Good morning, and welcome to the 12th meeting of 2024 of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. I have received apologies from Gordon MacDonald and Colin Smith this morning, and Bob Doris is attending as committee substitute for Gordon MacDonald. Murdo Fraser has also been delayed and is expected to join us during the course of the meeting. So our first item of business is the final evidence session of the committee's post-legislative scrutiny of the procurement reform Scotland at 2014. I welcome Tom Arthur, Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, who is joined by Graham Cooke, Head of Procurement Services and Nicky Archer, Head of Procurement and Commercial Policy from the Scottish Government. I invite the minister to make a short opening statement. Thank you, convener. Good morning to the committee and thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you this morning. It seems clear that there is agreement on the importance of public procurement in Scotland, the role that public procurement plays in delivering sustainable economic growth, as well as the big steps that are already taken to improve the way that the public sector buys goods, works and services. The act was intended to be powerful, placing sustainability and wellbeing at the heart of procurement activity, as well as being proportionate. It places a small number of general duties on public bodies and some specific measures aimed at promoting good, transparent and consistent practice. It has led to a range of measures to make procurement opportunities more accessible to SMEs, third sector bodies and supported businesses. We include advertising opportunities through Public Contract Scotland, dividing contracts into lots, subcontracting opportunities through the supply chain and supplier development activities. We deliberately built on the legislative framework developing business-friendly, easy-to-access training, guidance and support for businesses of all sizes. The results are demonstrated through the Scottish Minister's annual report on procurement activity that we just published this week. For example, out of the £16 billion Scottish public sector procurement spend, 56 per cent went to Scottish businesses, 55 per cent to Scottish SMEs, providing £7.5 billion to the Scottish GDP, along with 130,000 full-time equivalent jobs. We actively undertake research and engagement and then seek industry, public sector, third sector and supported businesses' feedback to test and inform our approach. We do this through surveys, commissioning research, our public supply group with industry representation and hosting supplier roundtables. The findings from these underpin the public procurement strategy for Scotland developed across the sectors and industry, which was published in April last year—a first in providing a high-level vision for Scottish public procurement. It is reassuring to hear those who have given evidence to the committee to talk in favourable terms about the changes introduced by the legislation. The act is critical in underpinning an approach to public procurement, which is helping to create opportunity, boost inclusive and sustainable economic wellbeing, tackle inequalities and create real social impact. The journey is, however, not complete. We will always look at what more we can do to maximise the impact of public procurement in Scotland. In fact, I very much welcome the committee's post-legislative review of the 2014 act. The committee decided to undertake an inquiry into the legislation because procurement is an issue that has come up in a number of different inquiries that we have carried out since we started to work on those areas. When our very first session was heard from the chamber of commerce, it said that it had got feedback from members and that people would generally give the act a C plus for its performance, it said that it is helpful. There has been good progress, but there is still more progress to be made. It has been interesting where the minister, in the 10 years after the introduction of the legislation, feels that there could be some remaining challenges or opportunities where we could improve the legislation and where you think that the legislation has been most successful. One of the themes that has emerged from the evidence that the committee has taken is that we have a very good piece of legislation that was formulated in a largely consensual basis 10 years ago when it was going through Parliament and recognising that it sits within a much larger programme of public procurement reform, both preceding the introduction of the legislation and SINCEN. I think that one of the challenges that remains is around consistency of application and the variation that can exist between different contracting authorities and the perceptions that that can create among suppliers. With regard to how we have sought to address that, it is through providing a comprehensive suite of guidance, support, training and engagement. For example, if you go on to the PCS website, you will find links to the procurement journey, the supplier journey and the supplier development programme, which we contribute funding towards. We also keep a suite of guidance up to date and are always working to engage with stakeholders in terms of the development of our policy. We recognise that there are remaining challenges. There always will be around that consistency of application, but the legislation provides a solid foundation and we remain committed to continuing to engaging with partners to ensure that we can drive forward that consistency. In the early sessions, we also heard evidence about community wealth building and the pilots. There are five pilots across Scotland and how they can be used. That model is positive in terms of supporting local supply chain. Do you have an update on where we are with the pilots and how you see the relationship between the community wealth building pilots and the legislation? If you agree that it is a way that we could try to promote and strengthen the effect of the legislation. The five pilots have been in place for a number of the years now. They operate in different contexts. There have been regards to Clacaman, Shetland-Fife, South of Scotland, Glasgow and the West Nile. We have seen real progress there. There has been good engagement with CLEAT, the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, who have worked in producing reports on the activities that have taken place there. I know that the committee is familiar with some of the positive feedback that has been received in terms of increasing the impact of procurement locally from some of those pilot areas. What we would also want to know of course is that it is not just the five pilot areas. We have seen other areas of Scotland taking forward community wealth building ambitions. Of course, no conversation of community wealth building could be complete without making reference to North Ayrshire, who of course were the pioneers in taking forward community wealth building in Scotland. We have seen their approach grow to a regional approach, bringing in East Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, the health board of TSI and the college. What we have seen with regard to community wealth building is further progress around the ambition set out within the act around sustainable and progressive procurement. Community wealth building legislation is a PFG commitment. We have consulted on that legislation and we published an analysis of it last year. We are currently considering in detail what the next steps will be with regard to what we received in terms of feedback via the consultation. Of course, as the committee will be aware, spend procurement is just one of the pillars of community wealth building, an incredibly important one. Where community wealth building can really add that additional value is through bringing that strategic coherence across the five pillars. That is one of the reasons why we have committed to legislation in PFG. There is a huge amount that I can say about community wealth building, but I appreciate that that might be straying beyond what we are specifically considering this morning. As you have mentioned Ayrshire, I am going to bring in Brian Whittle with his question. Thank you, convener. Good morning, minister, and to your team. You will be unsurprised to hear that I am going to go on food procurement. Given the importance of public food procurement to things such as health and education, we have heard that the proportion of locally produced food products that are available through the national framework has increased. I would say that that is against a pretty low bar from last term. When I looked at that last term, it was sitting at about 16 per cent. We have outliers like East Ayrshire, who we know are exemplary, set about 75 per cent. They have shown us the way. The impact of food procurement is a special case because of its impact on health and education, but also things such as the circle economy and the rural economy and reducing emissions from not bringing in imports. With that in mind, do you think that we are moving fast enough? Can we not move quicker? East Ayrshire has shown us the way, and others are starting to follow. Should we not be pushing that harder? You raised a number of important points, Mr Whittle. I am glad that you took the opportunity to highlight East Ayrshire, who I have been an inspiring example. I did a privilege a couple of years ago visiting Mosquil Farm, who has benefited directly from the opportunities of working in partnership with East Ayrshire. Of course, East Ayrshire is sitting within that broader regional approach to community wealth building that I referred to earlier. I think that what we have provided for already within legislation and in practice is supporting the objectives that you have set out, whether that be the opportunities for lotting. We have seen, for