2. What essential criteria other than cost did the Commission use to select the new Senedd canteen contractor? OQ58658

The qualitative evaluation criteria used for the retender of the catering services included a range of areas to meet the objectives and performance requirements of the Senedd for the service. Cost and quality evaluation was split 30:70—30 per cent for cost and 70 per cent for quality evaluation.

Examples of the key qualitative evaluation criteria included, for example, how the service would support our social and environmental and sustainability objectives, innovations for the service, and staff development and recruitment. The provision of menus and recipes for the service, including hospitality services, was also evaluated within the 70 per cent for quality.

Thank you very much for that answer. I'm glad to hear that only 30 per cent of the criteria was cost. But I think one of the issues—I mean, there are several issues. One is, of course, that the cost of food has increased, and therefore it's very difficult to be comparing the previous contractor with the current contractor in the rapidly rising inflation of food. But the previous canteen contractor, Chartwells, had a Food for Life accreditation from the Soil Association, and this ensured that the food was quality assured i.e. what it said on the tin was actually what was being delivered. Does the new contractor have this, and if not, how can we know that what we're eating is what it claims to be? In light of the greenwash actions of many commercial operators, do you agree with me that, potentially, this risks the reputation of the Senedd and accusations of, 'Do what we say, not what we do'?

I can't answer the specific in that case; I don't have the information to hand in terms of that particular accreditation, but I'm more than willing to look at it. It's an important accreditation by the Soil Association. I'm willing to find out whether that is the case with the new contractor, and I'll write to you with that confirmation or otherwise. And if it is 'otherwise', then I will look into why it was the case that this current contractor was chosen in light of that and whether there are any other aspects of the current contractor's criteria that meet what was undertaken by the previous contractor, or even exceeding that. So, I'll do some digging, if you don't mind—no pun intended—on Soil Association accreditation there with that. I'll do some digging on this and I'll make sure that the Senedd is informed on the actual specific accreditation that you've raised, and it's an important area for me to investigate.

I actually believe in the direct provision of services and I'm opposed to the contracting out of public service to private contractors. Did the Commission consider bringing the contract in-house, and if they did, why did they reject doing so?

Yes, we've investigated a number of times over the number of contractors that we do contract out, whether in-house direct provision is preferable, both in terms of quality and cost. To date, it hasn't proved to be so; I can write to the Member with any specific analysis that was done on this particular contract. He'll have to excuse me that I can't recall it at this point, but I'm happy to provide that evidence. But I can give you the confirmation that we regularly review the issue of direct provision. Like you, instinctively I support direct provision of services. We've seen it actually work to our benefit, of course, when we took in-house, as a Commission, the ICT services, and we saw that especially during the pandemic, how that worked in our favour. But I will confirm some of these points to you when that was last reviewed.

Thank you.