³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

One issue is getting the yard fit to compete for future work and another is whether we can make a direct award. Those are separate considerations—

It would come from the Scottish budget somewhere, but we are dealing with hypotheticals based on a business plan coming forward and assessing whether that passes the subsidy control test and whether we think that that is prudent expenditure. We have to make sure that we get over those hurdles; at this stage, those are hypotheticals.

There is a strong relationship between me, other ministers and the officials who work with SNIB to analyse its work. It reports regularly on its investments and their performance. However, the advisory board is a commitment that we hold, and we will stick to it. As I said, the update will come in due course.

I am happy to provide that to the committee in answer to Mr Doris’s questions.

I acknowledge the first point that Mr Macpherson made, which is that we have a competitive advantage in skills across the system from our experience in energy, consenting, engineering and so on. That puts us in a very strong position.

Obviously, we are talking about new technology in some areas and going into areas of the environment that we have not considered before. Some of that will take time. However, I am keen to continue to work not just to fulfil my responsibilities, which include consenting to some of those projects, but to fulfil some of the responsibilities that my colleagues have for bodies such as Marine Scotland, NatureScot and others that Mr Macpherson referred to in order to ensure that they have the capacity, skills, experience and direction so that we balance the consenting requirements.

We sometimes have competing environmental considerations. We consider our climate change responsibilities, but we also ensure that we protect seabirds, for instance. There are competing demands in some areas. We take those seriously and look to provide as much certainty as possible for industry and to provide timeous responses, as Mr Macpherson put it.

I am well aware of Nova Innovation, which is a phenomenal success story and a really strong brand that is becoming internationally recognised. Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to discuss individual applications but, in general terms, we would look to provide consenting in a timeous fashion and in a way that is demonstrably fair and compliant with the regime that we have set out.

I appreciate that Mr Macpherson has a direct interest in the port of Leith. Other ports are available and there will be plenty of work to go around all of them.

There are obviously huge opportunities for the port of Leith, given its location and capacity and the fact that it is a green freeport. It can take advantage of the opportunities that will come from developing the Scottish renewables supply chain.

I will pick up on a number of areas. Developing a Scotland-based supply chain for our renewables industry in general and for offshore wind in particular is one of our greatest economic opportunities, so I take that incredibly seriously. That is why the First Minister came forward with the £500 million commitment, which has been welcomed by industry as giving not only certainty but confidence to investors, who can see that we are taking the issue seriously.

I will be developing that with colleagues and bringing forward a green industrial strategy by this summer. That will take decisions and set out a pathway for how we develop the supply chain, what it looks like and which areas we will prioritise. If we are getting that right, we will not be pleasing everybody. We will have to prioritise where public funding goes and that will be considered partly through the green industrial strategy.

We also have the strategic investment model that Gillian Martin took forward last year, which has huge potential. It includes port and harbour infrastructure and other elements that will enable some supply chain opportunities to be realised. We are collaborating on that across Government, as Mr Macpherson would expect. We are also working with industry partners to ensure that we get that right and maximise the economic opportunities, as well as facilitating and enabling developers to come forward, particularly for ScotWind, at the earliest opportunity.

I recognise the role that Ms Lennon has played on this front and her interest in and understanding of the situation.

I am keen to impress upon the people who are making career choices the importance of the planning system in realising our economic goals. Huge projects and opportunities will be coming forward in which planners will play a central role in ensuring that our economic opportunities are realised and that, as Ms Lennon rightly points out, the wellbeing economy can be progressed. I would encourage people who are considering which career path to choose to look at planning as an area where they can make a real difference in shaping our society and ensuring that we deliver for communities.

There are two further points to make. First, planning authorities are funded through the resource that is provided to local authorities in general, and it is for local authorities to determine their allocation to their own planning departments. Secondly, as I said in response to Ben Macpherson, we are looking at what more we might be able to do to provide support to planning authorities and to ensure that we can provide as much certainty as possible on the speed of some of the decisions that are being taken, so that we can provide certainty not just to potential investors but to communities where there are planning applications.

I cannot give an overall figure or say whether it will go up or down, because some of that will depend on local decision making, which is the way it should be. However, we are looking at what more we can do to support a faster process in planning. There are on-going discussions about the extent to which that would require resource and whether it would require other interventions to provide support to local planning authorities.

I acknowledge Monica Lennon’s initial point about any further reduction in the planning headcount being worrying. If we saw a reduction, it would be very challenging for us to realise what we want from an economic perspective, because of the difficulty of getting through the applications that we need to get through. That is why we are looking at what might be possible. The suggestions that Ms Lennon has made will be part of our consideration of whether there is anything more that we can do, beyond the appeal that I made in response to her first question about the central importance that planners play in giving voice to the great work that our planners do. We will consider whether other incentives and supports can be given to planning authorities, to provide greater certainty about how quickly we can process some of the applications.

It is both—both will be under consideration. We will look at the bodies’ current resource requirements and at the future, which involves getting clarity from industry about projects that will come through. I gave the example of transmission infrastructure, but there are other activities that relate to the energy supply chain and energy development where we are keen to get as clear a timeline as possible from industry for when it expects to come forward with proposals. Some of that will depend on factors that are outwith its control and our control. As I said, one of the greatest potential barriers to our renewable energy capability concerns access to the grid for energy development and offtake from the grid for particularly energy-intensive supply chain developments. Such considerations are key. I know that UK ministers and regulatory bodies are cognisant of that and understand the need to accelerate investment in the grid to ensure that we can respond to the opportunity that is before us.