Chamber and committees

Thank you. We will certainly discuss that in private.

Thank you for your helpful opening statement. Committee members have great interest in the issue, so I will restrict myself and will try not to ask myriad questions. However, obviously, I will kick off with a few.

The committee has a focus on a couple of areas, one of which is our scrutiny function and how the website relates to that. The cost itself is, of course, also a major issue for us. I do not pretend to be an expert on websites either, but, as you said, simply Googling websites shows that you can buy one for just a few hundred pounds. We realise that this is a complex organisation, but, again, I understand that, for major organisations, the cost of introducing a website is considerably less than what the Scottish Parliament appears to have paid—by a number of zeros. The timescale for developing it is also a matter of concern.

The committee was sent a list of the cost of other websites, including, for example, those of various UK Government departments. The cost varies from £14,000 to millions of pounds. However, we do not know whether we are comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges because we have not been provided with a great amount of detail.

The Parliament’s project began in 2017, with cost and delivery spanning subsequent years until 2021. However, no specific costs are provided against the web project for each year. I am keen to find out why that is.

A response from the Presiding Officer states that

“The web project budget was put forward by the Digital Strategy Board, as part of the overall project portfolio bid which comprises part of the SPCB’s annual budget bid from 2017/18. SPCB approves the Parliament annual budget bid and its indicative bid for the next financial year”,

as we know. However, we are also advised that

“Officials have also recognised the need to provide increased detail on major multi-year project costs as part of the annual budgeting process to the SPCB and Finance and Public Administration Committee.”

Therefore, the obvious question is why the committee was not previously provided with that detail. When did the realisation dawn that we should receive that detailed information? When did SPCB members become aware of the on-going costs of the project? I have heard a number of views that they were not necessarily au fait with the details.

Okay. Having covered the issues of costs and scrutiny, I will cover one other issue, which is quality. My question relates to a comment that Alan Balharrie made earlier. We had the referendum in September 1997 to set up this Parliament, and 20 months later, the Parliament was established. It had a functioning website that served us for many years. I recall that there were many IT problems—for example, our email inboxes only had a capacity of 50 megabytes, and there were other issues—but I do not remember many difficulties with the website.

I think that we all accept that we have to evolve, because more than 20 years have elapsed. There have been some upgrades, but this was a mega one. When Michelle Thomson talked about the trade-offs between time, cost and quality, Alan Balharrie said that we had to give a little on the quality. Surely if you take more than three years to develop a project, and spend more than £3 million, you should not have to concede anything on quality. Where have we conceded on that quality?

My final question before I open questions up to committee members is to Ms Wallace.

We were in Dundee last week. Although there was a lot of enthusiasm there for the NPF, one individual said to me that the problem that they had with it was that it was yet another series of things that Government expected them to do. We spend a lot of time having meetings and we have this and that set of objectives. They can be overlapping and not quite contradictory, but a huge amount of energy is taken up in asking what we prioritise. How do we cut through the Gordian knot of all the different objectives that have been given to local authorities and other organisations so that people can see more clearly and help effectively to progress the aims of the NPF?

The next item is to take evidence on the Scottish Parliament’s website as part of our scrutiny of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body’s budget.

We are joined today by Jackson Carlaw MSP, member of the SPCB. He is accompanied by Scottish Parliament officials Michelle Hegarty, deputy chief executive; Alan Balharrie, group head of digital services; and Susan Duffy, group head of engagement and communications. Good morning and welcome to the meeting. I invite Mr Carlaw to make some opening remarks.

I am impressed by your enthusiasm for change and innovation. You touched on the outcomes in the national performance framework. Over lunch, we will be hearing from Government officials about the NPF. On 24 February, you said to the Public Audit Committee:

“We want to build on the national performance framework and integrate it with our accounts to give us a good record of how delivery is translating into outcomes.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 24 February 2022; c 12.]

Where are we on that pathway?

Well, clearly, you are at odds with the committee—which represents four political parties—on this issue. I know that colleagues want to explore that matter in greater detail, so I will allow them to do so.

I have one more question—Lesley Fraser was here last week, and I am sure that she can guess what I am going to ask. Mr Swinney said:

“the permanent secretary is not an individual; they are an office holder.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 26 April 2022; c 7.]

Do you agree with that?

Thank you for that clarification. Colleagues are champing at the bit, so I will open out the session. I will go first to Daniel Johnson.

On that note, I will end the meeting, which has been long. I appreciate the permanent secretary’s responses to the committee’s questions. We will continue to explore issues relating to public administration in government.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. The next item, which is consideration of appointments and reappointments to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, will be in private.

Thank you for that and for your earlier response. I will open up the session to colleagues round the table. The first person to ask questions will be John Mason, to be followed by Daniel Johnson.