Topical Question Time
Infrastructure Projects (Progress)
1. Welcome back, Presiding Officer.
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in delivering infrastructure projects. (S4T-00236)
The Scottish Government is making good progress on delivering our infrastructure plans. Yesterday, we published our report on our progress in 2012 and our updated programme and project pipelines. The progress report outlined that nine of the major infrastructure projects in the infrastructure and investment plan, which my predecessor published in 2011, have been completed and are in use. They have a value of more than £600 million.
The capital investment programme is on course to spend £3.1 billion in 2012-13, which will support an estimated 40,000 jobs across the Scottish economy.
Yesterday, outside the chamber, the cabinet secretary spoke of ambitious plans to invest in infrastructure. Today, we have further information from the Scottish Futures Trust on the slippage of the non-profit-distributing programme, which was previously blamed on the Borders rail project and the Aberdeen western peripheral route. We now know that those projects account for only £39 million of a £333 million slippage. Can the Deputy First Minister tell us why, against the £190 million scheduled to be spent on school projects through NPD in 2012-13, the total spend will in fact be nothing?
First, I will say that the entire NPD programme will be delivered, which I am sure Parliament will welcome.
The variance between the 2012-13 forecasts and some of the figures that have been cited inside and outside the chamber is due to a variety of reasons. For example, the hub health and schools projects, colleges and the M8 are forecast to reach financial close later than was originally estimated. As Richard Baker indicated, the First Minister also cited the legal challenge to the AWPR, which was a matter completely outwith the Government’s control. That is the kind of reason why programmes can be subject to delay.
These are large, complex projects that are being procured by a wide range of procuring authorities. Sufficient time taken up front in the preparation and design stages can and will deliver better overall value for money. For example, use of benchmarking and careful design in the schools programme, which Richard Baker specifically mentioned, means that we will deliver 67 instead of 55 schools for the same budget and get more out of our money, which I hope that Richard Baker and other members will support.
Progress with the NPD programme will speed up significantly. The first NPD health project has moved into construction, with the first college project due to do so in April.
Some of the remarks made by the Opposition are rather hypocritical because, of course, all the cuts to our traditional capital budgets being implemented by the United Kingdom Tory-Liberal Government were first planned, to the very penny, by Alistair Darling and the previous Labour Government.
That is wrong. Beyond that, what is important is that the investment is needed now. The Deputy First Minister referred to the AWPR, but that accounts for none of the slippage that I referred to in my question.
Looking to the future—as the cabinet secretary clearly wants to, unsurprisingly—can the cabinet secretary say why the planned £150 million for schools investment through NPD next year has been scheduled so that only £62 million will be spent on schools? Which school projects are being delayed and why?
In fairness to Richard Baker, I may have been wrong in what I said about Alistair Darling. To be strictly accurate, he planned more capital cuts than are being implemented by the Conservative-Liberal Government.
The fact of the matter is that our NPD programme, together with the switch from revenue to capital, is supplementing a traditional capital budget that has been dramatically cut. That is a sign of a Government that is determined to maximise its capital spending because of the benefit that that brings to supporting and creating jobs and the economy.
I have already commented to Richard Baker about the time deliberately taken up front in preparation and design to ensure that we are delivering overall value for money—in other words, getting the most out of our capital investment. I would have thought that even Richard Baker, who is not known for his quickness to compliment the Government, would find it in himself to welcome the fact that we estimate that we will deliver 67 schools instead of 55. That is a thoroughly good thing.
The SFT’s use, for example, of reference design and standardised contracts is now speeding up procurement. The Government is committed to doing everything that we can, within the powers and resources that we have, to maximise our capital spend. Of course, if we had the full economic powers that independence would give us, we could do even more.
The cabinet secretary said that NPD progress will “speed up” over the next few years. It could hardly slow down over the next few years.
Why was nothing spent on the schools programme in 2011-12? Why was nothing spent this financial year when £119 million was predicted? Why will only £62 million be spent next year, when it should have been £150 million? Frankly, it is not good enough for the cabinet secretary simply to say that the projects are complex. The chamber and the country deserve a better explanation than that.
The country perhaps deserves an explanation from the party that Gavin Brown is a member of about why our capital budget is being cut by 26 per cent. Frankly, Opposition back-bench members would have a bit more credibility in coming to the chamber and talking about capital investment if the parties that they support and are members of were not slashing this Government’s capital budget.
The Government put in place the NPD programme to ensure that we continue to secure investment in much-needed infrastructure projects. That programme will deliver the £2.5 billion-worth of projects that it is committed to deliver. If Gavin Brown had been listening to my answers to Richard Baker, he would have heard me say—openly and frankly—that hub health and schools projects, in particular, reached financial close later than had been originally anticipated.
The fact of the matter is that the programme will be delivered in full. The value of that, added to the value of our cut traditional capital budget and the money that we are taking from revenue to spend on capital, will ensure that we will spend £3.1 billion this year and £3.4 billion next year on infrastructure projects, supporting the economy and jobs. When taken together with, for example, our commitment to procurement reform, that evidences that the Government is committed to doing everything possible to support economic recovery.
