Chamber and committees

Yes. You have rightly said that the area is a reserved competence, and the need for us to have an R100 programme at all is because there has been underinvestment by the UK Government, meaning that we will not see the digital roll-out happen as quickly as we need it to, particularly for our rural businesses. Therefore, we are making an increased commitment to meet the target and ensure that the economic growth opportunity that comes off the back of it is available to as many people as possible—not just businesses but the domestic households that will have access to it, as well.

We have increased funding for local government. That is recognised in the budget. I recognise, however, that all elements of the public sector are facing fiscal challenges, which is born out of decisions that are taken at UK level. The challenge that local government in England is facing, where we see local authorities going bankrupt, is self-evident, and the cuts that are happening to local authorities there are on a far greater scale. We are not willing to follow that, which is why we have taken tax decisions to prioritise public spending.

If Mr Whittle understands the consequence of UK spending decisions on Scottish Government spending decisions and—as he has just pointed out—local government spending decisions, I would prefer by far that we work together on the initial damage that is being done to our public sector financial landscape by the UK Government’s spending decisions. Whether it be on mental health, social work or education, ensuring that we have preventative spending at an early stage is exactly why we have prioritised protecting, as far as we possibly can, our public sector budgets.

Yes. It was a different commitment, for a women’s business centre. As I said, the consultation and engagement that Ana Stewart and Mark Logan engaged in concluded that that would not the be most effective way of getting women into business.

Yes. Obviously, I cannot account for future budgets, because we do not have sight of them, but I hope that we would be able to continue to invest greater amounts in that space. The Government recognises that greater diversity in business start-ups is an untapped economic opportunity, and that ensuring that we release the full potential of women—women, in this case, but it is so for other groups, as well—to get into business and to get on in the employment market is a good opportunity for business growth. It is also the right thing to do. I will bring in Aidan Grisewood on the particular budget area in which that funding lands.

As with all Government investments, there must be an appraisal of its efficacy. As we set our plans for the investment of £1.5 million this year, we will work with Ana Stewart and Mark Logan on how that will work and we will set out how we will monitor and evaluate its progress.

Absolutely—I am happy to give that commitment. We are still in discussions with Ana Stewart and Mark Logan about the budget allocation for the coming year and how it will be invested best to begin with. Once we have more information, I will be more than happy to share it with the committee to ensure that it is fully apprised of decisions.

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.