example, flexibilities around supply for those organisations that are not necessarily in possession of the logistic capacity to deliver. I know that that is something that the committee will have heard about previously. Of course, there are the requirements around those contracting authorities that are obliged to publish a strategy and to report on it, to have a specific statement regarding their regulated procurement around food. So there is a strong foundation there. I think that what we will have an opportunity to see going forward, particularly as we look towards community wealth building legislation and the further foregrounding of those principles, will be to reiterate and to reinforce the importance of having that concern and looking for opportunities, operating within the structures and the framework of procurement law to identify opportunities whereby local suppliers can be produced. I recognise the desire to go faster. I think that we have made solid progress. I think that we have got a very strong legislative foundation. I think that the example of East Ayrshire demonstrates what is possible. Of course, there will be that opportunity going forward to give this further consideration as we move forward with our community wealth building ambitions. Do you think that there is an opportunity through the Excel contracts potentially to deliver a more universal approach to this across Scotland, giving better choice to Excel contracts to push this faster? I know from the evidence that you have taken from the Excel how committed they are to engaging with suppliers and taking that very proactive approach and the huge amount of work that they do within that space. I think that it is always fundamental to procurement as a need to consider matters on a case-by-case basis. We need for it to be relevant to the particular circumstances and to be proportionate. I think that the legislative framework that we provide affords that. I am keen that we continue to do that. I think that that more coordinated approach through the community wealth building actions and the work that we are undertaking is to help to support more suppliers, both to grow and develop into being a position where they can compete for and to win contracts and to increase the number of suppliers that are available. Liam, I do not know if there is anything that you would want to add about implementation around these matters. I would like to add a bit about sharing best practice. Lots of best practice in the Scotland Excel frameworks, but the Scottish Government shares best practice through a number of different mechanisms. Case studies, the procurement journey is updated constantly. Those things are not static. We have annual heads of procurement meetings, where really good examples such as discussed this morning are shared with the entire public sector procurement community. There are more local clusters, there are sectoral meetings and so on. Right throughout the year, there are a number of different mechanisms where best practice examples and case studies are shared. Those exemplars really are shared right across the procurement community in Scotland. I think that food procurement specifically is one of those ones where there is a false economy and if we allow, I do not want to give accountants a bad name here, but if we let those who are in charge of the post strings have too much of an influence on food procurement, do you think that there is a drag there specifically around how we ensure that councils can afford good nutritional local food into the procurement process? I respect the autonomy of local authorities in taking decisions that they feel are best for their areas and, of course, they have to operate within and under the requirements of domestic procurement law. I think that just picking up on the point that Graham made and the point that you referred to Mr Whittle with East Ayrshire and we discussed, I think that there is a power always within an example. We can talk theory about the example of other local authorities and can provide and indeed the example of the best practice that we help to facilitate the sharing of. I think that that can serve to demonstrate to other authorities perhaps where there is inconsistency of practice what the opportunities are. However, I do have the respect in terms of taking those decisions that will be for individual local authorities operating consistent with the requirements of the legislation, but ultimately taken by elected members who are democratically accountable to their electorates. If I could finish with one final question, we have heard from the Scottish Wholesales Association and they are suggesting that rigid nutritional standards present a significant barat to increasing the public procurement and that you will know that I am a stickler for having high nutritional value, but within that are things like shapes of pizza and that kind of thing. Do you think that we are maybe creating too rigid a structure that potentially prevents this moving quicker? I would be speaking beyond my portfolio responsibilities if I strayed into the territory regarding food regulation and specifics. There will be a very sound set of reasons for why those particular standards and guidance are in place, but what I think is important from a procurement perspective is that we continue to have a system and we continue to further develop a system that is not only open and transparent but allows opportunities for that continued engagement of suppliers. If we look at the other broader levers that we have to support suppliers in being able to meet the requirements and the demand of public sector procurers, I will leave it there. Just in relation to that question, the evidence that we have heard from Colin Smyth from the Scottish Wholesales Association around the rigidity was quite convincing, whether it was about JP pizzas but also about the difficulty of providing particularly bakery products from Scottish suppliers that did not meet what the nutritional standards were. From the minister, if we could get a commitment that you would have a conversation with the department that is responsible, with the minister who is responsible, we would be able to support good nutritional standards in schools, but if there was a conversation to take place about what impact that might be having on procurement and might be presenting barriers to getting local or Scottish suppliers for certain products, that would be welcomed by the committee. No, I am more than happy to do that. The recognition is one of a number of areas where there will always be tensions because there will always be tensions that exist within procurement. With your permission, convener, can I bring in Nicky Arthur to say a few words? Just to add that the current set-up in policy allows local organisations to specify requirements based on plans that are food that is fresh, nutritional, in season. They are able to design protected geographical indicators within the requirements. They are able to specify recognised assurance schemes such as Quality Meets Scotland, supply and design menus around free range, organic, vegan, etc. There is a lot of flexibility in the rules to implement really good practice within the rules in terms of what we are looking at today. That was not the evidence that we heard particularly from the Scottish wholesale association, so if there was to be a conversation held, I do understand what Nicky Arthur has outlined to us, but that would be appreciated by the committee. I will bring in Colin Beattie to be followed by Mark Doffreyser. Minister, we are all aware of the tremendous challenges that face every organisation at the moment due to the financial situation, the tight budgets. Is there a danger that the pressures on the public finances dilute the importance of the quality aspects of procurement activity? It is an important point that you raise. In any time of challenging financial circumstances, that particular tension will always be present across a range of policy areas. It is important to reiterate, as the committee is aware and has heard from other witnesses, of the way in which procurement operates within Scotland and the decisions that we took through the 2015 regulations that contracts will not be awarded solely on basis of lowest cost. On the issue of that racial between price and quality, again that comes down to the decisions that are taken on a case-by-case basis. However, I recognise the challenging financial circumstances that we are in and the concern that that raises, but the way in which procurement operates within Scotland and the obligations around regulated procurement are such is that there needs to be that balanced approach to decision making. In the evidence that we have taken, it was made clear that decisions on procurement were taken not always on the cheapest price, but on the cheapest over a period, such as the theory anyway, spend money now, save money in the future. However, the pressures, the financial pressures that are on now are going to put that in the back burner realistically. Everyone is looking short term, everybody is looking to try to close that budget gap now. How do we monitor that? How do we understand that issue? How do we manage that? I think that with regards to the point around monitoring, that is where the requirements around publication of strategies and reporting are very important for those public bodies operating above the threshold. That gives a direct answer to how we can monitor this. That process of continued engagement that I have previously spoken about, as well as the work that we do in terms of constantly updating our guidance, is something that gives us a means of responding to any matters that should develop. We will continue to monitor as reports are published and through our on-going engagement with, for example, the heads of procurement what the particular dynamics within the system are. It is a challenge