COST consultants warned civil servants about the overrun in the Scottish Parliament project long before Donald Dewar and other politicians continued to claim it remained on course.
In another dramatic day of evidence at the Fraser inquiry yesterday, it became clear that as the experts said the Holyrood project was out of control, the civil servants continued to reassure their political masters that all was well.
Yesterday it was the turn of a senior quantity surveyor to tell the inquiry he had reported from the earliest days that the quoted figures for the cost were wrong.
Hugh Fisher, of Davis, Langdon & Everest, one of the world's biggest firms of quantity surveyors, delivered a stream of estimates between 1997 and 1999 that put the cost of the project far above the officially quoted figures.
This meant that political decisions were taken on the basis of false information, a point not lost last night on opposition parties.
Nationalists and Tories accused Donald Dewar of misleading the public about the cost of the Scottish Parliament in the run-up to the 1999 elections. Evidence showed that civil servants told Mr Dewar in March 1999 that the cost had gone up from (pounds) 50m to (pounds) 60m.
The Scottish Tories claimed that Mr Dewar failed to mention the increase in a parliamentary answer to Donald Gorrie, then Liberal Democrat MP, later that month. The SNP claimed Mr Dewar kept the information ''secret from the public'' in the run-up to the first Scottish Parliament elections in May 1997.
However, when civil servants were still assuring Mr Dewar that the cost was (pounds) 60m, DLE was already putting the price tag at more than (pounds) 88m. In June 1999, after the first Scottish Parliament election, the price officially rose to (pounds) 62m but that was announced despite the fact that DLE had warned it stood at (pounds) 89m even after cutbacks.
Throughout this period the real figure was higher still because all the estimates excluded fees, VAT, landscaping, fittings and a range of other issues. By the time the (pounds) 62m figure was announced the total was nearer (pounds) 109m, when DLE would have put it at (pounds) 136m.
Asked why his advice had been repeatedly ignored, Mr Fisher said: ''The client was exercising his prerogative to do what he likes with the advice, but that prerogative carries risk.''
The Barcelona architectural practice run by Enric Miralles was appointed to design the building in July 1998 along with the Scottish firm RMJM but Mr Fisher said that there were ''tensions'' between the two firms.
He said of Mr Miralles: ''It is fair to say that he was less troubled by cost than would have been the case had RMJM been acting in isolation, given their knowledge of the UK industry.''
The inquiry QC responded: ''You are being very diplomatic, Mr Fisher. Did he pay any attention to price at all?''
Mr Fisher replied: ''Scant.''
Daily briefing
yesterday
Cost consultant Hugh Fisher was asked why civil servants ignored advice
''The client was exercising his prerogative to do what he likes with the advice, but that carries risk.''
Did Mr Miralles pay any attention to price? ''Scant.''
today
Robert Gordon, head of Scottish Office constitution group and then head of Scottish Executive secretariat.
David Boyle, director of Sir Robert McAlpine.
website
www.holyroodinquiry.org
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article