Seòmar agus comataidhean

You had an exchange with Mr Macpherson about how other public bodies are financially supported. I think that NatureScot and Marine Scotland have been mentioned, and I am sure that other bodies are relevant. Our briefing pack talks about not being clear about how much funding could be realised for those organisations and about getting a better idea of the pipeline of projects. Do those organisations require funding for up-front costs in preparing for what we hope will be a full pipeline of projects?

That goes back to a question that I asked in the previous session. What is the latest update on what the pipeline of projects looks like?

Yes, absolutely.

Deputy First Minister, you talked about the path to balancing the budget when it comes to drawing down ScotWind moneys. As I listened to that, the expression “just transition” was floating about in my head. By that I mean, I wonder what people who live in poverty, but for whom direct action is being taken by the Scottish Government to mitigate and assuage some of that poverty in the teeth of UK austerity, would say about the use of the money that is being drawn down.

I declare an interest, convener, in that I am the deputy convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. There was a 13.1 per cent increase in that budget. Deputy First Minister, do you think that we could talk to the communities that I represent about a just transition and a climate emergency, and look them in the eye, if we did not draw down some of that money to plug the UK budget settlement gaps in order to help those living in poverty, whom we all represent? Surely, there has to be a balance, That, too, is part of a just transition.

I appreciate that. I am delighted that I do not have to deal with those complexities. Perhaps getting a flexible timescale to the committee at some point in the future would be helpful to allow us to better understand what is happening.

I am glad that that work is on-going. I am minded to ask whether, if there is a principle that the running of the energy consents unit will ultimately be cost neutral, there is an anticipation that, whatever funding mechanism is worked out with local authorities to underpin their work in that area, including fees regimes, that work should also be cost neutral to local authorities.

I suspect that my councillor colleagues would welcome that.

We are doing budget scrutiny, and my briefing pack says that we need to wait for industry to bring forward a pipeline of projects and be clearer about that before we can identify additional resource for public bodies. Is that a budget reality because the pipeline of projects brings investment, which will help to fund those bodies, or is that a strategic thing?

I know that Governments hate timescales on such things, cabinet secretary, but I would not be doing my scrutiny job properly if I did not ask this. Are we talking about five years, seven years or 10 years? Given the uncertainty, what is the best guesstimate on when fields could become operational?

Convener, I was making the wider point that the communities that we represent who are living in poverty have to make the lifestyle changes that are required to tackle the climate emergency. If we do not support them at this time, the buy-in from those communities will be much more limited than it otherwise would be. It is also the right thing to do.

ScotWind, of course, primarily is for that step change that we have to make to tackle the climate emergency. We know that these are one-off moneys that are being spent, but the hope is that as some of the offshore wind capacity becomes operational, the Scottish Government will then be able to activate a fees regime.

What is the latest thinking in the Scottish Government about when we could activate some of that additional cash income for the Scottish Government? When might fields be operational? What does the modelling work show about the kind of income that we might start to receive from fees? It could be five years away or it could be seven years away, but future Scottish Governments will have to think medium-to-long term about what structural changes we have to make.

Convener, I apologise for asking a question back to Mr Whittle that is probably stating the obvious, but I think that it is important to put it on the record. The deputy convener mentioned a few matters that the Government has taken forward to address the issues of cost. It was either Mr Austin or Shivali Fifield who said that that does not guarantee that that will resolve matters, but the Government is looking at various issues. Can you understand why the Government has been treading carefully on this? The exchanges that Mr Whittle has had with the convener show that the significant exposure of the public purse in all of this has to be a concern. I know that that is not the concern that witnesses here today necessarily want to hear, but there is a significant exposure to Scotland’s budget, depending on how we take some of the reforms forward. Is that a reasonable contention to put on the record, Mr Whittle?

I know that you want to bring others in, convener. That was quite an extensive answer. I thought that it would, hopefully, be relatively brief. Let us just put that on record.

The deputy convener talked about the Government wanting to enhance non-judicial routes to justice and remedy, the review of protective expenses orders, the exemption of court fees from July 2022 and legal aid reform. I was merely, as part of that conversation, asking whether you appreciate that the Scottish Government has to think about the cost to the Scottish public purse as it takes forward potential reforms. I think that that was quite a straightforward question. I do not think that I actually got an answer to it.