Chamber and committees

Good morning. I will touch on a couple of themes that have been peripherally discussed already. I am interested in the complexity that arises from Government accountability versus subsidiarity. The unwise or uneducated might say that it must be this or that, because they do not recognise the complexity. I will give an example.

As we know, there are many areas of critical change over which the Scottish Government has no say—fiscal and monetary levers and so on. It is on the record that the Scottish Government is trying to do something about child poverty through the Scottish child payment, but that that is clawed back via another route by the United Kingdom Government. My concern about that is not just from a political perspective but from an accountability perspective, because the Scottish Government is accountable for all these outcomes but does not have the control and the power to deliver on them.

I would appreciate the witnesses’ thoughts about that complexity, how we can start to square it off and the examples that I have read in your submissions about what you have seen of that happening elsewhere—in Ireland and Wales in particular, with regard to soft and hard powers, as Dr French put it in his submission.

Perhaps you could flesh out some of the complexities, because it strikes me that saying that it is this or that is too simple. I ask Jennifer Wallace to come in first, given that she has been looking at me and nodding, which I have taken as agreement.

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

I do not disagree with what you are saying. I am simply saying that, based on my experience, that is an area in using agile methodologies where costs can be incurred, because you have a multilayering effect. Again, I am very much aware of that from a risk perspective as a former IT project manager—many years ago, I have to concede.

I turn to my last question. In the typical project continuum, you always have a trade-off between cost, time and quality. I would like an honest reflection—perhaps from all of you—on those areas. What did you trade: time, cost or quality? Knowing what you know now, what would you trade? If anyone says that time, cost and quality were all of an equally high standard, I note that all the evidence tells us that that is never the case for IT projects.

I will start with Jackson Carlaw, although I appreciate that he will need to bring his staff in.

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.

Thank you for that. You have given us a lot of the “what”, but the “how” will be the challenge.

E-commerce, its enablers and the skills that are needed will be a big topic in the committee’s inquiry, and I suspect that other committee members will come in on that subject.

I will finish off the piece about women-led businesses. In addition to the areas that we have already highlighted, given that this is a generic inquiry into town centres, my second question is: do you have any other ideas about what we need to do to put women-led businesses at the heart of town centre redevelopment? I appreciate that that is a hard question, given that that is not your specialism, but I would like to hear other ideas before we move on.

I will pick up on some of the general themes. You will appreciate that the inquiry is wide ranging, and I know that you listened to the earlier panel. One of our challenges is to produce recommendations that add real resonance and meaning. So, based on the earlier session, which I know that you listened to, and this one, what two top areas can you pick out in which we should recommend that something be done? That is rather generic, but the area is so wide ranging that it would help us pull it all together if we could get a couple of thoughts from off the top of your head. If we did one or two things, what should they be?

I would like everyone to answer that. Neil Francis, you are smiling, so I will come to you first.