Can you assure us that we are not likely to see another i6 project any time soon?

That would have to happen during a discussion about ICT, wouldn’t it, convener? [Laughter.]

You also note that there are a number of competing projects locally. I am sure that there are projects in all members’ constituencies that are competing for support and funding to tackle these issues. To what extent is that a problem that is preventing us from getting to where we need to be? I encounter it quite a lot in my area; groups are almost arguing with one another that they should be receiving financial support to deliver these services. There does not seem to be any clear way through this in relation to who delivers the best solution on the ground.

Yes—we will probably follow that up. Thanks very much to both of you.

Good morning, panel. I want to ask a couple of questions on progress with the technical assurance framework.

The witnesses are bound to recall the factors and key reasons for ICT projects failing in the past: project planning, the lack of application of quality-management processes and skills identification. Indeed, skills problems and the skills mix have always been problems. The committee felt that there were a number of issues that, over the years, have led to projects running over time and over budget. The i6 project, for example, was particularly bad in that respect. We saw how things tended to be rushed from the start, how projects were poorly defined and how too many changes were made along the way, all of which led to overruns. As I recall, the i6 project itself was abandoned altogether.

I wonder whether Geoff Huggins and Donny McGillivray can give us an overview of where we are now with all those issues. Have we captured the problems? Are the processes that we embraced and the various other frameworks in place and working towards successful delivery?

That is a really important point. I know from local experience that, during Covid in particular, when people were coming out of the criminal justice system, they were finding it difficult to access support services. If we can do anything to reinstate and recover that aspect of the service, that would contribute, at least in part, to turning things around.

My last question is about the governance aspect. Your report reminds us that

“The Scottish Government and COSLA agreed eight recommendations to improve the governance and accountability”

of various services, leading to the development of the partnership delivery framework for alcohol and drug partnerships. Could you say a wee bit more about how that has been progressing, please?

Thank you, convener. I hope that the videolink will survive the next five minutes or so.

Auditor General, I have a couple of questions on early intervention and prevention, and I will perhaps ask one on governance arrangements.

Over the years, I have worked with a number of drug and alcohol projects in my constituency. If the people there had one key ask, it was to have a flexible and quickly accessible service that they could call on to get help when they needed it. There has been good progress in reporting on this matter, certainly in my constituency. Do you recognise that as an issue that has popped up in your discussions and analysis? How does it fit in with the work that the Scottish Government is trying to do on early intervention? It seems to me to be a huge issue for the people in Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley. It is leading to more suicides than we would like to have, obviously. It is a serious issue. It has been raised with me several times that direct and fast access to help and support services is crucial.

Good morning. Can you say a little bit about how you engage with younger people? The information that we have suggests to us that few young people make complaints to the ombudsman. Is that the case? How would you make your complaints service more accessible to younger people, in particular?

I want to ask Rosemary Agnew about digital engagement. Is it still the case that people are supposed to contact the ombudsman in writing? I noticed in your report that, last year, I think, 67 per cent of complaints came in via your website form. Can you clarify the position? I know that the Local Government and Communities Committee in the previous session discussed whether complaints could be accepted online. Could you clarify the position for me?

Absolutely. We have found that, in a number of areas, digital engagement in many ways saved the day. It is good to hear that route to using the ombudsman service is opening up much more. Has that led to use of the service by groups of people that perhaps might not have done so before? We spoke about younger people earlier, but are there other groups of people you might expect to engage with the ombudsmen service that hitherto did not, and are you finding that they are doing so much more now because it is much easier to raise issues with you digitally?