponsible. What was irresponsible was the mass agreement to the £195 million cap that was put in place last year, which came from a base of no knowledge of how the project was being run and how it would continue.

The project that we inherited is now different. It is well managed and tightly run. Much has been thrown at us over the Alan Ezzi situation, but I tell members that Alan Ezzi came on board and made a valuable contribution. It was then realised on both sides that the project had moved on a stage, and that different skills were required. It is to the credit of the character of Alan Ezzi and to the tight management of the progress group and the SPCB that mutual agreement was reached on a parting of the ways. That is a mark of how the project is now being run—with control.

In relation to the SNP amendment, it is clear that no public service money should be spent on the project. However, that is not within the remit of the project group, so I will hand that issue back. The SNP amendment also seeks to have a minister on board. For the record, I would be delighted to welcome Tom McCabe to the progress group, but I will lay down the ground rules now. If Tom McCabe comes on to the progress group, he will not be in charge and there is no way that he will fix me. [Laughter.]

I urge every member to think for themselves and to vote the way that is right for Scotland, which is to support the SNP amendment and fully support the motion lodged by the SPCB.

We are past the time to begin summing up. I apologise to the five members whom I have been unable to call.

The debate is fundamentally about whether we want a first-class Parliament building using Scottish building materials, or a second-rate Parliament building in which corners have been cut and for which Scottish products are dumped in favour of cheap overseas alternatives. I find with some amazement that I agree with Fergus Ewing, because I want Scottish timber to be used where possible in the new Parliament building. I want Scottish Kemnay granite to be used, not Portuguese granite, and I want Caithness flagstone to be used. Above all, I do not want our new Parliament building to be compromised by cutting corners.

George Lyon and Fergus Ewing talked about using Scottish products, but how will they get round European competition law?

One specifies and then purchases. Is David Davidson arguing that we should not use Scottish materials? That may explain why the Conservative party came fourth in the recent election.

The motion in April last year set a budget of £195 million, but left the door open for the progress group to come back and argue for more resources if it believed they were needed. Above all, the group had to come back to Parliament to justify the need for that extra resource. Extra expenditure is justified and I am willing to support it, but I am not happy with the blank-cheque approach set out in the motion. Surely, given that 47 per cent of the contracts are let and a further 35 per cent are out to tender, it would have been possible to update the budget figure.

Indeed, the SPCB report to the Scottish Parliament has figures for the likely outturn cost. The progress group should have had the confidence to come here and put that figure before us and if there were a need for further adjustment, to come back and argue the position. That would have given us all confidence that the progress group has a fixed budget in mind and is seriously working towards achieving that figure.

A number of colleagues have asked serious questions about the departure of Alan Ezzi. I am willing to accept that there are personal and commercial confidentiality issues surrounding his departure. I am, however, deeply concerned about the appointment of the new project director. I question not the competence of the appointee, but the process. The swift appointment and its manner undermine the SPCB's credibility and, above all, the trust of MSPs.

I am devastated.

I am making constructive comments. I say to Linda Fabiani that laughing is inappropriate. The progress group should recognise that serious concerns have been expressed about that issue and should respond positively to such constructive criticism.

rose—

Mr Lyon is in his last minute and can take no interventions. Please finish, Mr Lyon.

I believe that everyone—apart from the Conservatives—wants a first-class new Parliament, not a second-class building on which corners are consistently cut. I want a new Parliament building that uses Scottish materials where possible. I am willing to pay for that vision and to pay extra, if that is what it takes to make it happen. However, I am unhappy about the blank cheque that is being requested. I am deeply unhappy about the project director appointment process. I hope that the progress group will address those concerns.

This is our fourth debate on the Holyrood project. It has provided a useful opportunity to take stock and consider advice from those who have been charged with developing the project.

The project is important. I say to Margo MacDonald that any suggestion of closing ceremonies is, to my certain knowledge, only the product of a fertile imagination. However, I fail to understand how that matter is relevant to the debate.

Margo MacDonald also talked about house price inflation in Edinburgh. How can we take seriously any suggestion that there is a valid comparison between house price inflation and major civil engineering projects? The project is too important for such a flippant comparison.

Will the minister give way?

Not at the moment.

It is right and proper that the debate should take place, so the Executive greatly welcomes it. I must say to Mr Russell that, rather than complain about the adverse publicity that the project has attracted, perhaps he should take time to consider how and by whose hand that adverse publicity was created. I notice that Mr Russell left the chamber for about 15 minutes during the debate. I will accept his assurance that he did not leave to converse with the press.

I left to have a conversation with the clerk, who sent me a note about another matter. I hope that the member will accept that assurance, as I know that he does not talk to the press.

How true. I am more than happy to accept Mr Russell's assurances and to acknowledge that that is a first for Mr Russell's departures from the chamber.

There is more than a little discord in the SNP group, but new depths were plumbed when Mr Russell offered to transfer Mr Wilson to Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I have always paid attention to the counsel that we should beware Greeks bearing gifts. I tell Mr Russell that I am wary and that he can hold on to Mr Wilson on this occasion. I will accept Mr Russell's kind words, but I assure him that my political skills guide me to resist his flattering charms.

To be serious, the Holyrood progress group is concerned with a rigorous analysis of a complex project. The Executive is aware that the group has reported its views fully to the corporate body and that that information is being transmitted to the Parliament, as is right and proper.

Some members would prefer the debate to focus on whether we should proceed with the project. That would be improper. The need to complete the project is a long-settled issue. There is widespread acknowledgement that it is Parliament's responsibility to provide a building of which our MSPs and country can be proud. It is also acknowledged that the project is extremely challenging, as it should be. The project is of enormous importance to Scotland and to the new democracy that we have established. We are a young Parliament and steps are being taken to ensure that the building design proceeds in accordance with our evolving needs. That has added to the complexity of the project.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, but I will in a moment.

The project has evolved—and will evolve—as politicians and the staff who support them identify their needs. That adds to the challenge, but in no way does it suggest that we should be deterred from that challenge.

Given that the Scottish Executive is the paymaster for whatever amount the blank cheque requires, will the Executive put an appointee on the Holyrood progress group?

Mr Ewing is well aware that the Executive keeps in close touch with the project.

We are explaining today, as we have explained in detail on previous occasions, the arrangements that we have put in place. Senior civil servants keep in close touch with the project. The liaison arrangements between the Executive and the Holyrood progress group are first class and they are working well.

Will the minister give way?

Not at the moment.

From the outset, we have asserted that we want a permanent home for the Parliament. That is in line with our ambitions for the Parliament and for Scotland. We believe that we will achieve a building of high quality and of international stature.

On behalf of the Executive, I want to pay tribute to the Holyrood progress group. I pay tribute to their energy and enthusiasm and to the skill that they have applied to what is a complex task. I am sure that members of the corporate body, and indeed all members of the Parliament, will join me in that acknowledgement.

Will the minister give way?

Will the minister take an intervention?

To which member is Mr McCabe giving way?

Tavish Scott.

Will the minister comment on the exclusive story that appeared yesterday in the Daily Record, which alleged that £25 million will be taken out of schools to be spent on Holyrood? Will he confirm categorically that that is not the case?

I can certainly do that. In journalistic circles, it is said that there is nothing like a good exclusive. It gives me no pleasure to confirm to the chamber that what appeared in yesterday's papers was no good exclusive. The Executive is committed to seeing an important building completed in an appropriate manner. We are even more committed to ensuring that the appropriate expenditure is guided towards our health and education services.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will be as clear as the First Minister was during question time: not one brown penny will be removed from the health or education budgets in order to fund the Holyrood project.

Will the minister be reporting new Labour's favourite newspaper to the Press Complaints Commission for telling lies?

I seem to remember a time not so long ago when that newspaper was also a favourite of Mr Canavan. It is sad if that situation has changed to such an extent. Let me further emphasise the point—

Will the minister take an intervention?

No. I have taken enough interventions.

The Executive has allowed for a significant reserve in next year's budget and that of the following year. It is a compliment to the prudence and responsibility of Angus MacKay, our Minister for Finance and Local Government, that we are in a position to be able to deal with the contingencies and unexpected events that occur during the lifetime of any government.

Will the minister please take an intervention?

The debate has exposed the immaturity and the opportunism of the SNP and of Mr Wilson, its finance spokesman. The SNP has consistently criticised and resisted the concept of reserves. We can demonstrate today, through Angus MacKay's good work, that those reserves are in place and that they will be well used on the project.

