Chamber and committees

I will begin on a positive note. You regularly come before the committee calling for public sector reform. One strand that many people identify with is the introduction of digital technology. The report is about how that is implemented and who is included in or excluded from that. Will you elaborate on why you think that digital technology is central to that public sector reform agenda? In your opening remarks, you mentioned some examples that are given in the report. Social Security Scotland is mentioned in particular. Can you say more about the examples that you have identified as good practice?

Before I bring in Colin Beattie, I will go back to exhibit 2, which looks at the human rights of people who are potentially affected by digital exclusion. It identifies examples of that, including blue badge holders; people not being able to access council tax reductions or their welfare benefits accounts; ethnic minority citizens not being able to access services that they are entitled to, because of language barriers; and welfare sanctions for people who cannot upload their journals online.

The report highlights that the application process for a blue badge is online only. How does that sit with the stated aims of COSLA and the Scottish Government on the lenses of inclusion and offering signposted alternatives? If the application process is exclusively online, it will, almost inevitably, exclude people who are entitled to a blue badge.

We are short of time, so we will move on to Colin Beattie to ask the next questions.

The Scottish Government’s strategy document says:

“We will ... ensure that all public services are designed through the lenses of inclusion, offering signposted alternative ways of accessing services for those who cannot or do not want to use digital routes”.

To what extent is that happening? You have mentioned the example of Near Me but, across the whole of the public sector and the provision of public services, how often are those services

“designed through the lenses of inclusion”?

Your report says that that has potential to make an unequal society more unequal. Paragraph 18 talks about the negative impacts. People who are digitally excluded are less likely to have access to information in general, are less likely to have access to the jobs market or to know about their children’s education and are less able to maximise their financial position because they cannot get access to things that would be cheaper if they could use that route. They can incur debts or have heightened social isolation. All those results compound inequalities, rather than addressing them.

The Government’s stated position in “A Changing Nation” is that

“We tackle poverty by sharing opportunities, wealth and power more equally.”

It does not seem to me that there is a lot of evidence of that.

Graham Simpson, did you want to come in briefly at this point?

I am keen to move things on. Our deputy convener has a number of questions to put to you. Over to you, Jamie.

Graham Simpson wants to pick up on some of those points and develop others.

It is pretty plain that no one wants a visit from you any time soon, is it not? Things have gone wrong if you are knocking on their door.

You have mentioned on the record your aspirations around where you want to be and by when. As Professor Alexander said, to some extent, our job is to challenge and scrutinise, and that is what we are trying to do this morning.

I will go to another area, which is the operating cost variances that we see in the report and accounts. Why, even though a substantial increase in budget for 2023-24 was sought in that budget—with regard to rent and rates, for example—do we see an underspend? Why, when a substantial increase in budget was sought this year in relation to travel and subsistence, do we see a significant underspend? Why, when a substantial increase was sought in relation to legal and professional fees, do we see a substantial underspend? Can you explain that?