Public Audit Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Official Report 560KB pdf

---

“Major Capital Projects”

Agenda item 3 is the six-monthly major capital projects update from the Scottish Government. I draw colleagues’ attention to a paragraph in the permanent secretary’s covering letter, which states:

“As we are regularly publishing much more information about the progress of major capital projects, I would welcome the Committee’s views on whether this might mean that reporting arrangements to the Committee should be updated.”

I think that the permanent secretary is suggesting that he would like to provide less information because the information is being published elsewhere. Obviously, that is relevant to our previous agenda item as well.

Does anyone want to comment?

In light of all that we heard earlier, taking into account both the positive arguments that some colleagues were making and the challenging numbers in the report, I think that there must be a decent argument for having that discussion with the permanent secretary. Could we invite him to come before the committee in the autumn to discuss the issue around publishing more information, not least given the discrepancy in the figures?

As the Public Audit Committee, we need to understand the discrepancy between the figures that were given by the Auditor General this morning and those that are in the permanent secretary’s paper. Obviously, it would be helpful if the permanent secretary could clarify the issue that the Auditor General raised around the 5 per cent of DEL budget cap and what those figures mean. It seems to me that, as the accountable officer, he would be the most appropriate person to ask about that.

I would very much welcome the permanent secretary’s advice on how the hub territory for schools and other projects works. I simply do not understand what percentage, for example, of the north hub’s £700 million spend, which is mentioned in one of the annexes, relates to the 5 per cent cap on DEL. In light of the Auditor General’s report that we discussed this morning, it seems to me that there are compelling reasons, not least of which is the paragraph in his letter that you mentioned, to ask the permanent secretary to appear before us in the autumn to discuss these matters fully.

Further to the convener’s reference to the covering letter, perhaps we could write to the permanent secretary to ask what he means by

“reporting arrangements ... should be updated.”

Does that mean that we would receive less information and simply be signposted to other reports? I take on board Tavish Scott’s points, so it may be worth while inviting the permanent secretary to come before the committee, given some of our other concerns.

The permanent secretary also states, in the same paragraph:

“I have asked officials to liaise with the Committee secretariat on possible options that might be acceptable to the Committee.”

Do we know what those options might be?

Has there been contact on that from Scottish Government officials?

In the initial discussion that we had with Scottish Government officials several weeks ago, they raised the issue about how the information might be provided and the permanent secretary’s letter is consistent with those discussions. There was an indication that information through the infrastructure investment plan and other documents that the Scottish Government regularly provides could provide the same level of information. Beyond that, there have been no further discussions.

Would those documents provide the same level of information?

I think that the permanent secretary is suggesting that they would, but Audit Scotland suggested rather the opposite this morning. Actually, Audit Scotland proposed that the content and presentation of the information in the report could be improved and listed some ways in which that might be done, so we have had some contradictory suggestions. I suggest that it is for the committee to explore what we want.

What does the Finance Committee get by way of financial reporting on capital programmes?

I do not know, but we can certainly ask that question of the Finance Committee. We should perhaps also ask the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, which is also relevant in this context.

If other committees receive better information or other information, I would not mind being able to see that in this committee rather than a new system or process being invented just for us.

I would be happy to hear from any officer about the discrepancies in the figures. I think that we are entitled to ask that and we might as well do so now rather than wait until the autumn. In one figure in the report, there was a difference of about £270 million or so. I think that we need an explanation for that at the outset and I would prefer not to wait till the autumn for that.

11:00

There is a fair bit of overlap in members’ contributions, so I suggest that we ask the permanent secretary to come to the committee to discuss some of the committee’s issues around the capital projects report as well as his issues with it, because he is clearly looking to change things as well.

Given that we are going into recess next week, I suggest that in the meantime we write to the permanent secretary and ask about the difference in the figures that are given for the five projects here and in the Audit Scotland report. That would allow us to have some correspondence from him as well to inform that discussion. Would that be a way to take this issue forward?

Yes.

We are crawling into agenda item 7 now as well.

I accept that, but to be honest there is a sense that it would be good to have that discussion and Mr Peter Housden himself seems to want to have some discussion about that capital project report. I agree that it might overlap with how we take forward the other report when we come to discuss it under agenda item 7. However, do members agree to write to the permanent secretary about the discrepancy in the figures and to ask him to come before the committee so that that discussion can take place?

Members indicated agreement.