By Steve Bargeton, political editor

LORD FRASER of Carmyllie yesterday insisted that he has an open mind about where the blame lies for the Holyrood fiasco.

At the start of the second week of his inquiry into the affair, the Angus peer rejected weekend speculation in the media that he has already reached a conclusion.

“We have only had two and a half days of evidence and I expect there to be a considerable number of additional days. I have reached no conclusions, interim or otherwise,” he said at the start of proceedings in the Scottish Land Court in Edinburgh.

“What we are engaged in is a rather lengthy search to establish just exactly what it was that took place over the whole time of the building of the new Scottish Parliament building.

“Only after all the evidence has been heard will I be in a position—primarily on my own but I hope with some support of others—to come to conclusions.

Lord Fraser added, “I have reached no conclusions and it would be quite improper for me to have done so.”

The Fraser inquiry is expected to take evidence until at least the spring.

Earlier counsel of the inquiry John Campbell QC condemned reports which appeared to pin the blame on individual civil servants.

“Both senior and junior civil servants and other witnesses have come forward voluntarily and speedily,” he said.

“However, civil servants are not able to reply to public criticism in newspapers.

“In my opinion it is much to be regretted that those in positions of prominence feel that they are able, without having heard all of the evidence so far, never mind in the case, to come forward and make doom-laden pronouncements ascribing fault or blame at the feet of people who have not had the chance to give evidence.”

The first witness of the day was Alastair Wyllie, who was head of the building division at the Scottish Office following the 1997 Labour election victory.

He admitted to be being “surprised” at the initial estimate of £10 million to £40 million in the White Paper published in July 1997 for a permanent home for MSPs.

He said he had arrived at an estimate of £44 million for the Leith site and around £56 million for the other options at Haymarket and Calton Hill.

Mr Wyllie told the inquiry he had been asked to see how these figures could be reduced to a figure of £40 million. This, he said, could only be done by reducing the size of the building.

The inquiry heard the cost of a parliament building at the Holyrood site was estimated at the end of 1997 and the beginning of 1998 by two independent cost consultants at between £50 million and £80 million.

Later, Mr Campbell suggested to civil service chief Robert Gordon that officials knew early estimates for the costs were wrong.

Mr Campbell asked why a Press release on January 9 1998, which named Holyrood as the site for the new building, predicted it would cost £50 million to £55 million but did not include fees and VAT.

The site was chosen after the brewery Scottish & Newcastle agreed to include Queensbury House in the sale of the site for the new parliament.

After Holyrood was chosen, the Scottish Office launched a competition on January 26, 1998, inviting architects from all over the world to create designs for the new building.

Mr Campbell said, “By the time we come to the competition, anyone who says we can build a parliament for £50 million knows it to be wrong, don’t they?”

Mr Gordon replied, “Yes.”

Mr Campbell added, “My problem with the £50-£55 million figure is that it’s not really the whole story is it?

“It excludes demolition costs, it appears to exclude the cost of Queensbury House, which was estimated at up to £7 million and it appears to exclude VAT and fees. Even at the upper end of the bracket wasn’t that a figure that was economic with the reality?”

But Mr Gordon said the Press release had made it clear that the figure did not include VAT and fees.

The release gave an estimated figure of £50 million but added, “The final cost of the Parliament at Holyrood will depend on the final design, the fees negotiated with the successful architect and the outcome of the competition between the developers actually to construct the building.”

Mr Gordon was head of the Scottish Office constitution group after the 1997 Labour general election victory and he was charged with seeing through devolution plans.

Lord Fraser asked Mr Gordon why a decision on the winning site apparently had to be taken so quickly.

Mr Gordon said, “The Secretary of State (Donald Dewar) felt he had a duty to use this historic opportunity to start to put into place a suitable permanent home for the parliament.

“It was just after the election and it was clear that people were behind the idea and it was felt that if it wasn’t done at the beginning it would never be the right time to engage in a major capital expenditure.”

Mr Gordon also revealed Mr Dewar wanted to announce the winning site to coincide with a key stage in the passage of the Scotland Bill.