Who is it who is irresponsible? The man sitting next to Mr McCabe is Mr McConnell who, when he was the minister with responsibility for finance, said that it was not Government policy to create a contingency reserve.

That statement is not true. I say to Mr Wilson that he has been consistent in his criticism of reserves. The situation that we find ourselves in today demonstrates that his criticism was ill judged, ill placed and irresponsible. Mr Wilson's careless claims demonstrate that Scotland's finances would be in tatters if they were in the hands of the SNP.

It is now clear, on the basis of a very full report, that it will be necessary to sanction further expenditures to complete the project. The motion purposely does not give a final figure. Anyone who is involved in major construction projects of this nature will know that it would be commercially damaging to do that. As the report from the SPCB makes perfectly clear, there are genuine uncertainties about future risk. What is proposed instead seems to us to be a prudent and sensible arrangement. Quarterly reporting to the Finance Committee by the SPCB will ensure the highest standards of parliamentary scrutiny on a continuing basis and allow budgetary implications to be addressed regularly throughout the year.

The Executive welcomes that means of proceeding. As members are aware, the Parliament's own budget has a prior call on the Scottish consolidated fund. It is for the Parliament to vote its own expenses. The Finance Committee is well placed to assess the demands of the project. As I have said, the Executive quite rightly has a reserve built into its plans. That will enable us to absorb additional costs. It should be remembered that, as the project proceeds, the range of uncertainty narrows. The process of budgetary management, by its nature, becomes more straightforward and certain. The Executive is more than happy that it can work with the grain of the parliamentary authorities' budgetary judgments. As I have said, there is already close contact over such matters.

We are therefore happy to endorse the motion that is before us today and we strongly urge each member to consider seriously the importance of the building, not only to our new democratic arrangements, but to the reputation of Scotland and to vote for the motion before the chamber.

I speak today not as the reporter on the Holyrood project to the Finance Committee, but as a member of the Conservative party in the Parliament.

I start with a little piece of truth. During their speeches, many members talked about transparency and integrity. The word honesty was sometimes used and respect for the Parliament was mentioned on many occasions. The truth is that, time and again, the Parliament has been blamed for the action—or inaction—of the Executive. The Holyrood project was a Labour Government project that was started before the Parliament came into being. It has been stated clearly that the Parliament inherited the project—we all agree with that. It is therefore incumbent upon the Labour party, especially the part of it that is represented here by the Executive, to help to shoulder the load. That means taking an active part in the mess that we are in today.

The construction management process is an inherently flawed system. I am not worried whether the Jackson motion about £195 million that was passed last year was badly drafted—it came from the Labour party, not the SPCB. As most of the building had not been designed at the time, there was an opportunity to carry out radical work to contain the project within the costs that the Parliament had dictated. The fact is that that was not acted upon quickly enough. I do not blame the Holyrood progress group; from my perspective, it has done a fairly good job of cleaning up what was going on.

Today, we heard another exclusive, which Mr McCabe seemed to want to talk about. That exclusive, which came from the First Minister, was that the reserve would be used. That reserve came about as the result of underspends in health, justice and education. It is money that the Parliament approved, under previous budgets, for spending on public services. That money was not spent, however and one must ask whether Mr McCabe and his team did some clever forward thinking and said to themselves, "This is going a bit pear-shaped. We'd better have a reserve. We'll just shave a bit back from different services." One could make that assumption.

Would Mr Davidson be more content if the Executive had no reserve?

Unlike Andrew Wilson, I have never been against reserves, but I want clarity. If one budgets for a reserve, one must say where the money comes from and what the rules are for taking the money out again. The reserve is supposed to be for emergencies, but the Holyrood project cannot be an emergency; the situation has been going on for two years now.

I notice that evidence on the project will be given to the Finance Committee. I am pleased about that, and I shall certainly call on the Finance Committee to take evidence surrounding whatever issues come forward. That includes calling in members of the progress group and some of their employees. As Mr Ezzi no longer has a contractual obligation to the task, perhaps he will be in a position to clarify where things are going wrong and how they might be amended.

Will Mr Davidson give way?

I do not think that I am allowed to.

No, you are not.

