Chamber and committees

I would like to follow up on that. The £53 million was intended as additional funding, so nobody’s funding was actually cut, but do you think that the disruption of not knowing whether it was coming may have delayed some of the regular contracts? I am trying to get a sense of what actually happened and the impact of it.

That is what I am trying to understand. Were people holding back from commissioning because they thought that they would have a larger amount? That is what I am trying to work out.

Other colleagues might go into Placebase, the different geographies and their impact. I was struck by what you said about the aspirations of young people. In terms of partnership, developing the young workforce is a key issue in the employability sector generally. Can anything more be done for young people in school? Early preparation was mentioned, and it is about what you can do as opposed to what you cannot do. Is that partnership strong enough, or does something more need to be done for young people with disabilities in school, working with Developing the Young Workforce?

That is a helpful insight.

I would like to ask Emma Congreve about the employment economics of the issue. Obviously, there is a moral responsibility to ensure that everybody can take part in the workforce, but there is also an economic benefit to employers. In a tight labour market, retention of staff is key. Any data about retention rates of people with disabilities in the workplace would help that argument. There is also the issue of diversity. Customers want to buy from companies that look like them, and there is a need to recognise that wider perspective.

Are we seeing shifts in the understanding of employers of the benefits of employing people with disabilities? Is there an issue about the economic imperative in an ageing workforce in which more older people will be in the workforce, with people developing disabilities as they get older? Is that where the thinking needs to be, particularly in a Scottish context? Is there anything that we can learn from the international context about how different countries view this issue from a clear economic perspective?

I want to ask Ashley Ryan about partnership working. Obviously, we understand that it is a complex landscape, and I very much appreciate what you have said. I want to understand some of the key partnerships, what is successful and where there are challenges. If we are to move the agenda on, what do we need to work on?

I want to explore whether you can help the committee to understand any potential relationship between the UK Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and what might come through the Energy Bill in relation to mitigation and environmental aspects.

I perfectly understand that we want to see biodiversity mitigation and peatland restoration in relation to onshore developments. With offshore developments, there will clearly be a biodiversity impact from major developments, and we will want to make sure that there are mitigations. Environmental law and mitigations are devolved competences of this Parliament.

We published our report on the UK Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill at the end of December, and one of the concerns that we noted was that the new system would mean that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the UK Government would not have to consult the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government on mitigation in relation to cross-border areas, which could clearly include the sea.

Mitigation for environmental issues would therefore be under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which could have a major impact. For example, as part of our mitigations, we might want to develop seaweed farms or do something in relation to our bird populations in particular. However, there would be no responsibility, accountability or planning and funding control from the Scottish Government. Those things would transfer to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

If I have got that wrong, please let me know, but I am concerned about the interaction between the two bills.

How do you future proof for legislation and changes that will happen? You mentioned the potential issues around heat networks. Does the UK Energy Bill present a wider risk to devolved powers or is it likely to limit future actions of Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament, particularly on energy?

You say that the immediate issue relates to the offshore situation. Do the wider aspects of the Energy Bill, such as the provisions on hydrogen or carbon capture, give rise to any potential issues with onshore environmental aspects? I suppose that we need to consider the onshore environmental aspects of any developments that might take place and the mitigations for those. I refer, for example, to the Acorn project and work at Grangemouth.

Can you confirm that the issue for both Governments is how we can effectively reduce the consenting period but also improve the process and have certainty for the industry to ensure that the developments take place as planned? If you have to come back to the committee with a supplementary LCM, is that likely to be the area of concern?

If I may, I will continue my questions on that area. You are suggesting that there should be consent both ways with regard to the environmental impact and mitigations as a result of the Energy Bill but that the implications for Scotland are clearly far bigger because of the scale of the operations in the ScotWind programme, and potentially ScotWind 2.

Is that what you will seek as regards changes to the Energy Bill—to ensure that consent will work both ways? If so, is any action required with regard to the interaction with the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I mentioned earlier and which the UK Government is pursuing? Currently, there is only consultation with Scottish ministers.