Chamber and committees

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.

I just want to check whether there are any barriers that have to be overcome to allow some of that to happen. For example, I tap on and tap off quite happily using First Glasgow. I am not a driver, so I am on 20-plus buses a week. There are capped daily and weekly fares, but there is no interoperability with other bus services in the city. The technology is there, but the interoperability is not. Is there a role for the national board to enable that? That would be required for, say, franchising, to enable profit-sharing.

That is helpful, more for my understanding than to scrutinise you in your role as cabinet secretary.

It is the legislative basis that we are scrutinising rather than the policy positions once that legislative basis has been changed, but that is very helpful.

This section of questioning is about where the liability for overpayments sits. The bill will bring in the potential for client representatives to be liable for overpayments. The intention of the provision on liability is that the person who benefits from an overpayment will be liable for it, regardless of whether that person is a representative of the claimant or the individual who has the right to the underlying claim in the first place. Has the Government got the balance right in its framing of the provision? Are there alternatives that the witnesses might want to suggest? Erica Young is twitching her head. Is that an indication that you wish to speak?

Okay. I think that I will be looking back over the Official Report and digesting that information. We will see what the Government says in response. I will move on.

Ms Young, your organisation spoke about an income threshold in relation to debt recovery. Provisions in the bill would require Social Security Scotland to look at the financial circumstances of each individual where liability has been determined, any appeals process has been exhausted and it is clear that there has been an overpayment. Why should there be an income threshold?