Chamber and committees

Yes. Are they put off by the requirements? We want to embed fair work across the board, so we must break down the barriers.

The definition is a clear barrier to achieving that but are there any other barriers? Is there an awareness barrier, with public sector bodies not realising that the local authority or the Scottish Government supports fair trade? Is there a barrier when those who carry out the procurement work simply do not think about fair trade when they are pursuing particular contracts?

I would like to follow up on the point about fair work. To what extent have the 2014 act and the changes to the procurement process helped to embed fair work? We have talked about the fact that the main barrier is the absence of multiyear funding, but to what extent has the 2014 act embedded fair work in the practices not only of the awarding authorities but of the organisations that bid for contracts? I take on board the issue of multiyear funding, but what else can we do within the process to expand the adoption of fair work?

You have all talked about the fact that there are many organisations that are not even involved in public procurement because of the barriers. Is fair work a barrier to some of those organisations?

That is helpful.

My colleague has some questions on gender inequality so you are not getting off lightly, but I want to pursue the points around fair trade. Although it is not a declarable interest, I want to put on the record that I am the convener of the cross-party group on fair trade and I also chair the Dumfries and Galloway fair trade steering group.

I almost feel a wee bit under pressure to answer Martin Rhodes’s question about how we pursue that definition. Just on that point, Martin, is guidance enough or do we need to underpin that definition legally through legislation to make sure it does translate into practice across public procurement?

That is very helpful.

I have a question for Duncan Thorp. In its written submission, Social Enterprise Scotland suggests that there is a risk-averse culture in some procurement departments and, perhaps, a preconceived notion of what a social enterprise is, which limits the desire to award contracts to social enterprises. Will you expand on that point? Do you have any evidence on what the scale of the problem is?

That is helpful. Notwithstanding the challenges of measuring something for which we do not have a consistent definition, based on the work you have done with public sector organisations and the best practice that is out there, can you say a bit about the scale of fair trade products being bought by the public sector within its multibillion pound procurement? Does that scale match our ambition as a nation to be a fair trade nation?

The equivalent of more than 200,000 football pitches is subject to muirburn purely to maintain and increase grouse. About 40 per cent of that takes place on deep peat, which is defined as having a depth greater than 50cm. Ending unnecessary muirburn to maintain and increase grouse will not prevent anyone from shooting grouse but will mean that our vital peatlands are afforded far greater protection, while muirburn can still continue for the other legitimate reasons that are set out in the bill.

I take on board the point that Kate Forbes makes. As she was a member of the committee at the time, she will be aware that the Government gave assurances in evidence that, even without a licence, muirburn can still be an emergency tool to respond to wildfires. If a land manager wants to obtain a licence for muirburn for genuine conservation reasons, amendment 143 would not affect that in any way.

The amendment backs what I believe we all agree the bill should set out to achieve, which is to ensure that the management of grouse moors and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare-conscious way.