given the financial context that we are operating within currently. We have been through a huge degree of pressure, so we will continue to monitor that. I refer back to the requirements under the existing legislation and specifically on that point around our ability to be able to understand what is happening in the reporting requirements. We are still looking at resources. We have heard and we are looking here at contracting authorities. We have heard of pressures due to lack of resources, both in terms of time and skills, in order to maximise the effect of procurement and commissioning practice. How do the Scottish Government and other bodies effectively pool and share procurement resources, and how could that be improved to better support contracting authorities? There is a huge amount of collaboration and activity. Maybe picking up on the first point in terms of that human resource, ensuring that we have the people in place to do that, we have a strong and powerful story to tell about the work that the Scottish Government has undertaken on that. Maybe I will ask Nicky Archer to come in and provide some more information. One of the important factors is to realise that procurement is part of a much wider system. What we are finding is that, in addition to all the best practice and the collaboration that the minister and Graham Cook have referred to, the earlier that we are involved, if local leaders ensure and service delivery managers ensure that procurement is engaged much earlier in the planning and scoping stages of projects and programmes, allows us to explore the art of what is possible and feasible through procurement to deliver on those wider ambitions. That allows us to get to market earlier, to give more advanced notification to markets, and that strengthens our ability to deliver a really good balance of cost and quality. There are a number of themes in terms of what we are trying to do for that earlier engagement and targeted development and best practice sharing. I hear what you say in terms of the ideal approach, but the evidence that we have been getting is that some of the key contracting authorities in Scotland are struggling. They are struggling with resources. They are struggling with the skills even to do this. When we talked to one panel, we were talking about this question of, do you take the cheapest deal or do you take the deal that is going to give you the savings over a period consistently, sustainably? The problem that some of them had was that they did not have the resources to do rather complex calculations and so on, which are important for long-term investment. How can you support them in this? There is a lot of support that we provide. I recognise the fundamental point that you are driving at. We want a system in which we do not pay a good price for a fair product, but a fair price for a good product. That has to be the heart of what we are doing around procurement. In terms of some of the work that we are doing around that engagement in providing support, I will ask Graham to come in. In terms of expanding the collaboration, the Scottish Government's full national suite of frameworks, contracts and support, we are looking to expand that now and move into further category areas. That will help to ease some of the pressure, release some of the resources locally if more things are done centrally. As you have heard in some of the evidence sessions, centralisation does not necessarily mean a loss of local need and local considerations. In terms of the categories that will be bought on a collaborative basis, we are looking to increase those. Through the various means of sharing best practice, that saves significant resources locally. If someone has bought something recently, they can borrow their documents. In terms of the procurement reform programme, that has been one of the biggest impacts of the reform programme that started back in 2006. It is building that community of procurement professionals on which we can rely to give those examples to save huge amounts of time where we are not having to reinvent the wheel. It is already very successful, as with all of those things. I think that there is space to do more. Mart Doe Fraser, to be followed by Maggie Chapman. Good morning. Minister, I apologise for being a few moments late at the start of the meeting due to traffic. We have taken quite a lot of evidence from the business community yet about some of the challenges that they face in terms of accessing public sector contracts. I have a few questions that I want to ask around that particular space. First of all, one issue that we have heard is about resource constraints being a key factor, particularly for smallest businesses trying to engage with public procurement. The committee has heard that funding for support services such as the supplier development programme has fallen in real terms. What more can be done to assist businesses, particularly the smallest businesses, who want to access public contracts but are struggling to do so with a lack of resource? I appreciate the question. I would like to put on my record and thanks to SDP for the outstanding work that they do. I think that we would all recognise that. There are a number of activities that take place. I think that we have continued to provide funding for SDPs. It is one of a number of partners who fund SDP and of course they have a range of activities in terms of training, guidance, local and regional meet the buyer events. Government works in terms of some of the national events that create opportunities for suppliers to engage directly with buyers. There is the range of guidance that we have touched upon earlier in relation to other questions that we provide via Public Contract Scotland. You will find all the links to the various support that we provide in that regard. There is the online activity that is the work that we do to support SDP, maybe just in terms of more broadly around practice and engagement. I do not know if there is anything that you would want to add. Pre-commercial engagement, as we call it, is a really important part of any successful procurement, be it public or private. Nicky mentioned earlier that the early engagement of procurement is essential, because not only will the advice be coming in at a more effective time, it also gives an opportunity to discuss the requirement with the market. We find that that is particularly important for SMEs, so we are looking to see what we can do to increase the use of that pre-commercial engagement stage and roll it out through all of the best practice forums that I have mentioned. You referenced the Public Contract Scotland website, and we have heard some feedback about that. While that is a welcome portal, it is starting to feel dated. It could be brought up to date. I know that there is a plan to potentially re-tender that and reinvent it. What are the improvements that you would like to see through a new portal that would make it more user-friendly? That works at a very early stage, so it is scoping out. As the committee has heard from previous witnesses, we have started that process of engagement very much at the moment about building up that evidence-based survivor and government presupposing what PCS should look like. It is working to understand more fully that feedback on those particular issues that have been raised and that you are referring to, Mr Fraser. We will not have that process of engagement, and that will help to inform the work that we do in this space. As we go forward on that, I have been more than happy to keep the committee up today. I do not know if there is anything that you want to add, Nicky? I was just going to add that almost 90 per cent of current supply registrations on the portal are SMEs. One of the things that we do quite regularly is to survey our users of the portal to understand how we can improve it, and through time we have taken action to improve it. However, it gives us a really good access to feedback about what the system of the future should look like. One of the challenges of being an early adopter of best practices is that, soon and time, everybody else catches up and you are the one that is out of date. This early scoping work is important to our future moving forward. However, we have done quite a lot of work over the last year following a business and parliament session that the minister and myself attended to work with FSB, women in enterprise and other members of the procurement suppliers group to pull together one-stop shop guidance on sources of support for SMEs in the third sector on how to engage with and to win business, and that seems to have been quite well received. We have got further work under way to develop and publish an SME in third sector action plan, which we hope to have out by the end or as near to the end of this month as we can. I would touch as well, as we look forward to community well-building legislation that has been engaged with closely in the FSB on that, increasing opportunities for local suppliers and SMEs is going to be crucial to the success of that approach as well. You said that the work is at an early stage. Do you ever like the timescale to be progressed with? I cannot confirm my timescale at the moment because we are still at that early stage, but I have been more than happy to update the committee in due course on that work and respond to any further questions at that point that the committee may have. I appreciate that it is a strong point of interest and it has been raised by witnesses to the committee. Can I ask a slightly different point that is around the question of feedback to unsuccessful bidders? Again, we had this from a small business and they were saying that it can be discouraging where a lot of work goes into putting in a bid, the bid is unsuccessful and they do not get any feedback or very little feedback in terms of how that bid might be improved in terms of future bid. Do you have any thoughts on how that process might be improved? I think that it comes back to that question of what is in the legislation and about implementation. The committee is familiar with the requirements under the legislation around regulatory procurement and provision of feedback and opportunities for further engagement. I know that the committee, in terms of taking evidence, will be aware that there are many buyers who are more than keen to engage with suppliers who are unsuccessful because that feedback is so important in allowing suppliers in the future not only to stay engaged with the public procurement system but to enhance their capacity and ability and their opportunities for winning contracts in the future. In terms of that point around implementation and how we seek to ensure that the act and the requirements of the act are effectively carried forward, I will ask Graham to come in. All bidders are entitled to request feedback. Good feedback takes a lot of work to provide. Everyone is always happy to provide that. It is not automatically provided. There are suppliers who are not all that interested in receiving the detailed feedback—a few in far between, I would suggest, but they do exist. I wonder if there is something in the distinction between the entitlement to ask and perhaps some suppliers do not know that they are entitled to ask for further feedback after they have been told the result of a competition. That is where the supplier journey, the supplier development programme and so on are critically important so that all bidders really do understand their full rights to feedback within the procurement system. Just one more question on a slightly different point. The procurement legislation has different thresholds—£50,000, £2 million, associated thresholds for the quick quote system, £4 million threshold for community benefit requirements. Those thresholds have not changed since the act was introduced in 2014. Obviously, we have had inflation since that time. Is the Government giving any thought to whether those thresholds are still appropriate or whether they need to be reviewed? As part of the community wealth building legislation is a process in the consultation, as well as a specific question around the proposed duties, we ask for any feedback across the five pillars of community wealth building. There was specific feedback suggesting changes to thresholds within procurement legislation. I am not in a position at the moment to see what the Government responds to that, as we are still giving a very detailed consideration, but it is something that was raised as part of that process and is something that we are giving detailed reflection on. One more question on the quick quote system, which we heard some very positive things about from people who used it. Do you know how many local authorities use quick quotes? I was told—I am not on the chance to verify this—that only three out of 32 made use of the quick quote system. Do you have any knowledge of that? There are two sides to quick quotes. There is a system within PCS, which is the inbox, so you can use that to receive quick quotes. There is then the concept of that small level of competition. Every single public body in Scotland uses that small level of competition. I cannot say whether or not every single public body is still using the PCS electronic inbox because, as mentioned, the system is getting a bit long in the tooth. It may well be that some local authorities choose not to use that inbox and use a different one, but they are nonetheless still using the quick quote concept of a smaller, quicker, more efficient level of competition for lower value, lower risk requirements. I think that I was previously substituted on this committee when a similar line of questioning was being asked to other witnesses. Can we just get confirmation that all bidders are definitely entitled to feedback and that it is not just bids over a certain value? That is the first thing, but I will roll the question to her for brevity. If that is helpful, that is the first thing, and the second thing is that I remember asking at a previous committee whether any monitoring is done of unsuccessful bidders and whether a lack of feedback or the lack of success deters them from future applications and whether any monitoring was done of that. I am understanding that there is no monitoring was done of that. Is that something that the Government is aware of or is something that the Government is going to consider? I am not analysing to see if more needs to be done because, obviously, an unsuccessful bidder is still building other expertise to bid successfully in the future. I will ask Nicky to come in in a moment. I think that it is an important point that you raised. I would highlight, as I think has been suggested previously, the important about what is required as it is being proportional. We have already had an exchange regarding the pressures and the resource challenges that we already face at the moment, but on the specific points I will ask Nicky to come in. I am sure that they are entitled to ask for feedback. It is not only to unsuccessful bidders, it is also to successful bidders on what made them successful. There are many suppliers who are bidding to track and to follow trends. It is nigh on impossible, but the theory is that we are providing them useful feedback that will help them to improve their bid the next time, which helps us. We help them to help us in the future bids. We should certainly be providing good feedback to bidders when requested. Can I just check if that is the completeness of the answer? I get that resources are an issue convener in providing detailed feedback for everyone. A sample exercise could quite easily be done of 50 unsuccessful bidders over a period of time to find out if they reapplyr 100. I apologise, I do not know what an appropriate number would be, but some kind of data analysis could be done. Has that been considered? That is what I was asking, convener. Has that been considered or, if not, would it be considered? We do run supplier surveys and we look at the range of questions that we ask. It is certainly something that could be considered. We are due to be looking at further surveys this year. The last one was published in 2021. We are trying to look at matters that are of importance and events like this to help to inform what we decide to put in there. In the 10 years since the act was passed, we have seen more focus on the climate impact of our work and on the shift to net zero, the new interest in community wealth building that you have spoken about already and the development of regional economic partnerships to focus on local resilience and local sustainability. The five-year procurement strategy that was published last year, the vision in that, focuses on maximising value for the people of Scotland, putting public procurement at the heart of a sustainable economy. Are we using procurement to the best possible effect to meet the challenges in the 2014 act around the sustainable procurement duty to deliver the positive social and environmental outcomes that we hope procurement can or we now procurement can? That touches again on the distinction between what we have in legislation and implementation and the questions around consistency or variation. What we have in legislation is very strong and, as I touched on before, it is supported by a comprehensive package of guidance, toolkits and engagement. There is a lot of positive work being undertaken in procurement per se. I think that touching on the community wealth building point, which I know you have a strong interest in, that more coherent and joined up approach across different pillars of economic development will afford us opportunities to go further than we have currently. With regard to what we have at the moment and as reflected in the independent report that was published recently on the journey that we have been on in sustainable procurement over the last two decades, we have a very strong story to tell and we have made significant progress. In terms of some of the policy aspects and some of the successes that have come from that, I do not know if you would maybe want to add something, Nicky. I was just going to add that there is a challenge on balancing the various outcomes that we are looking for. There is always a tension between competing pressures. One of the things that we use quite heavily across the public sector and that has been recognised internationally is our sustainable procurement tools system, which helps buyers to go in with their customers and ascertain what the biggest bang for the buck is. Let's say in terms of the balance of social, environmental, economic outcomes as well as sustainability and innovation. Those tools are very important, but we have an awful lot of examples of good practice. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that people that spend above a certain amount must publish their strategies, setting out how they will use procurement to deliver against a sustainable procurement duty, but not only do that but annually report with evidence how they are doing that in practice. Then we gather and analyse all of those reports, so round about 115 do not quote me, to set out in the minister's annual report what is that evidence of good practice with some examples. It is quite a big focus for us to make sure that we use those examples of good practice to share. We develop case studies and we put those in the tools to help others to learn and to adapt and apply. I could give a few examples that have been drawn through those annual reports, if that would be helpful. Perthynkin Ross Council, the Tay Link Road Procurement that the tenders were required to state what carbon reduction initiatives would be implemented if the bidders won. Scottish Government's print design and associated services procurement very specifically reduced waste and minimised the use of non-environmentally friendly raw materials. The Scottish Government's general office supplies framework, which is used right across the public sector in Scotland, reduced the frequency of deliveries through consolidation and minimum order value. Something as simple as a minimum order value can reduce the number of journeys, the number of deliveries and combine two separate frameworks that cut in half the delivery miles. It also uses electric or low emission vehicles. Those are the sorts of examples that get pulled through the requirements of the annual reports and the summing up of those annual reports that are required as part of the 2014 act. That is helpful and interesting to hear those examples. We have heard from witnesses previously that there is a lot of good will and a lot of good intention, but quite often price will drown out the other factors. We actually heard it negates the other factors, such as positive social or environmental outcomes. We have also heard that the reducing inequalities element has kind of got lost as far as measuring the social and environmental outcomes is concerned. A specific example, I suppose, and this may be linked to the threshold point with subcontracting and secondary supply chains down the way, because they are not the contractors, they are not obliged to provide the kinds of information around the environmental and social outcomes. How can we ensure that we see that maximising value thing in the round, rather than just that focus on price? I think that we just asked Graham Foster just to come in in terms of that particular point around implementation regarding subcontracting and I'll come back. So subcontracting and really scrutinising a supply chain in detail, as with all things procurement, it has to be proportionate. There's an awful lot of supply chains for very small amounts of money and if we were to require a provider, a supplier, to do an awful lot of additional work for a relatively small contract, it represents quite a barrier, that's what they quote as the unnecessary bureaucracy, so we really need to work hard to balance all of this. In larger contracts, in contracts that have a higher environmental risk or a higher opportunity to, for example, deliver social outcomes, public bodies will scrutinise and those supply chains will have those regular contract supplier meetings, but it has to be done on that proportionate basis and this does pull through the annual reports where there's successful implementation of policy in the supply chain, we're seeing it in the annual reports. This, again, it gets to that tension, spoken about earlier, those tensions that exist within procurement and what we want procurement to do. We have come a long way in recent decades in how procurement operates and I think in the last 10 years we have seen real progress. It's partly in terms of what's been delivered by this act, part is the broader work around procurement reform that the Scottish Government has been undertaking and I understand the appetite and I share it to always see what more can procurement do, touched upon that with community wealth building, but it does always come back to that point around proportionality. We are talking in a fundamental sense about the delivery of goods, services and works, which are essential for the functioning operation of the public sector, but we want to do so in a way whereby we can help in such a way that we can maximise the wider impacts that it has. One of the things that's reflected in the report looking at 20 years in this sustainable procurement journey is the fact that these considerations have went from being an add-on to being a golden thread that goes right through the process and I think that speaks more broadly to aspirations about what we talk about with community wealth building, with sustainable economic growth, with sustainable development, with a well-being economy, however one wishes to go and particularly phrase it, that broader consideration of the social and environmental as well as a specific economic outcome has been a much more upstream concern and I think we are seeing that change happen within procurement, but this speaks also speaks to the broader point of implementation and it's something that you have heard from a number of witnesses in front of the committee is that we have policy, we have legislation but culture and practice is important as well and that is something that will take time but I think we can see 10 years on from this act being passed that we have made significant progress and I think that's reflected in the annual reports we say as well as that independent review of the progress that we've made over the last couple of decades. Okay thanks for that. You talked there Tom about the delivery of good services and works but around that also come the jobs and paying conditions of the people delivering those good services and works and it's not just those individuals, it's the communities that they then live in and support and those local economies and we can see the tracking of fair work requirements through some of the contracting processes and I take what you say about the bureaucracy of following that all the way through. We've seen really positive progress as you've outlined around the real living wage but that's something that's easily defined, it's easy to measure, it's easy to monitor, there's maybe been less progress on specific things around gender representation and carbon accounting for instance and I wondered what thought the Scottish Government has given to helping define what we mean by progress in those things a little bit more clearly because they are fundamental to what we mean by sustainable communities upon which that rely on the economies we're talking about but if we don't have a clear understanding of what we mean when we're talking about gender equality, when we're talking about carbon accounting then the suppliers that those who are delivering the good services and works are kind of working not maybe not blind, they're working with good intention but not very very clear not a very very clearly defined focus of outcome. I think committee will recognise the illegal environment that we have to operate within procurement around equal treatment and non-discrimination within regards to a regulated procurement and our obligations under GPA etc but I think on a point on a point of gender you make part of that can be looking at the supply side and the work we do in terms of engaging with suppliers and all of the bits of work that I spoke about previously. I don't know Nicky if you want to pick up because you made reference to the business and parliament event and this was something that we had a quite I think an extended conversation on. A couple of thoughts were going through my head there minister. One was just on the concept of carbon counting where I think there's a risk in unreliability and conflating spend with emissions and there's a whole industry out there on different ways to do that so the way that we're working on it is to make sure that we're focused not just on how we buy but whether we buy at all, make buy decision, stops that carbon counting right at source, what we're buying and building it into the specification, how much we're buying which gives you those twin issues of lower budgets but also stopping the carbon cycle and the scope three emissions. In terms of looking at the social aspects we've got community benefits through procurement, a long-standing and very positive history of embedding community benefits through procurement not just above the threshold for community benefits but actually people volunteering to use them for below thresholds and looking at getting protected characteristics back into work, into apprenticeships so there's quite a lot of focus there and quite a lot of commitment to do things in that space and when you're looking at another example if you look at for example the independent advocacy service you know there there was so much engagement upfront with people from a disabled background to understand how they could access the services so that we built and incorporated that into the way that we delivered those services so there's lots of ways to balance these these kind of you know if we're getting local suppliers and local interpreters then that also affects the carbon footprint so there's you know a lot of mutuality in all of this. It's a complex mind connected. Very much so and on a case by case basis and that is why you need professional buyers to assess the marketplace to understand what the right balance is to to play in each situation based on the market dynamics. Okay thanks. Thank you. Just before I bring in Kevin Stewart in relation to Maggie Chapman's question in the minister will know the committee is about undertake work into the disability employment gap and one of the areas we discussed was supported workplaces and where they fit into the procurement services. We did hear people being positive about reform of the reserve contract regulations which we're opening up to supported businesses but I thought the minister wants to say a bit more about how we or how public procurement can support supported businesses and I mean that there are we had reports that there are some bad errors in terms of it's quite narrow the areas in which they can participate in or it can be difficult to match up. I mean do you think there's been more work to recognise the role that supported businesses can play and how do you make it easier for them to access public procurement? I agree entirely. I had a visit to a supported business yesterday. I've got a visit to another one next week. Scotland XL won an excellent event supported businesses last autumn which I was privileged to attend and speak at. Committee will be aware of what is set out within the legislation but in terms of some of the work that we're undertaking at the moment around dynamic