AROUND the world, wherever there has been some transparency on decision-making relative to major public procurement projects there is evidence of a litany of financial disasters, even when a global pandemic was not a factor in causing delays. In fact probably the last major UK project to be delivered on time and under budget was the Scottish Government’s Queensferry Crossing.
The UK Government’s current cut-down HS2 “cost overrun” alone is £65 billion, an amount which would cover the cost of building more than 300 dual-fuel ferries. It is estimated this will double. Added to the long list of UK Government procurement failures, roughly 10% of the costs of which are borne by Scottish taxpayers, are two delayed over-budget aircraft carriers still without the aircraft they were designed to carry, the “cost overrun” alone of £3 billion costing Scottish taxpayers the equivalent of constructing two dual-fuel ferries.
READ MORE: CalMac apologises to customers for problems with new booking system
Not just Tory spin doctors but some independence supporters have suggested that because these carriers, one of which is now being cannibalised for spare parts before it has even served in action, were assembled in Scotland, this debacle somehow reflects poorly on the Scottish workforce, but it takes little investigative thinking to conclude that this was essentially a UK Government project with major components manufactured elsewhere in the UK and with the overall construction process managed by UK Government officials and appointed tenderers.
Instead of mischievously attempting to portray the highly regrettable situation at Ferguson’s as representing one of the greatest public spending disasters in history in spite of ongoing UK Government infrastructure and defence spending catastrophes, those wishing to seriously pass comment on Ferguson’s should address what has actually gone wrong and what lessons are wisely to be learned for the future (rather than unconstructively resorting to wild speculation or misrepresentation devoid of objective context).
Unlike some recent major UK Government procurement projects, there does not appear to be any suggestion here of blatant cronyism or corruption. The intention of seeking to build two world-leading, state-of-the-art dual-fuel ferries that would help to resurrect shipbuilding on the Clyde and serve Scotland’s island communities for decades to come undoubtedly had much merit. This good intent though probably introduces the first lesson to be learned – that all governments should be wary of embarking on projects that involve major innovative design, especially without advance trials, appropriate contingencies and rigorous financial conditions covering possible mistakes and delays.
READ MORE: Explained: The Corran ferry crossing and what comes next
The second lesson would appear to be to avoid projects that seem to hinge on the words of maverick private-sector bosses who contrive good sales stories but often cleverly avoid accountability and are quick to disappear when things go wrong. The UK Government’s procurement processes saw billions of pounds wasted on PPE manufactured by companies that had no history of PPE production and which subsequently had to be incinerated.
The third lesson for government is that the best of intentions must not enable professional project and financial management to be delegated without constant independent oversight and comprehensive performance measures.
No doubt opposition parties, aided and abetted by the BBC and much of the UK mainstream media, will continue to present a subjective view of events surrounding the building of the two dual-fuel ferries until both are successfully launched. However, while not seeking to absolve the Scottish Government of its pivotal responsibility in this matter, objective analyses should reflect on the shortcomings of public procurement in general and what needs to be done to improve processes in Scotland and – probably even more importantly for Scotland economically, as long as Scotland is not independent – the rest of the UK.
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel