"Report on Low Carbon Scotland: The Draft Report on Proposals and Policies"
Autism (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
5:10 pm

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party)

In fairness, let us all acknowledge that we are developing a framework for monitoring progress. It is not as if we are unaware of the problem that will arise if the voluntary approach clearly fails.

The public engagement strategy is equally important. It has also just been published, and there will no doubt be some discussion about it. A number of actions are contained in that strategy that involve engaging directly with the public, which will have an impact on the extent to which the voluntary approach is successful or otherwise.

There has been much discussion about how not all the measures in the draft RPP are financed in the draft budget. Much can be said about that. If the Parliament considers provision in an area to be insufficient, we will welcome the Parliament's views on where further provision might be found from elsewhere in the budget. We have a finite sum of money and decisions that are taken in one area will have an impact on decisions elsewhere.

I think that Alison McInnes said that we should not be overreliant on the UK and must fully fund all the proposals ourselves. Whether she likes it or not, we rely on the UK for funding. That is the reality of the devolved settlement. There is something that we can do about that, and I am always happy to welcome new recruits to the Scottish National Party's cause, if Alison McInnes is beginning to think about the issue.

I think that Iain Smith asked what we will do while we wait for the green deal. That is precisely what the various domestic energy efficiency measures are about. We are running them until 2012, when the green deal will come on board. That is important.

Iain Smith and, I think, Charlie Gordon said that they were disappointed with the £48 million for energy assistance and home insulation, but the point about the programmes is that they are designed to draw in UK CERT investment worth £100 million per year. They do not stand completely on their own.

I have made a number of comments on funding. I did not do so glibly. There is little point in our debating matters in the absence of the reality against which all Government expenditure is set. It behoves us all to consider that carefully.

A number of members commented on the need for alignment between the RPP and the budget. I agree, which is why we brought the RPP forward in the timescale in which we did so. However, the same members also suggested that they would want to scrutinise the RPP in advance of the budget. There perhaps needs to be a little refinement of how we progress the matter in future. That is a debate that the whole Parliament must have, because we will need to resolve the issue. There is only a single year in which we must produce an RPP and a budget, so we need to think about how to time publication for best effect. I appreciate that the timing did not work out as well as might have been hoped for this year.