Holyrood Inquiry Report

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 4:57 pm on 22 September 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Phil Gallie Phil Gallie Conservative 4:57, 22 September 2004

I congratulate Lord Fraser on his very good report, which contains many facts that we should all take on board. My problem with Lord Fraser does not lie with the facts that he has presented or the conclusions that he has drawn. After all, many of his conclusions are in line with some of my comments this afternoon. My objection lies with recommendations in which Lord Fraser appears to have turned his back on ministerial accountability, openness and honesty in the way that the Parliament has dealt with this issue over the years. I make no secret of the fact that I campaigned against both the Scottish Parliament and the building itself. That said, I like to think that since the Parliament has been established I have tried to act constructively and positively within the framework that has been democratically put in place.

However, I feel a deep anger about the way in which the referendum to induce the Parliament was held—and on no matter am I angrier than I am about the false figures in the Scotland Bill, which saw the Parliament's birth. For example, it was stated that the cost of the Scottish Parliament building would be £40 million. I know that those figures were false and believe that ministers and everyone associated with the bill should have known that they were false because, after all, there was already an example for them to draw on. The Scottish Office had provided a 27 million square metre building called Victoria Quay that was similar to—but not the same as—this building and which cost the taxpayer £63 million in 1995. How on earth could someone suggest, some years later, that a larger and far more complicated building could cost less than Victoria Quay? That issue requires to be explained and I am disappointed that Lord Fraser did not highlight it in his recommendations.

When ministers put together bills for debate in Parliament, they must ensure that the material in them is accurate. When they campaign on issues around the country, particularly in a referendum, they must ensure that the information that they provide is accurate. Those are the matters that I feel angry about.

I believe that Donald Dewar was at fault. Everybody in the chamber must acknowledge that he was a great Scottish statesman and politician. However, as Elaine Murray said, no one gets everything right every time. Donald Dewar erred, as Lord Fraser hinted, when he decided to jildy the Scottish Parliament building along at far too fast a pace.

When we analyse the situation, we find that Donald Dewar acted against the devolution principles that he helped to provide. He took away from members of the Scottish Parliament the key decisions that they should have taken on the provision of the Parliament building. I point out to Robin Harper that, if members had been allowed to take those decisions, every member in the Parliament would have had a responsibility for the building.

I make no apologies to the Scottish people for any part that I played in what many regard as the shambles surrounding the cost of the building. At every stage, my projections have proved to be correct. When I appeared in a television programme with George Robertson, our Presiding Officer, George Reid, and Menzies Campbell of the Liberals, they said that I was doing nothing more than scaremongering when I suggested that the Holyrood building would cost much more than £100 million. I remember that day very well, because I was made to look fairly ludicrous for projecting that £100 million figure. If I had said then what I felt in my heart—that £200 million may have been nearer the correct figure—I would have been treated even worse than I was. However, never in my wildest dreams did I believe, even then, that the incompetence that lies behind the Holyrood contract would have taken the total sum to £430 million.

All of us must look at that, but Scottish Executive and Westminster ministers in particular must look at how they present facts in the future. If they take that lesson from the Fraser report, this particular exercise will have had some result.