purchasing, I'll ask Graham to come in to say a few words. The Scottish Government has a bit like a framework, a dynamic purchasing system that allows new businesses as they emerge as they move into markets to join. That's the main difference between a dynamic purchasing system, a DPS and a normal framework. There's a DPS specifically for supported businesses. That's accessible right across the Scottish public sector and in 2021-22 across the 110 public bodies that published an annual report for that year, £27.9 million in regulated contracts went to supported businesses. Some of that was through the framework through the DPS, not all of it. The DPS is one route that can simplify access but it's not the only route. That's a significant sum that does already go to supported businesses. As is always the case, great success, but always room for more, which is why we moved from using the standard framework to the DPS system so that as more businesses do emerge or as more businesses supported businesses move into new markets and develop new products and services, they're able to join that system and they're not, if you like, cut out until the next time it gets renewed. Thank you. Kevin Stewart will be followed by Bob Doris. Thank you very much, convener. I do intend to ask some questions around commissioning, but the exchange just now has been quite interesting because this is the first that the committee has heard of dynamic purchasing systems, for example, which is different from a normal framework. If that's the first that we've heard of this, how do the folk out there that are trying to sell keep up with all of those tweaks, all of those differences, as they appear? We do all that we can to publicise and make that information as available and I won't repeat the various partners that we work with and the suites of guidance that we produce. We will continue to learn from this. One of the things that I'll be very keen to learn from the committee's deliberations in its report is about what more we can do to increase awareness of the support that is available and also to create an environment where we can encourage more SMEs and supported businesses to look for opportunities to engage with public sector procurement. With regard to the specific point that you raised, Mr Stewart, about how we raise awareness, I would refer back to the points that I and the officials have made previously around the suite of support and guidance and engagement that takes place already. Let's move on to commissioning because we have heard from many that good commissioning work can lead to some very good outcomes for people and that's what we all want to see. However, we've also been told that competitive public tenders are not necessarily the most appropriate vehicles for that commissioning work. We have also heard that there's a perception that often when it comes to commissioning and the tender itself that the accountants, the lawyers, have more influence over the tender when it comes to that work than those in the front line that actually know what is required. Do you have any comment on that, minister? I think that it was a fundamental point about knowing what the need is that the procurement is seeking to address and having a clear understanding of commissioning and understanding of what the need is through that pre-market engagement with suppliers and ensuring that suppliers have an understanding of what the need and demand to be met is. With regard to the points around those officers who are involved in the administrative process and around drafting and decision making, that will be for the individual contracting bodies, but they have a need to be compliant with the legislative requirements. They have to be in a position where they can demonstrate how they are doing so. I know that those are points that have been raised at previous sessions. I think that there's a fundamental point around having that clear understanding of what the need of demand is and also working with suppliers to find the most effective way of addressing that. You said earlier, and I agree with you, and I think that probably most of the folk in the committee would agree with you, is that we have the legislation, but often the difficulty is the implementation. Often implementing what we want to see, which is good outcomes for all, is hampered by risk adversity and a misreading of the legislation and the guidance. How do we get over that? There is, for example, the engagement that takes place between officials and heads of procurement. There is the procurement journey that support that I've spoken about previously. There is this being identified by the committee and the point around implementation. I think it's always going to be inevitable when we have a diverse and sophisticated public sector landscape. There will be variations in implementation, and that can be for a multitude of reasons. With points around being risk averse, I would just highlight the needs to ensure that all procurement activity is compliant with the relevant domestic and international obligations that we are subject to. I would be asking Graham Cooke to come in if he wants to give more comment, just around both of the points that you've raised in your previous two questions, Mr Stewart. Thank you. The engagement of the front line, no procurement can go forward without the end user defining the specification. This is the minimum technical threshold, if you like, that has to go into tender. Once you start layering in, yes, price is always part of it, but whether or not there is modern slavery in a supply chain or whether or not it's a high-carbon impact product or whether or not a supplier pays the living wage, quite often that will change the brand that is ultimately delivered to the end user. I do know through 20 years in public procurement that that can come as a shock to the end user, and they'll often say, well, that's the accountant, that's the budget holder, and that's a lawyer that's skewed the result away from what I was really wanting. But in reality it's often, sometimes it will be down to where we just don't have the budget for something, and that's a local decision, but I think the reality is more often that what changes the brand, what changes the final outcome, is actually the delivery of these fundamental policies that procurement is being asked to deliver. It's a bit of a multitude of things going on underneath the surface when someone says, well, it's the accountant that have changed the answer, some of which is actually exactly what the committee members expect the act to be delivering. And maybe some of it not, and that's what we're here to delve into. So let's look at some of the things that are going on out there. Mr Cook said earlier that there are events and seminars to ensure that best practice is exported across the piece, where it can be, and yet we see things going on out there at this moment, which are providing great outcomes for people, but it's not happening in a lot of places because it's seen, maybe, as being too risky. So let's give an example that we've heard about on a number of occasions in terms of the evidence that we've heard in terms of social care in my own home city of Aberdeen and the Granite Care Consortium. Commissioned work, a lot of flexibility whereby front line workers can have the ability, the independence, the autonomy to step out and step down care. The contract allows for that. If that were happening elsewhere in the country, it would probably ensure that folk were not going into hospital on as many occasions unnecessarily. That has been picked up in certain other parts of the country, but not in many others. Why is it that that kind of best practice in terms of procurement is not being exported across the board? The first point is implicit in what you've stated. It echoes the points that were made earlier on about East Ayrshire. It demonstrates what is possible within the existing legislative framework. That framework permits the kind of activity that you have described, so just bringing it to the focus of the question of why other public bodies, other contracting authorities, do not take a similar approach. That will ultimately reflect the decisions that they have taken. Of course, in the case that I touched on earlier for local authorities, they are democratically accountable to their electorate. I won't rehearse the various examples of giving in terms of facilitating sharing of best practices, whether that be in person or online. However, with regard to how we can further support public bodies to share best practice beyond what we have already set out, I will carefully consider what the committee's views and reflections are on that matter. However, the key point is that, when examples of good practice are identified, and it is a statement of the obvious, but they are occurring within the existing framework, they demonstrate what is possible. I do not know if there are any reflections that you have, Graham Irwin, on the broader point of sharing best practice and maybe trying to unpack and understand why some authorities will take one approach and others may not choose to do that. I could touch upon national care service. I appreciate that that is outside the minister's remit, of course, but the national care service is looking at the Granite Care Consortium and the commissioning model and how that relates to procurement. They are looking into that in some detail. So far, it was fundamentally a decision to buy something else. It was the social care commissioners, the budget holders, the end-users who drove that change and procurement then delivered what the commissioners requested. Again, it is this system approach where multiple players will all impact what is bought and how a contract works. They asked for something different. The procurement legislation allowed it. There was sufficient flexibility there, so the question that colleagues in the national