I think that there were traces of horsemeat in that answer.
Let us move on to colleges, which were supposed to have £65 million spent on them this year. The figure will now be zero. Why?
If Richard Baker—sorry, Gavin Brown; I am getting the members mixed up. There might be something in my finding it difficult to distinguish between the Labour and Conservative spokespeople on the issue, given that every penny of the cuts that are being implemented by the Tories was first planned by Alistair Darling and the Labour Government.
Gavin Brown will be aware of NPD projects that entered procurement in 2011-12 and are due to start construction this year, at City of Glasgow College, Inverness College and Kilmarnock College—projects that are getting under way, supporting jobs and boosting the economy. I would have thought that members, whether they are on the Tory, Labour or Liberal benches, would manage to welcome that as being good for Scotland’s economy.
In her revised plan, has the cabinet secretary accelerated plans for road and rail transport routes to the north and north-east from the central belt, including the A9?
Willie Rennie has no doubt had the opportunity to look in detail at the updated infrastructure investment plan that was published yesterday. I am more than happy to write to him in detail to draw out all the specific issues on transport routes to the north and to underline what this Government is doing that previous Governments failed to do, in getting on with work on transport priorities in the north of the country. I am more than happy to write to Willie Rennie to lay all that out for him, so that he is under no illusions about it.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that parents, pupils and staff at James Gillespie’s high school in my constituency are looking forward to a new, state-of-the-art facility, with sports facilities that will be second to none, as a result of the non-profit-distribution model? Is she aware that the people of Edinburgh are delighted that they will not be lumbered with the excessive private finance initiative charges that Labour and the Liberal Democrats introduced?
The member’s constituents will welcome that, as will people in other parts of the country that will benefit from the new infrastructure projects. That is what this is all about. It is about supporting the economy and putting in place the modern infrastructure that the country needs.
I visited the new south Glasgow hospital yesterday. That state-of-the-art hospital, which is taking shape before our very eyes, is being delivered, not under NPD and certainly not under PFI but within traditional capital. Last night I saw a comment, which I think was made by Ken Macintosh—he will accept my apologies if I am misquoting him—that the previous Labour Government planned the hospital and the current Government is only announcing it. The previous Labour Government failed to deliver the new south Glasgow hospital; this Government is delivering it and many other infrastructure projects around the country.
Police Service of Scotland (Headquarters)
2. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had regarding the location of the headquarters of the police service of Scotland. (S4T-00237)
On 21 February 2012, we announced that Tulliallan castle would be the interim headquarters of the police service of Scotland. The police service of Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority will consider the location of the permanent headquarters in due course, with the final decision subject to the agreement of the Scottish Government; they are currently focused on ensuring a smooth transition to the new single service on 1 April. Although the Scottish Government has regular dialogue with the single service and the SPA on a wide range of issues, there has been no specific discussion on determining the location of the headquarters of the police service of Scotland.
Can the cabinet secretary assure me that the new police service of Scotland will not be perceived as having a focus on west central Scotland?
Absolutely. This is a police service for all Scotland and it will be focused on all parts of Scotland and not one part, whether that is west central Scotland or anywhere else. For that reason, the new police service has at its heart local policing and serving all communities. Local commanders have been announced for each area, who will work with communities, and local policing plans are being prepared for every one of Scotland’s 353 council wards, whether they are in the west or in rural, urban, island or mainland Scotland.
Has further consideration been given to locating the HQ at the Scottish crime campus at Gartcosh, in my constituency? The cabinet secretary said that the campus
“would provide a purpose-built national facility for the police service of Scotland”.—[Official Report, 19 September 2012; c 11585.]
What is being built at Gartcosh is outstanding. I look forward to visiting it as it continues to grow apace.
As I said, the siting of the permanent headquarters of the police service of Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Police Authority and the service. It will be for them to decide whether it should be Gartcosh or somewhere else. It is fair to say that land is available, but we should welcome what is being contributed at present at the crime campus at Gartcosh and leave it to others to decide on the permanent headquarters in forthcoming years.
I have no doubt that Vic Emery, the chair of the Scottish Police Authority, and Steve House, whom Elaine Smith will doubtless know, would be happy to chat because they are certainly delighted at the progress that is currently being made at Gartcosh.
Does the cabinet secretary nevertheless agree that it would send a strong message to the rest of Scotland if the headquarters were not in the central belt?
It is not a decision for the Scottish Government. We deliberately decided that it would be appropriate that the first, temporary headquarters should be at Tulliallan castle. After all, that location has a history within the police service of Scotland. Every constable trains there and frequently goes back for additional training.
I will leave it to the Scottish Police Authority and the chief to decide where the permanent headquarters should be. However, every one of us who has endured serving in this building and previous buildings is aware that the priority for the people of Scotland is to get the service—whether parliamentary or police—on the road and not to be obsessed with buildings.