Leaders: True value may lie in a wider view of public spending

Published on Monday 6 February 2012 00:00

IF A GOVERNMENT department was spending £9 billion a year and yet was unable to say what benefit taxpayers received from this spending, an outcry and ministerial resignations would follow.

Though the parallel is not entirely apposite, it nonetheless appears to be the case that the Scottish Government has little idea what economic benefit flows from its annual £9bn spend on buying everything from new roads and buildings to school books and paper clips.

The Jimmy Reid Foundation, named after the legendary Clydeside trade unionist, thinks much more attention should be paid to using this huge annual spend to achieve more than just, say, the provision of a new school, by ensuring that more Scottish companies receive the work. This would help these companies to grow and by such things as demanding that workforce training be included, to become better equipped to win more contracts.

There is much to applaud in the foundation’s report. Small companies regularly complain that they find it hard to win public contracts, often because they are simply too large for them to cope with. Against that, Scottish governments of all hues have tried to make it easier for small firms to compete. But one of the report’s valuable insights is that the statistics which say small firms are winning about three-quarters of public contracts may be misleading.

Nevertheless, it would also be wrong to rush to adopt the foundation’s proposals. For the past decade, ministerial and public pressure has been to reduce the cost of public works. Aggregating small contracts from different public authorities and agencies into larger ones, such as the supply of computers, often result in savings to the taxpayer.

The question the report proposes is essentially whether the definition of “value for money” should be extended beyond simple monetary value to include a wider definition of economic benefit. This poses a dilemma, most clearly in the case of Scottish Water, which has contracted with a multi- national, non-Scottish consortium to deliver major infrastructure work.

The report notes this has entailed Scottish Water getting rid of its staff dealing with infrastructure design, research, development and procurement, resulting in a loss of these skills to the Scottish economy. But Scottish Water says this has made procurement cheaper, resulting in lower customer water bills. What would be the public’s preference – a more highly-skilled state-owned water company, or for cheaper bills?

The report is also mainly a statistical one and ignores some of the cultural issues that affect procurement. One reason contracts go to larger firms is that public officials believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is less chance of a contract going wrong, for which they would be blamed. This risk-averse culture may be one of the biggest barriers to small firm procurement success. But if the report generates clarification of these issues, it will have done its job.

Salmond’s anger at BBC not sporting

First Minister Alex Salmond must have been delighted when BBC Sport invited him to have an on-air pre-Calcutta Cup chat about the rugby. He sweetly assured the programme’s producers he would make no political points at all. But then the BBC’s political adviser ruled that given the political sensitivities of Mr Salmond now leading a campaign to persuade Scots they should split from their English neighbours, it would be wise to disinvite the Scottish National Party’s leader.

Mr Salmond was entitled to be annoyed, but his bombastic denunciation of the BBC behaving like Gauleiters – Nazi officials – in thrall to Downing Street is quite preposterous. It only serves to add weight to those opposition politicians who denounce him as a bully when he does not get his own way. The BBC disinvitation was clumsy, but it was the right decision.

There is a reason that politicians like to appear on non-political programmes, be they about gardening or on sporting occasions. It allows them to show their faces to audiences they might not otherwise reach, to persuade these viewers that they have a sympathy with whatever interest is being broadcast and thereby sends a subliminal message that perhaps this politician deserves a vote.

Mr Salmond is loud with his football affections for that very reason and this broadcast would have allowed him to reach followers of rugby, a game with which he has no deep affiliations and whose supporters are not noted for their political nationalism.

The real complaint against the BBC is that it was naive enough to invite him in the first place.

Hats off to Her Majesty

Today, exactly 60 years ago, the Queen came to the throne following the death of her father, George VI. As with her coronation, official celebrations of this, her diamond jubilee, will now take place until later this year, in June.

Some will contend that, in these modern times, the monarchy is an expensive anachronism that the country cannot afford. Others may wish that the Queen, rather than elected politicians, had more of a hand in running the country. But these are minorities; the vast majority of British citizens will be happy to mark her 60 years as head of the British state and the Commonwealth.

Through those six decades, the Queen has become a highly valued symbol of stability and continuity amid rapid change. Royal processions and events remind everyone that modern-day Britain has ancient roots, a fact which goes some way to explain why the British display remarkable resilience in the face of adversity.

Throughout some tumultuous times, the Queen has remained a steady presence. She has become the embodiment of the recently repopularised wartime advice to “keep calm, and carry on”. Few, surely, would disagree with Prime Minister David Cameron in thanking her for guiding the nation with dignity and quiet authority.

Comments

There are 3 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

3

christelijk_recht

Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 06:28 AM

Comment removed by moderator

2

mogatrons

Monday, February 6, 2012 at 08:15 PM

Alex Salmond is likened to Robert Mugabe by the leading BBC political interviewer on national television...-... no apology from the BBC, nor, tellingly, no criticism from the Scotsman and the MSM in general. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Alex Salmond is pulled from an apolitical national sporting broadcast, despite his position as First Minister, and despite historical precedent of UK leaders and political leaders appearing on the BBC at national sporting events.....because of distant council elections.......no, wait,....because people are discussing Scottish independance......no wait........because we're the Beeb and we're doing the business of the pro unionists cause..........and yes, we are Gauleiters : (def) : a person in a position of petty or local authority who behaves in an overbearing authoritarian manner KEEP UP THE UNIONIST HYPOCRISY......IT EXPOSES YOUR BIAS AND LACK OF REASON.......AND STRENGHTENS SUPPORT FOR INDEPENDANCE.!!

• Report Unsuitable

1

NO To Scottish Independence

Monday, February 6, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Comment removed by moderator

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.