care service programme are unpacking now in consultation with various parties is what was it that drove that and why it needs to share what best practice is. Is it commissioners of social care who need to share that best practice or does it lie in procurement? It probably lies across them all. That analysis is being done to look at why it is not being spread right across the country right now, what barriers can be removed and so on. You make my point for me. I will not go into depth in the national care service because the convener will not allow me the time, I am quite sure, in that regard. The national care service is around about uniformity, the best standards are possible for best outcomes for people creating that standard, high-quality standard across the board. We are not there yet. However, Mr Cook makes my point for me because people on the front line in Aberdeen came up with something different and they have been allowed to go with that. There has been risk adversity in other parts of the country, where folks on the front line have wanted similar to Aberdeen, with that flexibility, independence and autonomy, and they have been told no. Because those folks who are putting together tenders and documents say that that is not possible. I will ask Nicky to come in a moment. One of the things that would highlight within the requirements around the strategies is setting out how bodies are engaging with their particular area and the considerations that go into the strategy. One of the other things that I will take away from this exchange is that, in the community wealth building consultation, one of the central questions was about duties to be placed on public bodies around advancing community wealth building. We are obviously getting very detailed consideration and reflecting on what the responses to the consultation were, but I think that that particular point that you raised around decision making being more informed by the considerations of those on the front line and in the community leading to better outcomes is one that I will certainly take away in terms of thinking about how we take forward the propositions that we consulted on with the community wealth building. I made a point earlier and it was around the importance of the earlier engagement of procurement. Procurement and commissioning come together much earlier in the process so that that is a mutual process of development. I think that what we have discovered through an awful lot of work to assess what has been happening historically is that that closer collaboration has not always happened and that is what is given suboptimal outcomes. That is why the programme that is looking at it now is taking the learnings from Aberdeen and elsewhere. How do you bring those communities much closer together earlier in the process to really define what needs to be done and that is based on what the outcomes are that we are trying to drive? One final, very brief question. All of us is about people and the best possible outcomes for people. We have heard around about some of the work that has been undertaken in terms of the sharing of best practice and the attempts, I am sure, to get rid of some of the risk adversity that still exists out there. I wonder if it is possible, minister, for you and the officials, to provide some detail around what has gone on in that area say over the past year to give us a flavour of how you are going about that business? If it would be helpful to the committee, I am happy to write back in time for you to consider, as part of your report, a summary of the activity, but I and the officials have been undertaken around engaging with contracting authorities. It would certainly be useful for me and I think that it would be useful for other members too. We have heard a lot today about supply chains and transparency supply chains and understanding ethical decisions that have to be taken in relation to pain and living wage, fair trade and other things. The legislation that has been scrutinised comes from 2014. There is a bill going through the Scottish Parliament, which is now called the Circular Economy Bill. I sit on that committee and we need to make sure that all decisions taken from public sector procurement plays its part in relation to a circular economy, and there will be a circular economy strategy being developed in Scotland following the passage of that bill. Whether it is procurement from local authorities, NHS Scotland, Police Scotland, a variety of public agencies, that will have an impact. I would hope that it will have a beneficial impact on all those public bodies. Can I ask the minister what cognisances he has got of that legislation going through the Scottish Parliament and whether there is a cross-portfolio to make sure that Lorna Slater is leading in that bit of legislation, for example, is talking to your department, Mr Arthur, to make sure that the public sector and its supply chains, which is the key thing, and its supply chains know what they need to do to play their part to make Scotland a truly circular economy? I will ask Nicky to come in to talk about the engagements that have been taking place between the officials. What I would want to highlight again is that we have been, in many respects, in procurement ahead of the curve in this in terms of what we have set out in the 2014 act around sustainable procurement, the suite of tools that we provide to support buyers and the sustainable procurement obligations that are available. Will I ask Nicky to come in to some of the detail? Yes, we work very closely with the other portfolios. We work very closely with our climate colleagues, with our fair work colleagues, with our economy colleagues to try to drive the sustainable outcomes that we are trying to achieve through procurement. When they are putting together legislation on climate, we are part of that discussion. We have discussions about how we can make sure that we do the right things for the people of Scotland, but without creating unnecessary burdens, particularly for the small businesses, and slow down the chance for small businesses to play in the public procurement supply chain. For example, on reporting duties, we reached an agreement that what our public bodies present on climate within their annual reports could be used for the climate reporting duties for procurement, so that they are only doing it once and they can use that for both. It is trying to streamline what we can do. Also, as we are going out to the market, we have written it into the policy and the guidance and the tools, taking a proportionate approach so that we do not inadvertently block out small businesses and we bring them on the journey of trying to deliver climate and circular economy ambitions. Climate and circular economy policy guidance, tools and e-learning. We have mandated e-learning to make our buyers climate literate. It is available free of charge to all buyers across Scotland. We track and monitor who is availing themselves of that free training to try to increase the knowledge and understanding of our buyers in applying those important considerations to the relevant procurements. I find that encouraging, because I would say that I am at the part of the deliberations that the committee draws to the conclusion that this particular post-legislative scrutiny, and I get the frustrations that sometimes committees, committees that I sit on, will always think about what next, rather than necessarily the good work that has taken place up until this date, but that is what politicians do. Can I just ask that, when you mentioned burdens on businesses? I get that, but we have to think about what the right thing to do is, in supporting businesses to do the right thing, rather than using necessarily the language of burdens on businesses. If we are going to have a proper partnership between a cross-portfolio, we have to enable businesses to see the value in doing the right thing, rather than talking about it in terms of burdens. Maybe the language has to be changed a little bit. I could not agree more. Maybe I used the word burdens in here because we are talking about trying to get access for small businesses, but when we are discussing with our suppliers, what we are trying to lay out and what we do lay out within the supplier journey is our expectations of our suppliers. What outcomes are we trying to develop and deliver together? That includes climate, fair work and opportunities for community wealth and community benefits. That is the language that we speak in on bringing people with us. I do not want to do a hypocrite, because the first time that a local business contacts me to say that there are too many burdens on us, I am going to make a representation to come together. It is all a balance. Do you have another question, convener? We know that there are public bodies reporting annually in all of this. We know that there are strategies, but the committee has heard evidence that, quite often, there is inconsistency in relation to that particularly. The aims that are contained within those reports and strategies have actually been linked to outcomes in reality. I do not know whether there was an annual synthesis report. Does the minister recognise those inconsistencies and what efforts have been made to address those? I think, again, that is becoming the sort of go-to word of this session around balance and proportionality. There are specific requirements that have to be met, both in the strategies and in the reporting on, but, of course, there is nothing that precludes my public body going beyond those requirements. There is nothing that precludes a public body whose annual expenditure is below £5 million from also doing strategies and reports. There is that flexibility there. I think that the importance of the flexibility also reflects that different public bodies will have different perhaps different focuses with regards to procurement. Of