Seòmar agus comataidhean

Exactly. The corporate body was not given the complete project spend. That makes it difficult for the corporate body not to approve it, because it does not know how much it is going to be in total over several years.

Would the corporate body know that the overall cost of the website was more than £3 million or would it just be presented with comments such as, “This year it’s going to cost £100K and next year it’s going to cost £100K more”?

At that time, the corporate body would not have been aware of the overall cost of the project, and the finance committee would not have been aware of the overall cost of the project. It is like me going out to buy a car; I would not buy the wheels one year and the engine the next year—I need to know how much the car is going to cost.

There was a tender process for the resource that was going to be used for the project, but there was not a tender process for the overall project, so no one could know what the overall project was going to cost, although maybe somebody did.

No, but no elected members were ever told what the complete overall costs of this project were.

My question is not about the functionality of the website but about the project initiation process and governance. Was it an agreed project and who signed it off? Was the overall cost of the project budget approved and, if so, by whom? Was the scope of the project agreed and, if so, by whom? Were the timescales of the project agreed and, if so, by whom?

That is a complete failing. A project has been approved without people knowing its overall cost. It almost seems as though a framework agreement has been in place, which is more like a maintenance project for a website—just adding a bit more on every year. It did not go out to tender, so you did not know what the total cost was going to be—or maybe someone did—and you did not know what the scope would be because you had not drawn it up because there was no tender process. Am I wrong?

I will be brief, because I note that time has gotten away from us. I have a question about scrutiny and accountability. I imagine that the key recommendations that will come from the committee will include recommendations on whether we have a commissioner and on the role of Audit Scotland. Can you give an idea of what would the commissioner’s office would do most of the time? How many people are we talking about? How big a unit would it be?

The commissioner in Wales does not carry out an audit function such as that which is carried out by Audit Wales. I am trying to think what role Audit Scotland would play.

Finally, you have mentioned a road in Wales. Who would have carried out the function in relation to that road if there were no commissioner responsible for wellbeing?