The interesting thing about today's debate is that we have heard that the Labour and Liberal Democrat members are prepared to make Scotland's doctors and teachers pay for the Holyrood project and that the SNP, as usual, wants English and Welsh taxpayers to pay up for it. What we have suggested—which I said on television last week—is a positive contribution to looking at new funding methods to ensure that the money for public services can be preserved. David McLetchie gave evidence from DM Hall, with facts and figures about the £20 million sale-and-lease-back arrangements that would help to ensure that we do not hit the reserves. Where is the money for adopting the Sutherland report's recommendations going to come from? It is not in the budget at the moment. That is something that we must be very careful about.

The Conservative party has made it clear time and again that, if an Executive minister was involved in the progress group, the Conservatives would also put somebody on that progress group; we have never shied away from that. We are now in the business of protecting public services where we can and we must consider creative accounting processes to be able to do that. If Jim Wallace wants to make comments about that outside the chamber, I shall speak to him later.

I shall be brief. The most revealing but least constructive comment of the afternoon came from Mr McCabe. At the moment, he is speaking in his role as whip. The moment a member is out of Mr McCabe's sight, they must be briefing somebody against him, and the solution to any public concern, disquiet or dissent is to order members not to talk to journalists. That does not seem to me a sensible approach to a project that is the cause of huge public concern. If Mr McCabe does not understand that concern, he is simply not listening to what is happening.

SNP front-bench members have attempted today to help the situation by injecting some new elements into the motion while taking nothing out. I know that some members who are tempted to support my amendment regard the rhetoric of the last few lines as unacceptable. I am sorry about that, but I think that the rhetoric of those lines was cancelled out by Mr McCabe's rhetoric this afternoon, so we are equal. In those circumstances—

rose—

I am sorry, but I would like to finish my speech. I know that Mr Jenkins always dislikes my rhetoric and wants me to be to be simpler and plainer, and he is probably right. However, the balance of this afternoon's argument has been to inject new elements of accountability and openness into the debate, to engage the Executive in the project, which is absolutely—even symbolically—essential, and to make certain that the financing arrangements are more sensible than those that have been proposed. I urge members to support my amendment. It does not detract from the motion, and it is being supported by a member of the progress group. I hope that members will support it, because it will make a difference.

I am happy to reply to the debate in my capacity as convener of the Holyrood progress group. The public debate has tended to be dominated by a minority of people, if I can put it that way, who are very hostile to the Holyrood Parliament project. We have heard from some of those people again today, but I do not complain about that because they are quite entitled to put their views. However, I welcome the fact that this is a well-attended debate, because the Holyrood Parliament building will be the property of the whole Parliament. More importantly, it will be the property of all the people of Scotland. That is why all of us have such a heavy responsibility to get it right and to get value for money.

I shall deal quickly with the sad question of the departure of the previous project director and the appointment of his successor. The project director reports to the Holyrood progress group. One of the key priorities of the project director is to control costs. Mr Ezzi was in the job for eight months. At this stage, all that I can say is that neither he nor we were happy with how things were going. He therefore decided to leave. I do not want to say any more than that. However, we are very grateful for the work that he has done and we wish him well. I am particularly grateful for the £2.5 million of savings that he identified. We will benefit from that.

With the benefit of hindsight, does John Home Robertson accept that the progress group's handling of the process of the appointment of Mr Ezzi's successor was contrary to Parliament's principles? Openness, transparency and equal opportunities are not the least of those principles. The process was rushed and badly handled. The process was wrong, rather than the individual who has been appointed.

I will come back to that.

I was talking about the savings that the previous project director proposed. One of the alternative savings that he suggested was the use of Portuguese granite instead of Kemnay granite. To make that suggestion was perfectly fair and using Portuguese granite would have saved some money. However, we considered the matter and, on balance, we felt that Enric Miralles' suggestion that Kemnay granite was more appropriate for the new Scottish Parliament building was better. We therefore set aside the project director's suggestions in that regard. Mike Rumbles' constituents might be grateful for the fact that the work will go to Kemnay.

Mike Rumbles mentioned the new director. We were consulted about the appointment of the new director. The Holyrood progress group's unanimous view—not just that of Linda Fabiani, Jamie Stone or myself, but, most important, that of the independent professional colleagues who work with us—and the unanimous opinion of the SPCB was that Sarah Davidson could and should be offered the job. We believe that she is the best person for the job at this time and we are delighted that she has accepted the responsibility. Her appointment has also been endorsed by the SPCB. We have complete confidence in her ability, experience and commitment. I can only express contempt for some of the offensive personal comments that have been made by certain people about a dedicated servant of the Parliament who is not allowed to answer or speak for herself in public.

