Seòmar agus comataidhean

I see that Dr Nurse wants to come in.

This is not a constitutional point, because it is about the UK Government and the Scottish Government, but it is also about the Scottish Government and local authorities, which also have a statutory role.

Thank you.

To go back to my initial question, does David Hawkey want to comment on the data or information that the Parliament would need to see before it agreed to a five-year carbon budget?

I will move on to the next question, but if you want to mop up any of those previous points, that is fine. The Parliament will have to scrutinise the five-year budgets, which is currently intended to be done by the affirmative procedure. Are you content with that approach, or does it need to shift?

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.