Seòmar agus comataidhean

During this discussion we have been talking about various initiatives. There has been discussion about the need for incentives and about business rates and the potential need for rates relief to provide support. There has been talk about online retailers and levelling of the playing field by bringing in a digital sales tax, potentially.

Noting all that, and considering the people who have been putting forward and driving those initiatives, can they survive in the long term without a public subsidy to support them in some form?

I was talking about long-term subsidy.

The committee has heard repeatedly that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to supporting our town centres. It has also been said repeatedly that, in order to succeed, we need to successfully bring together local communities and businesses. We have asked for examples of that—even just one—that stand out as a success, but no one has been able to point to any. Do the witnesses have any examples of effective collaboration between the public, private and third sectors and local communities that has achieved a success story in a town centre?

During the various committee meetings, and from the information that we have received from witnesses—including yourselves—I have been struck by the fact that both local and national Government need to provide some financial support, certainly in the initial stages. There is talk about the need for business rate relief and about evening up the competition between online providers and local providers by bringing in a digital sales tax. To what extent are the models that we are looking at dependent, in the long term, on some form of external subsidy? Is there a point at which businesses become self-sustaining and are there milestones leading to that?

Not necessarily, but maybe Kirkcaldy. I do not know.

To go back to funding arrangements, your 2009 report says that such arrangements are “complex and fragmented”; the situation seems to be unchanged, according to your latest briefing. What is the impact on delivery of services because of those funding arrangements? How can the Scottish Government make improvements in that area?

Obviously, everybody is very concerned about the issue, which is a big issue for Scotland and something that we have to tackle. Can we take any comfort from the fact that fewer young Scots are using drugs and alcohol? I realise that, among older people, there has been an increase, but can we take some comfort from the fact that, among younger people who would be getting into drugs and alcohol for the first time, drug and alcohol use is reducing? Also, in the first nine months of 2021 versus 2020, there was a 4 per cent drop in the number of deaths. Is it too soon to think that that is a trend that is resulting from some of the initiatives that have been taken?

It is.

I will carry on the theme of funding. My next question is about transparency, which you raise in paragraph 17 of your report. Is it inevitable that transparency is difficult to exhibit when funding is so fragmented and there are so many stakeholders? Is the solution to the complexity of the funding also the solution to the transparency?

In view of the time, I will pass back to the convener.

I will build on what the convener has been talking about. Over the past 11 years on the committee, I have seen a whole progression of ICT projects that have failed, or that have failed to deliver what was expected. In some cases, they were abandoned.

We have had responsible officers and accountable officers in front of us. We have heard assurances that there was an acceptance that accountable officers did not necessarily have the skills to manage those projects, and that, within the organisations, there was a lack of end-user understanding of how to interface with the technical experts who were building the programme. Again and again, that has created unwarranted optimism, followed by dismay, when what is delivered does not comply with what was sought.

Over a period of years, the response was for layers of management to be thrown in centrally. At one point, it was bewildering to try and understand which layer did what. I am assuming from what you are saying that that has now resolved itself somewhat, but I do not understand where the change is. We still have the accountable officers being accountable for the projects. The idea was that a central capacity would be created to provide those officers with support to help them identify providers and to help them, as end-users, to gain the skills that were necessary to ensure that the projects delivered what they were supposed to deliver.

We received all those assurances, but I am not clear from what you are saying whether they have actually been delivered. I would be interested to get a little more information on that.