Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

That is really helpful.

Ms Latto, the mood music that we were getting at our away day with the third sector was very much, “Yes, we’d like more money, but please free us up to do better with the funds that we’ve actually got”.

It looks like there is broad agreement across the panel on that point.

Mr Bruce and Ms Ogilvie, if you have something specific to say that we have not heard already, please come in and say it briefly. Otherwise, I intend to leave my line of questioning there, but I assume that there is broad agreement among the witnesses.

If anyone else wants to respond on that question—incredibly briefly, because I have another line of questioning—feel free to come in, but you do not have to.

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.

It is the converse, actually. The briefings that I have looked at ahead of today’s meeting say that if enforcement officers were not clear about whether items were single-use vapes, they could hesitate and not seize the items at that point. However, if the powers were drawn more broadly, they could seize the items, establish that they were single-use vapes and retain them. The instrument defines single-use vapes; it does not cover items that are suspected to be single-use vapes.

That is helpful. There was an announcement in 2022 that 65 per cent of Scotland’s train fleet would be replaced as part of modernisation and decarbonisation. I was just trying to check whether this initiative sits as part of that wider commitment. I am happy to take more information at a later date, cabinet secretary.

My second question is about the procurement process. Clearly, I want to make sure that Scottish companies can be part of the procurement supply chain. As I have done before, I note that I am delighted that the Caley works has reopened in Springburn and is now in the business of modernising and building trains, through Gibson’s Engineering Ltd. I just want to make sure that Scottish companies—wherever they are in Scotland—can be part of that huge economic, employment and skills opportunity, and get a slice of that very welcome announcement. Will the procurement process make sure that there is weighting towards Scottish supply chain businesses?

I have a couple of brief questions, cabinet secretary. First, can I check whether the announcement today is set in the context of the 2022 strategy and the Scottish Government’s commitment to replace 65 per cent of the train fleet, or about 675 carriages? That was placed on the Public Contracts Scotland website at the time. Is the announcement part of that wider modernisation and decarbonisation process?

If there is a grey area, I simply ask for a wee bit of clarity. I ask the cabinet secretary to give a commitment that, once the regulations are passed and we move into the enforcement stage, the issue will be kept under review and you will continue to work with trading standards to see whether there are any issues regarding enforcement.

Yes.