Statement

The evidence from the Presiding Officer this morning concludes the first phase of the extended inquiry. As Mr Campbell has outlined its extent has been exhaustive and designed to meet my original objective that “no stone should be left unturned”. For reasons I should go on to elaborate I am not yet confident that that has been achieved.

However, we have already properly brought into the public domain much which was unknown, unexplained or inexplicable. And for that I can compliment the subtle brilliance of my team. As the Presiding Officer has indicated this Inquiry should be part of the cleansing process. It appears to me that what we have undertaken has warranted the confidence the First Minister and Presiding Officer first reposed in me when inviting me to head this Inquiry. To follow what the Presiding Officer said this morning “when the First Minister of your country and the Presiding Officer of your Parliament ask you to take on such a job you treat this request seriously”

I readily acknowledge that this Inquiry was and remains a creature of their joint worthy intention to set before the people of Scotland not an aesthetic evaluation of the Holyrood Parliament building but only its apparent cost overrun.

If either or both consider the remit given to me has been exceeded, they have only to tell me.

I now propose to adjourn the Inquiry to enable me to consider which part of the evidence already given and what issues arising from that evidence might be made subject to a more detailed and rigorous scrutiny. I want also before the third phase of the inquiry to give consideration to whether there are any witnesses I might want to recall to assist me in this third phase of the Inquiry. I want also to consider whether there are any additional witnesses whose evidence I have not yet heard or received in written form whom I might invite to attend.

Mr Derek Bearhop on behalf of the Inquiry wrote last month to interested parties inviting them to submit written representation and suggestions that they may have for further witnesses. There may be a third phase of this Inquiry from 4th to 7th May 2004. I do not regard it as inevitable that this phase will take place on these dates or indeed at all once the Inquiry Team has carefully reviewed the evidence already given. I need also to consider the attitude of the BBC to the tapes I have discreetly and repeatedly requested. While obviously any extant film of interviews with the late Donald Dewar or the late Enric Miralles relating to the design and building of the Scottish Parliament are of primary interest, the credibility of the Report I am to deliver to the Presiding Officer and the First Minister depends on more than that.

Those filming for the series “The Gathering Place” had exclusive and contemporaneous access to those who have given evidence to the Inquiry and to others whose existence or relevance may not yet be known to the Inquiry Team.

I do not need to elaborate on the forensic value of contemporaneous statements and the worth of comparing them with statements made later or indeed in the course of the Inquiry. That is not a process that need necessarily be public and I am not insisting on that.

There may be nothing at all of relevance to this Inquiry but it must at least be checked out in one way or another.

I share the view of some MSPs in the recent debate that that may be the case but that has to be weighed against the recent statement emanating from programme makers that it contains “important information”.

In short, then, the timing and duration of Phase III cannot be given today. Nor I regret can I offer the Presiding Officer and the First Minister a date when I will report. But I recognise the importance and value of the “cleansing process” the Presiding Officer has described. However, all dates will be posted on the website as soon as reasonably practicable.

Following Lord Hutton there are a number of points which I wish to make clear and to emphasise. The first is the fact that if I recall a witness to give further evidence in the 3rd phase of the Inquiry it does not necessarily mean that I regard that person as a possible object of criticism. I may recall a witness simply to clarify some matters and not because I think that he or she may be liable to criticism in my Report. The second point is that the fact that I do not recall a witness does not necessarily mean that he or she may not be subject to criticism in my Report.

Finally I am not departing from my original intention that if someone is subject to criticism in my Report that person will be privately notified and will be given the opportunity to correct that criticism in private or in public. My initial view will be a provisional one and that may alter or be revised in the light of further evidence and/or on further consideration.

I am most grateful to the Inquiry Team for all the work put in over the course of the Inquiry to date and I echo John Campbell’s words with one addition.

We have been asked by the local media in Belfast whether those who have been doing the transcribing of the evidence for us have been “good”. We have not inquired what they get up to in the evenings but during the course of the Inquiry they have not been good they have been excellent. Even in the presence of the Presiding Officer I hope I can speak for everyone in Scotland in hoping that they can return to their daily work in the Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible.