Seòmar agus comataidhean

The witnesses have highlighted very well the administrative burden of bidding for public sector contracts, especially for SMEs and newer companies. Have initiatives such as the quick quote system had any impact on reducing red tape?

Yes—I would like to ask one more question if I could, thank you.

First, I have to question whether the nutritional value of food in schools has been improved under the rules and regulations.

Earlier, Colin, you alluded to the difference between procuring an information technology system, which might involve one supplier supplying a service worth tens of millions of pounds, and procuring from your members who are individual food producers, who must go through the processing of the food—sending it away or whatever. There has been lots of legislation on procurement since 2014, but I am not convinced that it has improved anything. Does the current framework allow for the difference between the big IT procurement stuff and having multiple suppliers for other things? Going back to food procurement specifically, it is just easier, from a local authority perspective, to have a single point, rather than having to procure lots of different local produce. That can be done—we have seen it being done in local authorities—but does the current framework perhaps struggle with it?

I will follow on from my colleague with a quick question on the subcontracting of big contracts. As Murdo Fraser alluded to, I have more than a passing interest in public procurement. I have heard that, in the construction industry, big companies win contracts and then subcontract out the work completely. All that they are really doing, therefore, is taking a margin off the top. The issue is about local authorities having one contract to deal with, rather than six or seven. Do we still have to address that?

We have added in square pizzas and round plates—who can see the problem there at all? [Laughter.]

You mentioned that we focus so much on price. The bottom line is that the way in which we produce food in this country, given the costs that are associated with that, even down to paying the living wage or above, means that looking at price as the only, or the main, objective puts our producers at a disadvantage. The whole-of-life cost could include the impact on the environment from reducing the number of miles from field to fork and the health impact of offering highly nutritious food in our schools and hospitals. We are not looking at that, are we?

Thank you—I will leave it there.

The cabinet secretary misses the fact that decisions that are made at Scotland level have consequences. What I am trying to get at here is that, if you invest less in business, you will have less money to invest in public services; in fact, if you invest less in those areas, you will require more investment in public services. You are talking about a long-term strategy, and you have talked very well today about Government targets. However, by cutting those particular agencies, you are giving yourself less opportunity to create the wealth that will generate enough tax take to put into public services. Again, where is the long-term strategy in the budget?

Outcomes are all that matter. I will leave it there.

The reality on the ground is that, because of decisions that the Scottish Government has made, the further education sector is screaming for more investment. The university sector now has to cut 1,200 places for Scottish students. Coming on the back of the Withers review, as well, how on earth does that help the Scottish economy? It is surely a false economy. If we are not creating equal opportunities for our Scottish students, how on earth will we continue to support a wellbeing economy?

Thank you. I will go down a similar route on the third sector. The choices that the Government is making and the squeeze on council budgets are giving our councils almost impossible decisions to make. For example, in my area I have been speaking to two third sector mental health organisations that are no longer funded and will therefore have to shut down. The people whom they support will still have to get treatment, which means that they will join an NHS queue.

That funding might have come out of the budget in the council’s ledger, but it will still come out of the Scottish Government’s budget in another portfolio. Do you acknowledge that those kinds of cuts are a false economy? I say to you again that it is short-term gain for long-term pain, and there is no real cross-portfolio working to tackle such issues.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. You will be aware of my interest in longer-term strategies and the prevention agenda. Following on from some of the earlier questions, I want to dig a little bit into the cost to enterprise agencies and the SNIB and the fact that there is no allocation to the flexible workforce development fund. That will, inevitably, lead to less investment and less support to establish and grow companies, which, in the long term, will lead to a reduced tax take and less money in future budgets. Where is the long-term economic strategy in the current budget?