“Scotland’s key transport infrastructure projects” and Major Capital Projects (Update)
We move on to agenda item 3. We have a response from the Scottish Government on the Auditor General for Scotland’s report “Scotland’s key transport infrastructure projects”. A report in the new format will come in the spring. Do members think that further action is required? I would have thought that it is a question of noting the response and referring it to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee.
The response came out of a series of meetings and reports and marks a welcome change of attitude from Sir Peter Housden, quite apart from anyone else.
However, missing from the response is a comment on the important issue of the 5 per cent limit that the Government has set on future borrowing. Mr Swinney’s November budget statement included further detail, but the matter is not included in the response.
The Auditor General commented on a parallel issue in the key infrastructure projects report. She illuminated the fact that, although we are given some information, that information is not broken down in a way that allows us to scrutinise it. In other words, although there is a graph that shows the Government’s estimates of future spending remaining under the 5 per cent limit, it does not give the information that would allow us to check or audit that.
There are various questions about how the 5 per cent limit is agreed. For example, it includes local government commitment and resource but not departmental expenditure limit in the calculations.
There are a number of issues that at the very least need to be explored with the cabinet secretary. What is the mechanism for doing that?
My understanding is that that issue will be addressed in the new format, which we will see in March. Is that right?
At the end of last year, the information on the 5 per cent target appeared in the annex to the budget documents. The intention is that the Government will in its budget report each year include an annex indicating where the 5 per cent runs with regard to commitments for major capital projects.
I agree that the information was published in this year’s budget documents, so it is available now. I am suggesting that we would wish to exercise audit scrutiny over those figures. The process for doing so is not clear to me because the figures do not allow for that scrutiny—they are top-level figures that are not broken down.
Even if we do not scrutinise the figures, it would be useful if the Auditor General had greater access to the information and was able to scrutinise the figures to reassure Parliament that the Government is not exceeding its 5 per cent target.
That seems to be part of the infrastructure and major capital projects issue and I just wanted to check how we will take that forward. I do not want us to move on from it now and think that it is done. I would like to know whether we are going to explore it further. I suggest that we write to the cabinet secretary and ask whether he will provide further information to us or, more importantly, to the Auditor General, so that we can have further analysis.
11:30
We can seek clarification on that point from the cabinet secretary, Sir Peter Housden or relevant accountable officers.
Okay.
I have one other point. The new reporting mechanism on major capital projects includes the new hubcos and the work of the Scottish Futures Trust. However, the trouble with the hubcos and the Scottish Futures Trust is that they are not subject to audit scrutiny, so the situation is slightly unsatisfactory. I welcome our getting that information and being provided with assurances about the progress of the projects and the spend on them, but, as I understand it, we do not have a mechanism to take things any further. In other words, we cannot ask the Scottish Futures Trust for an explanation—we cannot ask it to open its books.
I would welcome the opportunity to explore with the Government its thoughts on our role. It is providing us with information, but frankly we are quite limited in the questions that we can ask. If we have any questions about the projects, whom do we direct them to? Would we expect the Scottish Futures Trust, for example, to come to the committee to give evidence about progress? We are talking about £2.5 billion of public money, which is a substantial sum.
Do not get me wrong: I am very pleased that the projects are now reported on regularly, but just having them reported on, with no audit, is a bit odd.
We could ask the Scottish Government how it believes that those projects should be scrutinised, but perhaps we need to speak further with Audit Scotland because we cannot initiate an inquiry or investigation at our own hand—that depends on the work that Audit Scotland does.
We can seek clarification from Audit Scotland and the Auditor General about how Audit Scotland intends to look at the issue, and we can ask the cabinet secretary—I am not sure which; Nicola Sturgeon, perhaps—what scrutiny the Government believes that there should be of those projects and how ministers should be accountable. However, I am quite clear that we cannot initiate any work ourselves.
I have exactly the same two issues. As long as they are taken forward, that is fine.
We will hold on to the decisions on those until we get the clarification that we seek. I hope that we will be able to make those decisions at our next meeting.
I suggest that we take a break before we get into item 4.
11:33 Meeting suspended.