³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have a follow-up line of questioning on the framework nature of the bill and the setting of five-year carbon budgets by statutory instrument. I understand that the Government has landed roughly on the affirmative procedure, but I have been asking questions about whether the super-affirmative procedure would be appropriate because it would allow draft regulations to be lodged and considered by the Parliament and wider civic Scotland such as NGOs. It would also allow the Government to take a final position and lodge that with the Parliament. I am sympathetic to that, but it would take a one-and-a-half-month parliamentary timescale to around five months. When it arrived at the level of parliamentary scrutiny, was that timescale an issue for the Government? Five months rather than one and a half months to pass a statutory instrument, when we want the climate change plan to be published as quickly as possible, might be a barrier. What are your thoughts on that?

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We heard some of that in the earlier evidence session. There is lots to follow up on, but I believe that my colleagues will pick up on that in due course, convener.

That is helpful. I have a final question. We get advice from the UK Climate Change Committee, but it does not give policy advice. It may give advice on setting carbon budgets, but it has no say over financial budgets for the Parliament. I was pleased to hear of the constructive, non-partisan approach that you and Mr Miliband have taken, with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together. Does it include discussions over the long-term capital and revenue investment that will be required at both a UK and a Scottish level to deliver the UK climate change plan and our devolved climate change plan? Budgets matter, and it would be nice to get both Governments into a space where they are not arguing about, but agreeing, the public finances that are required to deploy those plans appropriately and ensure that they are properly resourced.

I will come in briefly. I get the desirability of having that line of sight to 2045 with three carbon budgets, and of having a longer-term delivery plan, but should Government embrace the uncertainty, if you like, because Governments have no idea what capital budgets will look like in, for example, year 6 to year 10 or year 11 to year 15? They have no idea what technological advancements there will be, so should we expect the second or third climate change plans, if produced up front, and the carbon budgets, to change as a matter of course over time, and should Government embrace that uncertainty but give a line of sight to 2045 nevertheless? I hope that that makes sense.

That is helpful. Lynn, do you have any comments on that line of questioning?

Good morning, everyone. A lot of what we are saying today about things such as flexible funding is well-trodden ground; we have heard it all before. At the committee’s away day, which Allan Faulds attended, we heard a variety of things. For example, irrespective of the quantum of cash available, more funding going towards core costs would be helpful, as would a small sliver of funding towards reserves. In addition, unrestricted funds would be helpful, along with more flexibility in how funding is used more generally, in order for organisations to deliver outcomes in different ways as people learn from experience. There are a lot of examples of what flexible funding can do.

Judith Turbyne, I will come to you first, I am afraid. Any brief reflections on those thoughts would be helpful. Perhaps there is something that I have not mentioned, or something in particular that you think would be welcome. If so, please put it on the record.

The best way of getting funders into that position is to have them co-producing the criteria that are used for those funds in the first place. Do you have any examples of where funders have met with the third sector to discuss what the criteria for funds may look like and how we can build in flexibility at source as we design that fund?

That is very helpful.

I thank both our witnesses for supporting our pre-budget scrutiny this morning.

The committee has heard a lot about the need for greater flexibility in funding. Of course organisations would like more money, but we know the climate that we are in and, even without more money, greater flexibility would help voluntary organisations. We have heard about more money for core costs and about how a small percentage of the money from grants could be put into reserves for future resilience. We have heard about unrestricted funds and more general flexibilities, and how money can be spent to meet outcomes.

Any reflections that our witnesses have on those matters or on other potential flexibilities would be welcome, including any benefits or potential drawbacks. We will start with Lynn.

That is helpful. One way to build in the flexibilities that the third sector requires is to have a close working relationship as funds are developed—almost like co-produced funding mechanisms. Those funds might be fit for purpose and the process would build trust between the funder and the third sector. Ran, are you aware of any examples of that? Would you like to see that rolled out?

Thanks, Judith. That was commendably concise, and I appreciate that.