���˿���

I am entirely familiar with everything that you said, and I have no doubt that it is happening. However, given today’s session and the concerns that have come out of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, it is clear that there has been a mismatch. It is that mismatch that I am pulling out. If it were me, I would be looking carefully at avoiding that mismatch happening again. However, I want to move on, because I know that every colleague wants to come in.

I will pick up on a comment that Daniel Johnson made. I would not necessarily agree about the methodology that is used for projects. We know that the world has moved on from waterfall projects. However, where we have an agile methodology—which is of course sold by the IT consultants as much more flexible—it can often mean that we have increased costs. We are developing multiple prototypes and so costs can mount in that area. The fact that we do not have to do a big, huge analysis project up front, which is then out of date, is sold as a benefit.

I am not entirely sure what fits in where. However, looking at the figures, I notice that—[Interruption.].

My thing has just died, so I have to log in again. I may be able to quote the figures in a minute. However, between the alpha and beta phases, quite a number of prototypes were clearly going on. It looks to me like a disproportionately high number of prototypes, which could even suggest that different personnel were coming in and going out. The whole point of agile methodology is that you develop a prototype and test it and that it is iterative as compared to the old waterfall approach. Perhaps Alan Balharrie will give us more context on that.

However, knowing what you know now, will you ask in future about what is being traded in relation to time, cost and quality?

To follow on from a couple of earlier points, I have a question for Jackson Carlaw. I appreciate that the corporate body sits at accountability level and that a multitude of projects are going on, as Michelle Hegarty set out. However, given what we know now, it is fair to say that the cost of development of the new Parliament website has at least raised some eyebrows and caused some interest. What recommendations will you be looking to put in place on how the corporate body can fulfil its accountability responsibilities more carefully? I am sure that you have reflected on that.

That is not quite an answer to the question that I asked, but I will let it go in order to let other members come in.

My last question, the subject of which we have been dancing around, references the concept of agency. We have alluded to top-down structures and to bodies taking ownership in different ways, but we can think about the matter from a bottom-up perspective. Going back to what Jennifer Wallace said about subsidiarity, rather than thinking about the very bottom of the triangle and the person in the street, how would you go about ensuring that agency is instilled in every touch point of the national performance framework? I am thinking about the issue from a completely different perspective; we have not used the word “agency” in the evidence session today, but it is jumping out at me.

I can see that you are all thinking about that. Who wants to go first?

Does anyone have any last wee comments or anything to add on that?

Good morning everyone, and thank you for your submissions, which give the committee extra pause for thought. That may take us to what I see as the heart of the issue: we are trying to do something complex with multiple stakeholders, financial challenges and historical precedent.

The SPF’s submission correctly talks about the need for

“a clear vision of what a resilient town centre is”

and distinguishes between town and city. It talks a lot about Glasgow and Edinburgh. I would like each panellist to frame their vision of a resilient town centre, perhaps adding some colour and flavour to that and saying not only what it is and what it looks like but what it feels like for the disparate range of people who might use it. We should take cognisance of disabilities such as blindness, and we have heard comments about women who work in retail not feeling safe in town centres. I might be asking that deliberately because our panellists are all men. Forgive me for that.

I would like you to set out what you a resilient town centre looks like. I am sure that our session will then lead on to the problems of getting to that vision, and I will let others pick that up. Stephen Lewis, would you like to go first, as I have referred to your submission?

I have a couple of comments. The committee has dealt favourably with the issue and is committed to receiving regular updates from Registers of Scotland. I agree with Fiona Hyslop’s comment about the seriousness of such issues, should they arise, and the impact that they have on people. That is not the same as wholesale problems happening at scale, which seems not to be the situation.

Therefore, I am in favour of closing the petition, but I am also strongly in favour of keeping a focus on the issue through regular attendance by Registers of Scotland at the committee. That is important.

Thank you for that additional insight. I suspect that one of my colleagues will want to pick up on that, because it is an interesting thread. Does Adrian Watson have anything to add to what has been covered so far?

That is okay.