The loss of more than £21m. for no discernible benefit clearly angered many deputies, not least Neil Inder, who was quick to ask if P&R vice-president Gavin St Pier, who delivered the update, would accept any responsibility ‘for the mess we’re in’.
‘The contract was where the rot started,’ he said.
And why would this assembly have confidence that he is the deputy that will get us out of this mess?’
Deputy St Pier admitted that the decision to outsource IT to a contractor had been agreed by his committee on advice of officers after an extensive two-year process.
‘What is quite clear from what’s emerging from this report are the failures in the implementation and oversight of that contract is that the States was a very poor customer,’ he said.
Deputy Lee Van Katwyk was also seeking political accountability, but Deputy St Pier said there was ‘failure at all levels’.
Deputy Andy Cameron wanted to know if P&R would be examining minutes and decisions of previous Policy & Resources Committees to gain a better understanding of why warning signs were not acted on.
Deputy St Pier accepted he had a point, but questioned the validity of the exercise beyond ‘some form of blood-letting in relation to actions that were taken or not taken at an appropriate time’.
‘There is enough, we believe, that has been unveiled by the chief executive’s work that will enable improvements which are needed.’
Deputy Adrian Gabriel said that massive failure demanded an ‘absolutely massive response’ but asked how a ‘super tanker’ like the civil service could be turned around and what impact chief executive Boley Smillie could have.
Deputy St Pier said that P&R would be holding Mr Smillie to account on delivering change. ‘It’s very clear what has been proposed, what the task is and what needs to be delivered.’
Deputy Sally Rochester was one of many concerned about the realism needed about capability and capacity within the public sector, and was especially keen to see Mr Smillie’s efforts properly backed with the required resources.
‘The committee is unambiguously supportive of the chief executive, and therefore there is clearly going to be an ongoing dialogue as to what he regards to be necessary to affect the change which he wishes to lead, and in seeking to do so, he will have our support,’ said Deputy St Pier.
He also accepted, in response to several questions, that there would be a time and a place to rely on expert external consultants to ensure that projects progressed properly.
Deputy St Pier said he was aware of a propensity to take staff from ‘very full day jobs’ and then expect them, as non-experts who have never delivered a project, to lead and be responsible for the delivery of a major, multi-faceted, multi-year programmes.
‘Ensuring that we have the appropriate support for the execution the capital program is a key part of a part of what needs to change,’ he said.
John Gollop was also concerned about the political role in shaping not only the chief executive’s review, but also future projects of this scale and holding them to account.
Deputy St Pier referenced the forthcoming major capital portfolio debate and said P&R was committed to keeping the wider States updated on the progress of projects with enhanced reporting.
Deputy St Pier also made mention about progress or lack of it on other IT projects, including Revenue Service transformation and the delayed delivery of the Electronic Patient Record system.
‘It is not confined to one project, and that’s why systemic issue, systemic challenge, requires systemic change,’ he said.
Deputy Haley Camp was among deputies who picked up on the quality of the original contract with Agilisys.
‘I’m picking up some strong suggestions that the contract wasn’t really worth the paper it was written on from the outset, and yet we seem to be avoiding discussion around the failure to ensure the contract was focused meaningful and deliverable, instead of focusing on the way that the contract was then managed,’ she said.
She asked if the contract was ever even deliverable and whether the States could ensure that future contracts were focused and deliverable.
‘The political direction and ambition that was set in the policy letter in 2019 was a valid set of political decisions by P&R and the States at the time,’ said Deputy St Pier.
‘Clearly, the capacity of the state and of the public service to deliver on that contract as an intelligent client was clearly a major flaw, and that was a flaw from the outset that was not understood and recognised at the time, which has ultimately led to the failures.’
You need to be logged in to comment.