Seòmar agus comataidhean

Given your background, you will understand the fact that supply-chain price inflation has an impact on our spending power and our ability to deliver with the budget that we have available to us. However, we are working with our suppliers and doing what we can to ensure that that is mitigated as far as possible. It will not always be possible; in some cases, we will have to spend more in order to get less. That is the nature of inflation. Again, as part of the response that I give to the committee regarding the progress of R100, I will set out more in answer to your inquiry.

That comes from our national strategy for economic transformation, which sets out our long-term economic aspirations. The green industrial strategy is coming up, and the innovation strategy was published last year. There are various plans and strategies that we have available to us.

I assume that you, like Murdo Fraser, continue to support UK Government spending plans, and you must understand that those plans have an impact, which would have been greater if we had not taken the tax decisions that we took, on our ability to spend in those areas. We are allocating our resource as best we can to ensure that we maximise the economic opportunities before us, but UK spending decisions have an impact. In reality, they have a direct consequence for us, and that has meant that there have been some difficult spending decisions. However, if we had replicated UK spending plans, we would have had a real-terms cut to our NHS, which, at this time and given your interest in a healthier nation, could not be comprehended. Although it is, admittedly, a difficult spending decision for some of the reasons that you highlight, we are working with our enterprise agencies, the SNIB and others to ensure that we are getting the maximum possible from that investment and taking maximum advantage of the opportunities that are available to us.

I thank Murdo Fraser for pointing out the difference that is made by our tax decisions in Scotland—tax decisions that he has opposed. Our block grant has been cut in real terms by the UK Government, so we are having to take decisions in Scotland to try to ameliorate the impact that austerity has had. Our budget is therefore up in real terms, but only because of the tax decisions that we have taken.

The advisory board is still being worked on, and there will be an update in due course.

Again, I am happy to provide that in writing to the convener after the meeting.

I think that I said it all earlier. [Laughter.]

I appreciate Mr Macpherson’s question. For clarity, our commitment to halving the consenting time is for onshore wind projects; it is part of the onshore wind sector deal. Although we cannot mandate developers in that area, we have an agreement from them to consult communities at an earlier stage in developments and to propose commitments on community benefit that are both generous and more strategic in the way that such benefit will be derived.

In return, we are considering how we might halve the consenting time for onshore wind projects. That is an important distinction because, from planning and consenting perspectives, wind energy development is clearly at a far more advanced stage. Developers, planning officials and representatives of the regulated bodies are far better versed in those processes than is the case for those for offshore wind or other marine energy projects.

I am also aware that, alongside access to grid, which is probably the greatest barrier to investment that we face on offshore renewables, consenting and providing as much certainty as possible are among the industry’s greatest asks. We are considering what we can do in that space to streamline the process, while balancing the need to take environmental considerations seriously.

I turn to what we are doing through the budget to ensure that planning authorities are able to deal with those processes. In her budget statement, the Deputy First Minister made reference to our looking to work with industry to improve the available support for planning authorities. We are giving early consideration to how we might move forward with planning processes in general—not just for renewables, but for all projects—and with supporting local authorities on those.

I believe that that is considered. I am not entirely familiar with how that is set up, but I will be happy—alongside colleagues—to come back to Mr Doris, to ensure that he has clarity on the question.

I do not have a figure in my head. The likes of SNIB, Scottish Enterprise and other investors have to consider that, and some have stringent targets for it. I would be happy to give a more considered view in writing as part of the further information that I committed to send in the previous evidence session.

Mr Doris is absolutely right. That is precisely one of the reasons why I am so interested in what the Deputy First Minister has committed us to looking at in terms of support for the planning functions that local authorities are responsible for. Some local authorities will have to deal with large, complex planning applications—in some cases in energy, and in some cases in the infrastructure space. I am looking at what might be possible in order to support planning authorities in that space.

There is no direct commitment as yet. What might be possible is part of a current discussion and consultation phase. However, I am very cognisant, as the Government is, of the need to ensure that we are providing as much certainty as possible to potential investors, whether in the energy space or otherwise. We also need to ensure that our planning processes are fit for that work and are able to deal with it—not just in terms of national planning framework 4, but also from a resource perspective. I hope that we will have more detail on that as those considerations continue.