course, there are requirements that most public bodies will need to address through procurement, but there will also be things that are more sector specific. I do not know if there is anything that you want to say. Can I mention something on that, if you do not mind? We have some minimum requirements on what public bodies must put into their strategies and must put into their annual reports. The other thing that my team does is to analyse every public procurement report. We also offer feedback on how they can be improved. We gather them together into the minister's annual report, but we also offer feedback on the strengths and how they can be improved. Again, there is a balance between another burden on our hard-pushed buying communities to document everything on an annual basis. It is getting the balance between what must be recorded so that we can give a good account of our impact and then go further than that. Is that a reference that I made to aims within strategies and within reports not being necessarily linked to outcomes? Is that something that the Government is aware of? The committee will want to know whether that is a systemic or anecdotal thing. How real is it? The minister mentioned earlier our approach to developing the public procurement strategy for Scotland. The very purpose was something that was developed in consultation and in collaboration with public sectors across Scotland to set out what our priorities are together in terms of outcomes that are good for businesses and employees, good for places and communities, good for society and the remain open and connected. That is our mantra and that is how we set out our annual reports and that is how our priorities are structured. That national strategy is about pulling together in the right direction aimed at outcomes. In terms of setting out a name and then what you buy in a particular year, there can be a distinction. Many contracts will be four years long, for example, as a fairly standard length. You might have a strategy for several years where you want to deliver particular things, but you will only retender that thing once every four years. There will be peaks and troughs of opportunity to deliver more things within particular contracts. I am sure that that also has an influence in terms of what pops up in each annual report. If you were able to look over a longer period, I am sure that you would see a greater correlation between the aims and the strategy and what is reported as delivered. That is a very fair point. I should ask Ysgrifennig ysgrifennig yng Nghymru. One of the consistencies identified has been reporting on fair trade products because there is not an agreed definition as to what that actually means and that makes reporting or reporting consistently or looking at trends very difficult. Is there a need for a clear definition in relation to that? Is that something that the minister is aware of or is there work on going in relation to that? There are requirements with regards to the strategy, but there is also an important flexibility. Fairly traded goods, avoiding the brand name fair trade, is one particular company that is involved in fairly traded goods. There is a definition in the sustainable procurement duty and in the supporting policy guidance training and so on in the procurement journey. In terms of delivering the duty and fairly traded policies, I do not think that the definition is an issue. I think that some of the reporting against delivery can sometimes underreport, so there are organisations that will concentrate on their own particular branded type of fairly traded goods. Some of the figures out there in public are underreporting because they are using only their own brand rather than the broader definition that exists within the procurement legislation policy guidance and so on. I am sure that the committee might welcome further details on that in writing. I will take up more of the committee's time with this line of questioning, but there is a kind of tension there between the definition and the flexibility, and it is interpreted differently across public bodies. I do not want to make something there that is not there, so some clarity might be in correspondence might be quite helpful. I was going to request that, because the Fair Trade Forum had said that their legislation has not set out a definition of fair trade, and that is led to significant variance in what is categorised as fair or ethical among public bodies. If we could have, the minister said, that there is a clear definition. It could be just the interpretation of that definition, rather than the lack of a definition, but it is evidence that we have heard that there is a difference in the way in which the authorities categorise or report their fair trade products. We certainly do that. I would say that, in addition to what we have in the legislation, we also have national policy that sets out clear guidance on some of those items, and it is the suite of legislation and policy that sets out the standards and the approach, which are then embedded within our tools for the buyers to use, but we will follow that on that. Good morning, minister. Good morning, panel. Thanks for all your answers so far. Minister, how has the procurement common framework influenced engagement with the UK Government as the procurement act 2023 for England and Wales has been developed? Do you have any concerns about how such reforms might influence procurement in Scotland? Well, I would say that there is a good level of engagement that takes place between procurement officials in Scotland and other nations of the UK. We have seen recent reform of procurement legislation, both by the UK Government on behalf of England and in the reserved bodies and also in Wales. Of course, we look on with interest beyond the engagement that we have, but we have seen, as in many respects, other parts of the UK seeking to catch up with where we are in Scotland. I think that we were just touched on earlier, very much ahead of the curve in terms of what we achieved in 2014. So there is different provisions that have come in via the UK legislation. We will of course want to monitor that very carefully. We are always keen to understand different approaches in terms of any learning that we can take from that. Broadly, I think that what we have in Scotland and I think has been reflected in the evidence that the committee has taken is a very strong piece of legislation in supporting regulations, buttressed by that comprehensive suite of guidance and support that we have touched on. On Monday this week, I think, is when the annual report was published, the 2021-22 report, which you shared with the committee, which was appreciated. Just one question about the report. Maggie Chapman did raise questions around sustainability, and we have heard a chat around the other legislation that is coming forward. So there is little change in the percentage of public bodies who evidence that they had regard for supporting climate change, so that is unchanged at 71 per cent. That is an issue that, through other inquiries that the committee has heard, particularly SMEs, the difficulty that they have in engaging with the climate change agenda, there may be lack of support or knowledge. Obviously, the increases in the cost of doing business has put pressure on them. How do they prioritise it? I do not know if the minister feels that one has not, you know, other ones have been proved, that one is kind of sitting at 71 per cent. If there is anything more he wants to say about the challenges and how public procurement can support businesses to meet their climate change responsibilities and how they can help them to shift the model in which they do their business. I think that this really builds on the line of questioning that Mr Doris was pursuing, and I am conscious in terms of the answers that Nicky Archer gave highlighting the need for that proportionate approach. Of course, we want to be supporting and encouraging and enabling businesses to go on that journey. If we do have a set of requirements, particularly small operators, just to not have the capacity to comply with, then that is missing out on an opportunity to perhaps take them on that journey. With regards to terms of what emerged through the cumulative annual reports that have been reflected in the minister's report report, I do not know if there is any initial feedback that you want to provide, Nicky. What I would say is that I think that people are still finding it quite difficult to articulate what they are doing on climate. I think that I mentioned earlier that procurement is part of a whole system, and it is important in terms of, you know, if there is a make-by-decision and we decide not to buy, that would not make it to an annual report. Quite often, I think that people are missing the opportunity to articulate demand management type strategies to reduce the cycle of scope 3 emissions right at the start because we are buying less or we have got choice restriction. What we are trying to encourage more and more buyers to do is to come forward with more of those examples. We know what is happening. We have a national climate and procurement forum with representation from across the public sector, where we discuss and debate how we can move that agenda forward. We take action. We prioritise where we are going to focus, so we prioritise where is the biggest impact that we can get. We are doing a lot of work in construction, a lot of work in heat and fleet, a lot of work in vehicles, as you would expect, but also starting to more routinely consider climate and circular economy in any procurement. There is a lot happening. I do not think that we are quite as far ahead at being able to capture and report that as we would like, so it is definitely an area that we were focused on. Thank you. That brings us to the end of the evidence session this morning. I now move on to private session.