³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Is it your underlying point that it is important to demonstrate what the impacts are likely to look like ahead of setting the five-year budget? We are scrutinising the bill rather than that bigger picture. You think that it is about the data that the Parliament should have ahead of those five-year budgets being set. That was a general comment, but is there anything specific that you want to say on that?

I will move to my third question. I will bring in Dr Nurse to mop up on any of those previous points but also to answer my third question, which is on the affirmative procedure. It is a very dry parliamentary point about whether the Government consults on its proposals and then seeks parliamentary approval or whether it lays drafts of secondary legislation, consults on those and then potentially changes that draft legislation based on the views of Parliament and wider society. That would be a super-affirmative, rather than an affirmative, procedure. That is what I was trying to draw you on, Professor Roy.

That really helps, because that is an acknowledgement that the lack of three-year spending reviews is a barrier to multiyear funding settlements for the third sector.

Mr Westwater, hold on to your thought, because I will ask my next question and, if you can squeeze your comment in during your answer to that, please do.

This question is not about the amount of funds that the third sector gets or whether there is multiyear funding. Irrespective of the funds that the third sector gets, we are hearing that the balance between core funds, restricted funds and project-only funds and a real lack of flexibility are putting at risk the sustainability of some third sector organisations and that we need to do better on that. Do you have any comments or reflections on what those barriers are? For example, do they include the lack of flexibility and not being able to vire some money over to core funds in order to do something innovative? I see you nodding your head, Mr Frew, so I will start with you.

I am delighted that there are on-going positive relationships. I am not trying to fix something that might not need to be fixed, but I am trying to get assurances for the longer term.

I will try to squeeze in a supplementary question to Roz McCall’s question, and I will come to Ian Bruce first. The Scottish Government has indicated that it is sympathetic to, and would like to find a way forward for, multiyear funding. It would also indicate that it still does not know what its finances are going to be in this year, yet it has had to set a budget for this year, let alone budgets for future years.

Other than getting more certainty from the UK Government, can you see any other workaround for that, Mr Bruce? I am thinking of, for example, guaranteed funding in year 1 but a guaranteed funding floor in year 2 of 80 per cent, going forward to year 2 and year 3, as we wait to see what the UK Government settlement looks like for Scotland. I am not suggesting that that is a specific solution; my point is to highlight the challenges and ask whether there are workarounds. It might well be that only Mr Bruce gets to come in on that, because I want to move on to my other line of questioning. However, do you have sympathy for the situation that the Scottish Government finds itself in in that regard?

Sheghley Ogilvie was nodding her head vociferously at that.

Minister, it was good to see the engagement over the summer. In previous questioning, I mentioned other groups that we could not necessarily place a statutory duty on but that would be key partners in relation to the ask and act duty—in particular, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office. I also mentioned general practitioners, although there might be challenges in that regard for different reasons. Have you met any of those three key organisations during the summer? If not, is it your intention to do so?

I have a second, follow-up question. We might not be able to compel the DWP to have an ask and act duty, for example, but we can see clearly why, given its role in benefits, it might be a central organisation. Could we still write it into legislation by, for example, placing a requirement on the Scottish Government to reach out to it for a formal concordat or protocol, or ask it to volunteer to be part of the ask and act duty? That would be a powerful thing to do, and I would quite like that to be in the bill or in secondary legislation. The fact that we cannot compel the DWP to do anything does not mean that we should not acknowledge in legislation its key role.

That is helpful, Ms MacKean. I am sorry for cutting across you, but I am conscious of the time. We want to keep questions moving.

Minister, would you be minded to include in the bill a duty on the Government to continue to build those relationships? We cannot put a duty on the DWP, although I am glad that there is good work in practice, but we could put a duty on our Government to continue to reach out in such a way.

Minister, that might be the advice that you are getting at the moment, but I am thinking about the legislation saying that the Scottish Government must engage in that way.

Mr Westwater, you can squeeze in your other reply, if you wish, at this point.