Chamber and committees

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?

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.

Do any other witnesses want to—briefly, because of the time constraints—respond to that? From what Dr Nurse said, it appears as if the heavy lifting of scrutiny will not necessarily come from this framework bill but will come from the five-year budgets, the delivery plan and timescale and the finances that underpin all of that. Does anyone else have any brief comments about that?

I see nodding heads among the other witnesses. I apologise to David Hawkey, but I will leave it at that, convener.

I will be incredibly brief. I do not think that, in a framework bill, we can legislate for a cultural change in how Governments liaise with one another, but my colleague Monica Lennon is absolutely right that partnership working will be absolutely crucial.

In relation to that, when the committee comes to scrutinise the five-year carbon budgets, would it be more helpful to have a longer line of sight and more certainty over Scotland’s capital budget? I am conscious that we set annual budgets in the Scottish Parliament, but I am talking about capital budgets over a 15-year period.

There is some helpful overlap in some of this. When Parliament comes to scrutinise the five-year carbon budgets, we want to make sure that they are ambitious but also that they are realistic—I think that Dr Nurse is quite clear about being realistic.

We have spoken a bit about the pounds and pence requirements, and Professor Ulph talked about the fiscal constraints and what the costs will be, but, more generally, what information does Parliament need to have at its disposal? I am talking about information not about the bill but about the five-year carbon budgets that the bill enables. What data or information does Parliament need in order to effectively scrutinise whether any carbon budget that comes to this place for consideration is ambitious and realistic? I ask Dr Nurse to respond first.

That is helpful. It is about the art of the achievable—about whether we have enough data and can ensure that sectors will have capacity to deliver the stuff that you mentioned about heat in buildings.

Professor Ulph, you mentioned the data that would be required to ensure that the policy is fiscally achievable. Will you say a little more about that? What data should the Parliament have ahead of considering not only the climate change plan but the five-year carbon budgets?

Dr Nurse, on the level of scrutiny, any comments on the use of the affirmative procedure or otherwise would be helpful. This is my final question because, obviously, we are under time constraints, which is actually part of my question. The bill appears pretty narrowly drawn and maybe limited in scope, but it could be narrowly drawn and limited in scope but have a big impact. We all understand the issues about the time that we have now to scrutinise the provisions in the bill in what is an expedited process. Scrutiny may have to come further down the line—hence why I mentioned super-affirmative instruments.

Dr Nurse, what should the level of parliamentary scrutiny be? Can we do it within the very challenging timescale that has been set for us by the Scottish Government or will some scrutiny come further down the line when the five-year carbon budget has been set, in line with my mention of the super-affirmative procedure?