³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

How might the new arrangements affect NatureScot’s role? What consultation has the UK Government had with NatureScot to discuss the new, outcomes-based system as it would apply to Scotland?

I point out that I am a nature champion for Scotland’s extraordinary blanket bogs.

How might a cut to NatureScot’s capital budget impact its ability to achieve targets for peatland restoration and other areas of work? Peatland restoration is key to us meeting our climate change and biodiversity crisis targets.

We are getting down to brass tacks, looking forward to the budget for 2023-24.

Thank you for your written evidence. You have set out clearly what your asks and expectations are. We understand from the Chancellor f the Exchequer that there are likely to be departmental cuts at UK level. We do not know what that will mean for Barnett consequentials—that will depend on which departments are involved—but, this year, we are very likely to face a budget that is tighter than previous budgets.

What would you prioritise to be kept? The question is not about additional spend; it is about prioritising keeping in the budget what is important to your sector that is already there.

I will come to Bryan Simpson: What would you expect to see in the budget? If you want anything new, you might have to say what you would prefer not to have. Do you think it is more important to keep some of the good, progressive policies that are already there to help in the skills sector or to make progress in different areas that we have heard about in previous evidence sessions? Or is there something new that needs to be done? What is missing from the response so far, not just from the Scottish Government but from the UK Government as well?

I have to say that I am being generous; I do not expect the UK Government to undermine the Scottish supply chain, but without our consent or our being able to monitor and have scrutiny of this, things could happen by accident rather than by design. We in Parliament have a duty to scrutinise these things, and the problem is, if the UK Government can do this sort of thing in future legislation without even having to check with us, the door could be left open to unintended consequences. Is that a fairer representation of the situation?

I will ask another question that is more for clarification about how procurement is working. You talked about the Sustainable Procurement Bill and how in Scotland there is a desire—and this committee has also looked at this in its supply chain inquiry—to use procurement in a positive way in areas such as net zero, the living wage and gender. If the Department for Work and Pensions in Bathgate, in my constituency, was conducting its own procurement locally—obviously, a lot of DWP procurement will be centralised and be part of UK-wide common frameworks—would we be expecting it to be subject to the conditionalities that we have or would it be part of what should be happening as part of the UK-wide common frameworks, because the procuring agency is reserved? We do not want the freedom that has been given to the reserved agencies in their procurement to compromise what is done in devolved areas. Some practical clarification would be good.

Thank you for your very direct but also thoughtful responses.

There is an interplay between this LCM and the one that we have been considering on the Procurement Bill. My colleagues might not want to dwell on the politics of this, but the issue is that, as far as Scottish suppliers are concerned, there is not much gain and, indeed, there is potential vulnerability from this agreement. The issue is about procurement. In a practical sense, the UK Government is clearly responsible for the trade agreements, but the broad powers set out in the Procurement Bill might, in trying to make sure that the trade agreement goes through, undermine Scottish suppliers in comparison with, for example, their New Zealand counterparts. If, under the Procurement Bill, broad procurement powers are given to the UK Government with regard to, say, schools accessing lamb for school meals, that might undermine what we might want to do in Scotland to ensure that local authorities can access and procure local produce to help with sustainability.

I am just trying to make the implications more real. Nobody is disputing the UK Government’s right to do these trade agreements; indeed, it might want to add subsequent ones into the legislation. The issue, primarily, is the interplay with the broad powers of the procurement legislation. Am I correct in my understanding of that? If I am incorrect in thinking that the procurement of Scottish produce for Scottish schools might be undermined by the procurement legislation, please correct me.

You have just asked my question, convener.

If it reassures you, the fact that the Economy and Fair Work Committee is focusing on tourism for a second time perhaps reflects our understanding that it is a national industry that is one of the few that reaches all parts of Scotland.