I am not sure that I welcome the new format. I am not quite sure what the point of it is, but it does not seem to monitor change.
The first part of the section—the new additional information—is a list of all the projects greater than £20 million; that is useful, although it is just a list. More important, it does not give us the information that we used to get on how the major projects have changed since the last time that they were reported on. I thought that the whole point was that we had a baseline position and we measured what is happening against that. I have been through the whole thing. The only comment that I could find that suggested any kind of change was on page 22, under “Kilmarnock Campus—Ayrshire College”, where it says:
“there has been slight slippage in reaching financial close”.
On page 23, under “V&A at Dundee”, it says:
“The project has been subject to some slippage due to movement of the proposed site”.
Those are the only mentions of change in the entire document. I do not understand. From memory, I think that the old document on the major projects told us the initial cost, the dates and any in-work changes to the projects. The new format seems to be an entirely backward step.
The document includes supposedly useful information under the heading “Contribution Made Towards Local Economic Development”, but the variation in information there is incredible. Some of the entries are detailed and helpful—they list the number of jobs and apprenticeships, procurement conditions and so on—but some of them have nothing of the sort.
The level of detail does not seem to depend on the size of the project. On one of the major projects—the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, on page 15—the document gives no detail whatever of what the impact would be. That is a £742 million project and we are told that it will “deliver enhanced connectivity”. There is nothing about jobs, apprenticeships or anything else.
The information is useful, but perhaps we have to evolve from this point. However, I would like to know the minimum amount of information that we expect, which can perhaps be supplemented by additional information. It strikes me as odd not to have any information, particularly on a project of that size.
It is difficult to believe what is happening in this document. I will give you an example. On page 24, under “Scottish Crime Campus”, it says:
“The full business case for the project outlined that it would cost £82 million and that practical completion would be achieved in autumn 2013, prior to the agencies becoming operational in the new building by April 2014. Practical completion of the project was completed on time and on budget in autumn 2013.”
That did not quite ring a bell with me, so I have just looked it up. On 14 April 2009, in a press release on the Scottish Government website about the Scottish crime campus, Kenny MacAskill said:
“The work is underway and I expect the campus to be operational by late 2011.”
It also says that the campus will cost £65 million.
In another press release in March 2010, under the heading
“Full steam ahead for crime campus”,
Mr MacAskill said:
“Subject to contract we expect the first agency to move into the campus in 2012 with full occupancy by mid-2013.”
It opened in February 2014.
I do not understand what this document does for us.