Rising Holyrood cost 'hidden'

Bill Armstrong talked of official and unofficial budgets

The inquiry into the Scottish Parliament project has heard how senior civil servants failed to reveal significant increases in the cost.

Bill Armstrong, the former Holyrood project manager, said there was an official budget of £50m and a rapidly rising unofficial budget which was not publicised.

The current construction bill for the building in Edinburgh has been put at £401m, compared to its original estimate in the devolution white paper of £40m.

Increases began to show once the designer, Enric Miralles, was selected and the amount of accommodation was adjusted.

We were disappointed about the competition, we thought it a design competition, but it was a competition to select a designer or design team Sebastian Tombs RIAS

However, Mr Armstrong, who resigned from the Holyrood project in frustration at delays in it, told the inquiry that these cost rises were concealed.

He was asked what the budget was in October 1998, 13 months after the referendum on devolved government for Scotland.

Officially, he said, it was put at £50m, but unofficially it was almost £57m and by November it was £74m.

Mr Armstrong said senior civil servants instructed him not to reveal the increase.

When MSPs voted seven months later to continue the project, the cost was put at £63m.

Mr Armstrong also said that he voted Catalan architect Mr Miralles 44th out of 70 candidates to win the design contract.

He said he could not believe it when Mr Miralles was eventually appointed.

Competition concerns

Referring to documents showing that the architect's insurance cover had expired, Mr Armstrong said that if he had known that, he would have placed Mr Miralles at number 70 on the list.

Prior to Mr Armstrong's evidence, the inquiry heard that an architects' body voiced worries about the competition to pick the Holyrood project's designer.

It was feared that Scottish companies would be at a disadvantage.

Sebastian Tombs, secretary and chief executive of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS), said: "We were disappointed about the competition, we thought it a design competition, but it was a competition to select a designer or design team.

The building was designed by Enric Miralles

"We wanted to see the best design come through, picking the best designer was a different thing.

"Such criteria would limit the numbers to a few international practices, the field would be constrained in terms of Scottish architects and it was less likely to be a ground breaking piece of architecture."

Mr Tombs said he did not recognise the process as a competition, but rather a "competitive interview process".

A combination of professional architects and lay people formed a panel which was led by the late Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar.

It was tasked with selecting a designer who would produce the blueprint for the parliament building.

The inquiry was told that after Labour's landslide victory at Westminster in 1997, Mr Dewar was keen to have the new building up and running before a predicted 2002 general election.

'Opening date'

The architect said the timescale appeared to be a political issue and the project was being driven by the secretary of state.

Mr Tombs added: "Mr Dewar wanted the building in place before the next general election, which was predicted to be in spring 2002. It was suggested an opening date of autumn 2001.

"Our view at the time was that Labour having had a landslide victory and being appointed the secretary of state, Donald Dewar, was in a very powerful position indeed to make such demands."

During reflections on what had gone on, Mr Tombs said that if time and budget had been the main reasons for the building then "quality might be sacrificed on the temple of time".

The Holyrood Inquiry is being heard by Tory peer Lord Fraser of Carmyllie at the Scottish Land Court in Edinburgh.

Witnesses will continue to give evidence into the New Year, after which Lord Fraser will deliver his conclusions to the Scottish Executive.