Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is maybe just a wee gap somewhere, where we could do a bit more. I am a committee substitute today, so I am a mere passenger, but I found that to be of particular interest, and maybe there is something that we could do to address that aspect.

Does that get followed up? I can give you a direct example of where such things do get followed up in the Scottish public sector. If someone applies for a job with Social Security Scotland, that is done mostly online and, if the person gets part of the way through the process and does not submit their application, there is a back channel by which, as long as the individual has provided some form of contact, Social Security Scotland will reach out to them, saying, “We see you were thinking about applying to Social Security Scotland but you didn’t complete the application. Is there any way we can support you to do that?” Is there any follow-up when a final bid does not come in but you know that a business was considering one?

I listened keenly to the discussion about the success in increasing the number of Scottish suppliers in recent years. However, businesses and third sector representatives have noted that unsuccessful bidders—those that are not among the 60 per cent of Scotland Excel’s suppliers that are Scottish—do not always get meaningful feedback. That can discourage small firms, in particular, from engaging in future procurement processes. How effective are current feedback procedures, and what barriers exist to providing more useful feedback more often? I am not sure which of the witnesses would like to address that question.

That is a human resource issue, potentially.

My question is for Mary Mitchell, who mentioned social and environmental impacts. I sit on the Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and we are considering the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill. One of the proposals to amend the bill relates to procurement, human-rights due diligence and environmental impact in global supply chains. Was your comment about trying to future proof other legislation that might emit from other committees in the Parliament?

That is helpful. Of course, one way in which small businesses can grow is by being successful in winning some of the smaller awards that they are not entitled to get feedback on currently because of the award threshold—you have to draw a line somewhere—or because of a human resource issue.

What are the outcomes of that? Does the Government or Scotland Excel map the attrition rate or the reapplication rate of smaller businesses that apply in one financial year but do not apply in the next two or three financial years because they have never won a contract? Maybe they reapply if they get feedback. If the reason for feedback is to encourage businesses—particularly those that are based in Scotland—to reapply, how do we map that? How successful is feedback in getting businesses to reapply?

I think that Mr Cook wants to come in.

I am not trying to imply a criticism; there may just be a gap. If businesses are bidding for contracts that are below £50,000 or £2 million, there is no formal or structured feedback process. That is just a fact. I am not reading anything into that—there are reasons for that. However, if businesses cannot be given individual feedback, has any effort been made to consider whether they can be brought together in clusters of, say, 15 or 20 for support to be given to them more generally, to encourage them? We want smaller businesses to feel encouraged; we do not want them to be disillusioned. Let us say that a business has applied twice but has not won a bid. We do not want it to be wondering what the point of applying in the future is. It will not grow, innovate or learn without feedback. What support is available for it?

Thank you, convener.

This has been an interesting evidence session, and I have been listening carefully. Mr Boyle, you mentioned potential issues in relation to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. I was not going to follow up on that, but you made an interesting point about the fact that nations and regions are going at different paces, which might lead to what some might call divergence and others might call taking leadership in relation to tackling some of the issues that we face. It would be helpful if you could place on the record your reflections on the potential risks in that regard, given that that act now exists.

I might not get a chance to come back in, so I will ask another question, which concerns certainty about the capital expenditure that is required in the long term. In other committees, we always talk about multiyear budgets and certainty in investment. If nations and regions go at different paces and Westminster sets different capital budgets, with relevant Barnett consequentials, is that a significant risk to delivering on net zero ambitions?

Just a brief one. Cabinet secretary, what is the National Smart Ticketing Advisory Board’s strategic role in relation to transport authorities across Scotland? Perhaps it will use some of the new powers in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 and the subordinate legislation under it, which I understand is now live. I imagine that the interoperability of smart ticketing would be essential were some of the regional transport authorities to use the powers in the 2019 act.

I have no issue with that, convener. We should draw attention to the good work of the DPLR Committee, which has done its job well.