Chamber and committees

Before Antony comes in, I want to put another question to you. Given the complexity and diversity of the stakeholders that are involved, is it inevitable that funding will be fragmented? How could that situation be improved? It is not good that funding arrangements are “complex and fragmented” when you are trying to put together a strategy. Does the system have to change?

It is.

I will carry on the theme of funding. My next question is about transparency, which you raise in paragraph 17 of your report. Is it inevitable that transparency is difficult to exhibit when funding is so fragmented and there are so many stakeholders? Is the solution to the complexity of the funding also the solution to the transparency?

I will build on what the convener has been talking about. Over the past 11 years on the committee, I have seen a whole progression of ICT projects that have failed, or that have failed to deliver what was expected. In some cases, they were abandoned.

We have had responsible officers and accountable officers in front of us. We have heard assurances that there was an acceptance that accountable officers did not necessarily have the skills to manage those projects, and that, within the organisations, there was a lack of end-user understanding of how to interface with the technical experts who were building the programme. Again and again, that has created unwarranted optimism, followed by dismay, when what is delivered does not comply with what was sought.

Over a period of years, the response was for layers of management to be thrown in centrally. At one point, it was bewildering to try and understand which layer did what. I am assuming from what you are saying that that has now resolved itself somewhat, but I do not understand where the change is. We still have the accountable officers being accountable for the projects. The idea was that a central capacity would be created to provide those officers with support to help them identify providers and to help them, as end-users, to gain the skills that were necessary to ensure that the projects delivered what they were supposed to deliver.

We received all those assurances, but I am not clear from what you are saying whether they have actually been delivered. I would be interested to get a little more information on that.

Earlier, you said that you were expecting technical expertise to reside within the different areas, and the accountable officer would be able to access that expertise internally within his area.

Again and again, what has come to light is that there is not enough technical expertise in the market—there is a huge shortage. Scotland is not alone in that regard. The last estimate that I saw, which was several years ago, was a shortage of 300,000 of such people across Europe. That is a big number and those who are available are demanding salaries that are way above the normal scales. At one point, they were being paid off scale to try to get them in.

Is it realistic to expect that each area will be able to recruit, at some considerable expense, that sort of skill to enable them to build a system? Would it not make more sense for the skills to be available centrally to give that support in a rather more cohesive way?

I will move on to a slightly different topic. I am sorry—Jillian, do you want to come in?

We certainly hope that the situation will look a bit better.

If we look back at previous ICT projects that have failed, we can see that it is almost invariably the case that those are projects in which an NDPB has been involved. That has been the picture historically. How do you provide NDPBs with support? How do you ensure that they do not just go off on their own and create rubbish, which, in some cases, has happened in the past?

To go back to funding arrangements, your 2009 report says that such arrangements are “complex and fragmented”; the situation seems to be unchanged, according to your latest briefing. What is the impact on delivery of services because of those funding arrangements? How can the Scottish Government make improvements in that area?

Obviously, everybody is very concerned about the issue, which is a big issue for Scotland and something that we have to tackle. Can we take any comfort from the fact that fewer young Scots are using drugs and alcohol? I realise that, among older people, there has been an increase, but can we take some comfort from the fact that, among younger people who would be getting into drugs and alcohol for the first time, drug and alcohol use is reducing? Also, in the first nine months of 2021 versus 2020, there was a 4 per cent drop in the number of deaths. Is it too soon to think that that is a trend that is resulting from some of the initiatives that have been taken?

In our preparation for this evidence session, the committee struggled to identify a successful town centre regeneration that we can use as an example. Some towns have been mentioned in that regard, such as North Berwick and Peebles. However, I see them less as examples of successful regeneration and more as examples of towns in slightly wealthier areas that can sustain the sort of mixed town centre that is more attractive. Can you point us to any examples of successful town centre regeneration?