Chamber and committees

I have a final brief question. All of this is about people and getting the best possible outcomes for them. We have heard about some of the work that has been undertaken to share best practice and the attempts to get rid of some of the risk aversion that still exists. Minister, would it be possible for you and your officials to provide some detail on what has gone on in that area over, say, the past year and give us a flavour of how you are going about that business?

Let us move on to commissioning. We have heard from many people that good commissioning work can lead to very good outcomes, which is what we all want. However, we have been told that competitive public tenders are not necessarily the most appropriate vehicles for that commissioning work. We have also heard that there is a perception, when it comes to commissioning, that accountants and lawyers have more influence over the tender than the people on the front line who know what is required. Do you have any comment on that, minister?

You said earlier—I agree with you, and I think that most of the committee would agree with you—that we have the legislation, but the difficulty is often implementation. Implementing what we want, which is good outcomes for all, is often hampered by risk aversion and a misreading of the legislation and guidance. How do we get over that?

But some of it might not be down to that, which is what we are here to delve into.

Let us 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. However, although we see things going on out there that are providing great outcomes for people, that is not happening in a lot of places, because it might be seen as being too risky.

Let me give an example that has been given in evidence on a number of occasions. It relates to social care in my home city of Aberdeen and the Granite Care Consortium. The commissioned work provides a lot of flexibility, with front-line workers having the ability, independence and autonomy to step up and step down care. The contract allows for that. If that were happening elsewhere in the country, folk would probably not be going into hospital unnecessarily on as many occasions. That practice has been picked up in certain other parts of the country, but not in many others. Why is that kind of procurement best practice not being exported across the board?

I intend to ask some questions about commissioning, but the exchange just now has been interesting. This is the first that the committee has heard of a dynamic purchasing system, for example, which you say is different from a normal framework. If it is the first time that we have heard of it, how do folk out there who are trying to sell things keep up with all the tweaks and differences as they appear?

You kind of make my point for me. I will not go into the national care service in depth, as the convener will, I am sure, not allow me the time to do that, but the national care service is about uniformity, having the best standards possible for the best outcomes for people and creating a high-quality standard across the board. We are not there yet.

As I said, Mr Cook makes my point for me. People on the front line in Aberdeen came up with something different, and they have been allowed to go with it, whereas there has been risk aversion in other parts of the country, where folks on the front line have wanted a similar approach to that taken in Aberdeen, with flexibility, independence and autonomy, but they have been told no. The folks putting together the tenders and documents have said, “That’s not possible.”

That would certainly be useful for me, and I think that it would be useful for other members, too. Thank you.

Ms Fordyce, some smaller processors in Aberdeen are not exporting any more because of the groupage situation. What are they telling you?

Thank you. It seems that you are jack of all trades and master of many, Mr Walker.

I know that you do not really want to talk about politics to any huge degree—Mr Scott has made that plain—but we are in the run-up to a general election. You have pointed out in your submissions and you have been talking for some time about the European health certificate, getting public health certification and arrangements right and cutting down on bureaucracy. What plea would you make to the candidates who are standing in the forthcoming general election? I know that you all see it as being very high on your agendas, but what should the policy priorities of future politicians be, and how high up the agenda should the TCA be for them?

Good morning. I am pleased to hear about witnesses’ positivity for the future if there is change, but I want to concentrate on some of the other things that you have said this morning and in your submissions. Ms Forbes referred to the Salmon Scotland submission. The loss of export value of £80 million to £100 million since 2019 is pretty immense in my book. That is there in black and white, but what is perhaps unquantifiable is the loss that Mr Walker and Ms Fordyce have mentioned in relation to the impacts on smaller producers and smaller companies because of the changes to things such as groupage.

I would like to tease that out a bit, because it has, I imagine, led to market shrinkage and has probably not done well for Scotland the brand, which we all want to see up there. Will you expand on the groupage difficulties? Mr Walker, you mentioned that the main way out of the UK now is through Hull to Zeebrugge, and that that has shrunk markets. You mentioned Monaco minutes ago. Can you give us an indication of where our product is not reaching any more because of the changes?