Committee
Audit Committee, 03 Oct 2000
03 Oct 2000 · S1 · Audit Committee
Item of business
Holyrood Project
Good afternoon. Welcome to this, our second meeting dealing with the costs and management of the Holyrood Parliament building project. Our witnesses today are Mr Paul Grice, the clerk to the Parliament—who, I believe, has risen Lazarus-like from his sick bed to be with us this afternoon—and Mr Martin Mustard, who is the project team manager. Last week we heard evidence from the permanent secretary and principal accountable officer of the Scottish Executive, who was the official responsible for the project in the period before 1 June 1999, at which point client responsibility passed from the First Minister to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Since that date, Mr Grice has been the project owner and is the most senior official responsible for the successful delivery of the project.
As we did last week, we will ask questions in five main areas: evidence about the state of the project at the time of the handover to the SPCB; project management arrangements more generally, including the interaction between project management and the corporate body as a client; arrangements for cost reporting for the project; managing project risk; and the current state of the project and its prospects over the two years to the forecast completion date of December 2002.
Mr Grice, I have been apprised of the fact that you do not intend to make an opening statement. Would you like to go straight into questions?
As we did last week, we will ask questions in five main areas: evidence about the state of the project at the time of the handover to the SPCB; project management arrangements more generally, including the interaction between project management and the corporate body as a client; arrangements for cost reporting for the project; managing project risk; and the current state of the project and its prospects over the two years to the forecast completion date of December 2002.
Mr Grice, I have been apprised of the fact that you do not intend to make an opening statement. Would you like to go straight into questions?
In the same item of business
The Deputy Convener (Mr Nick Johnston):
Con
Good afternoon. Welcome to this, our second meeting dealing with the costs and management of the Holyrood Parliament building project. Our witnesses today ar...
Paul Grice (Clerk and Chief Executive, Scottish Parliament):
Yes. However, I will first introduce Martin Mustard, the project manager, who was referred to last week. I had in any case planned to bring him with me, as I...
The Deputy Convener:
Con
Before we get on to detailed questions, I would like you to provide us with some background. What was your role in the Scottish Office before you took respon...
Paul Grice:
I was a senior member of the constitution group. My principal responsibilities were the referendum legislation and running the referendum. I then took over r...
The Deputy Convener:
Con
If you have read the evidence that we took at last week's meeting, as I am sure you have, you will have seen that Muir Russell said of the project:"There was...
Paul Grice:
The most important point to make is that the entire project team was transferred across from the Scottish Office to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body...
The Deputy Convener:
Con
In his evidence last week, the permanent secretary told us that he had handed over a doable and robust project that could have been completed for £62 million...
Paul Grice:
There is no doubt that it was a difficult project, but it was in reasonable shape. I had no reason to doubt anything that the permanent secretary said last w...
The Deputy Convener:
Con
Should you have been handed a completed design at that stage?
Paul Grice:
Ideally, we would have had a completed design. As I understood the permanent secretary's response last week, he too would have liked a completed design, but ...
The Deputy Convener:
Con
Are you happy that the fact that you were not handed a completed design did not leave you in a position where you had to redesign virtually from scratch?
Paul Grice:
We did not redesign from scratch. The SPCB was in a difficult position, as it is required under law to provide the services that the Parliament requires. It ...
The Deputy Convener:
Con
How much did the revised design of the chamber change the forecast construction costs? Can you put a figure on it?
Paul Grice:
I am afraid that I cannot. The biggest impact that it had was that for about three months it diverted the senior designers—the senior people, if you like—awa...
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I was curious, Mr Grice, when you said that the SPCB does not have a choice in these matters. Presumably, the SPCB could go back to the Parliament.
Paul Grice:
That is true, and, in fact, it did so. The SPCB went back to the Scottish Parliament in April.
Miss Goldie:
Con
But that was a considerable time after the Parliament arrived in these buildings in May 1999. I wondered what advice the SPCB was getting. Do you advise it?
Paul Grice:
Yes. The judgment on when to go back to Parliament is a difficult one. The point is that, formally, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is the client—t...
Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Mr Grice, you suggested that the redesigned chamber may not necessarily have cost any more than the original design. Did I hear that correctly?
Paul Grice:
Yes. I could not put a figure on it, although I would like to. Some of the engineering became a bit more complex, which might lead one to think that the cons...
Martin Mustard (Holyrood Project Team):
The main impact of redesigning the chamber was vis-à-vis programme. Of course, delay in programme equals cost—although not a cost in terms of the actual prod...
Brian Adam:
SNP
The redesign might explain part of the increase in fees, but it does not explain in any way the increase in the cost of construction, which seems to have esc...
Paul Grice:
You raise an important issue, and I would like to say a little about it. I want to explain to the committee as best I can how the £62 million became £108 mil...
Brian Adam:
SNP
In written evidence to the committee, could you give us a broad-brush breakdown of the costs, to the nearest million or whatever? That has not been forthcomi...
Paul Grice:
I would be happy to do that.
Ms Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (SNP):
SNP
I remind you that the debate in June 1999 took place at the behest of Donald Gorrie and me, not at that of the Executive.
Paul Grice:
Sorry.
Ms MacDonald:
SNP
That is quite all right. However, that makes a difference, as the debate took place in the Parliament. I presume that advice was given to the Executive on ho...
Paul Grice:
I would not know.
Ms MacDonald:
SNP
Was that advice to the effect—to use your words—that the project was in good order? Was the advice against undertaking what Donald Gorrie and I were asking f...