Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was helpful, cabinet secretary. I have no further questions, convener, but I think that that response neatly finishes things up by landing us back at the need for a line of sight to 2045, to give the private sector certainty and policy direction and to allow it to feel confident enough to invest the huge sums required to meet net zero.

That is helpful—thank you.

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

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?

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.