On the motion and amendments, some members are irreconcilably opposed to the Holyrood project. Some would have preferred a different site or a different architect and some have strong feelings about the construction management contract system, which makes it impossible to cut the cost. Some have a different political agenda altogether in respect of the principle of devolution. I understand those arguments and I respect colleagues who have put them forward, but we cannot go on debating yesterday's arguments for ever.

The site and the architect were chosen in 1998. Forty-seven per cent of the value of the building has already been contractually committed and 16,000 cubic metres of concrete have already been poured on the Holyrood site. Everybody refers to the Parliament as the Holyrood Parliament and I do not think that anybody seriously wants to stay indefinitely in our temporary premises. The idea of aborting the Holyrood project at this late stage cannot possibly make sense. Apart from anything else, doing so would be a diabolical waste of money.

What evaluation has been carried out on marketing what has already been constructed? What assessment has been made of some of the other appraisals that were unfortunately ignored before Parliament had the right to decide on them?

Such evaluations could not possibly produce value for money. We are totally committed. Money is being spent. The idea of aborting the whole project at this stage and starting all over again on another site with another architect would evidently cost much more.

I understand Mike Russell's historic points and the case that could have been made for alternatives, but we must live in the world as it is. It is not realistic to seek at this late stage a fundamental change to the basis of the contract arrangement. With respect to Mike Russell, it is not helpful to make references to the millennium dome as a comparison to Scotland's new Parliament. It is important that all of us who are committed to the future of Scotland's Parliament should treat it with the respect that it deserves.

David McLetchie's amendment would compel us to ignore the effects of inflation, to ignore the risks that inevitably arise in major construction projects and to try to finish the job in 2002 at 1999 prices. To put it crudely, that would mean putting a cheap and nasty roof on our new Parliament building, which would be a seriously short-sighted decision that would lead to far higher costs in the not-so-distant future. Anybody can understand that.

Will Mr Home Robertson give way?

No, sorry.

The motion, S1M-2012, from the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which was moved by Des McNulty, would give me and my colleagues on the Holyrood progress group the responsibility to complete our new Parliament building to the highest possible standard, on time and securing the best possible value for money. I would be the first to admit that that is a heavy responsibility, but it is one that we take very seriously.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to many other people. I am grateful for the comments that have been made about the work that has been done by members of the Holyrood progress group, but many people are working much harder than we do down at the Holyrood site. I pay tribute to those who are fulfilling their responsibilities while working on the project. Those include site workers, quarrymen in Aberdeenshire and elsewhere, contractors, the design team and everybody else.

rose—

And maybe even Phil Gallie, to whom I give way.

No. You are in the last minute of your speech.

I apologise. As I have not got time, I cannot give way.

All those people who I mentioned are working flat out for us. They deserve our support and they could do without some of the gratuitous abuse that is coming from certain quarters.

I have spent my whole political career fighting to win this Parliament for Scotland. I submit two personal observations at the end of the debate. First, the Holyrood Parliament is going to be a wonderful building. It will be a working home for our new democracy and, very important, it will be a huge asset for all Scotland and especially for the capital city, Edinburgh. Holyrood is going to be as important to Edinburgh as the Palace of Westminster is to London. Incidentally, the Westminster project went 350 per cent over budget back in 1840, but we will leave that aside. Most of us are grateful that our predecessors did not bottle out and go for a cheaper version of the Houses of Parliament, maybe without Big Ben. We have been waiting for 300 years for our Parliament building in Scotland—let us get it right.

Finally, I urge colleagues to get the cost into proportion. It is an expensive building. We must control costs and we will control them, but it is a one-off, once-in-a-century investment of about £40 per head of Scotland's population. That is the cost of a night out or a pair of trainers. We cannot apply a rigid cap to the cost, but I promise on behalf of my political and professional colleagues on the Holyrood progress group that we will do everything in our power to deliver the best possible value for money.

I urge the chamber to reject the amendments and support the motion that Des McNulty moved on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.