Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was the clarity that witnesses wanted, so they will welcome that. Convener, my other questions are not related to this theme, and I do not know whether there is any time for them.

We will have to reflect on that. Given what you have just said, secondary legislation might be the most appropriate vehicle. Can you confirm the level of parliamentary scrutiny for secondary legislation? Will negative, affirmative or superaffirmative procedure be used, given that the provisions might not be in the bill?

Okay, you can let—

I am not really that bothered, cabinet secretary, but if you can write to us just to confirm, that would be helpful.

We heard that there could be a little uncertainty in relation to the appeal routes for recovery of Social Security Scotland and DWP benefits. There was an understanding that there could be a separate Scottish system, as opposed to a partnership agreement or an agency agreement with DWP. It would be helpful if you could clarify what that process will look like and whether you intend to have a partnership or agency agreement or do otherwise.

Can I just check the facts, for completeness? I understand that resources are an issue, convener, as is providing detailed feedback for everyone. However, a sample exercise could quite easily be done on, say, 50 or 100 unsuccessful bidders—I apologise; I do not know what an appropriate number would be—over a period of time in order to find out whether they reapply. Some kind of data analysis could be done. What I was asking is whether that has been considered. If not, would it be considered?

I find that encouraging. I am not part of these deliberations, but I would just say that, as the committee concludes this particular post-legislative scrutiny, I am sensing a frustration that, in the committees that I sit on, we are always thinking about what is next, rather than the good work that has taken place up to this date. However, that is just what politicians do.

You have mentioned burdens on businesses. I get that, but we also have to think about what the right thing to do is and to support businesses in doing it, instead of using terms such as “burdens on businesses”. If we are to have a proper partnership across portfolios, we have to enable businesses to see the value in doing the right thing, instead of our talking about it in terms of burdens. Maybe the language has to be changed a little bit.

I have another question. We know that public bodies report annually on all this, and we know that there are strategies, but the committee has heard that, quite often, there is an inconsistency in the way in which the aims contained in those reports and strategies are linked to outcomes in reality. I did not know—though I do now—that there was an annual synthesis report that pulls together some of that stuff. Does the minister recognise those inconsistencies? What efforts have been made to address them?

Is my point about aims in strategies and reports not necessarily being linked to actual outcomes something that the Government is aware of? The committee will want to know whether that is a systemic or an anecdotal thing. How real is it?

I am sure that the committee would welcome further details of that in writing. I do not want to take up more of the committee’s time with this line of questioning, but there is a tension between there being a definition and there being flexibility and the definition being interpreted differently by public bodies. I do not want to make something of something that is not there, so some clarity through correspondence might be quite helpful.

I will do so very briefly, if that is okay, convener.

Previously, I was a substitute on the committee when a similar line of questioning was being posed to other witnesses. Could we get confirmation that all bidders are definitely entitled to receive feedback, not just for bids that are of more than a certain value? That is my first question, but I will roll them together for brevity, if that is helpful.

Secondly, I remember asking at a previous committee meeting whether any monitoring of unsuccessful bidders is done and whether a lack of feedback on their lack of success deters them from making future applications. My understanding is that no monitoring has been done on that. Is Government aware of that, or will it consider analysing the information in order to see whether more needs to be done? An unsuccessful bidder can still build the expertise to allow them to bid successfully in the future.