Chamber and committees

Good morning. I am interested in policy coherence. Environmental and planning legislation is devolved. I will come to Robbie Calvert first. How might part 5 of the bill impact on the fourth national planning framework?

Clearly, in some areas—perhaps more for offshore projects, because planning is devolved, although energy policy is reserved—we might want to pursue clarification on who would decide where the mitigations would be because the consenting should be devolved.

That is interesting. From what I have heard, it sounds as though it would be possible to piggyback on EU applications, but you would be reliant on the information that the applicant provided to the EU, as opposed to the approvals database—is that correct?

How does that compare with the EU’s progress and pace in approvals—or, indeed, non-approvals? How will the delays that we are hearing about impact the Scottish Government’s ability to keep pace with the EU on that?

David, what are your views on the interaction between the bill, the LCM on which we are looking at, and the draft NPF4?

I am trying to understand the matter from a practical point of view. What will it mean for projects, in particular? I turn to Robbie Calvert for an answer next. Although there are some concerns about the provisions on environmental outcomes reports, you can see a sense in them from a policy point of view. However, who would make the decision on large onshore—or even, potentially, offshore—developments that environmental assessment has shown need some kind of mitigation when that mitigation might not be able to happen on a granular, small scale but will happen elsewhere? Under the bill, would a Scottish minister or the secretary of state decide where the mitigation for the environmental outcome would take place? That is a practical situation that could happen.

But you would be reliant on the applicant as opposed to the approvals database.

On the volume of work, what discussions has the Scottish Government had with the UK Government about how it ensures that the HSE is sufficiently resourced to carry out its functions in this area effectively and to reduce delays in processing authorisations under the GB biocidal product regulatory regime?

That is very clear. Thank you very much.

We are doing pre-budget scrutiny and we want to put women at the centre. It is perhaps an understatement to say that there is volatility in the economy and the fiscal situation as we speak. Therefore, budgets will be tough. I hear you saying that you want mainstreaming, but you also want targeting, and it would be helpful if you could unpack that.

Budgets will be tight. What is already there that you want to keep? It may be at risk, because everything will be looked at. Ideally, everyone wants more money, but that will be a challenge. What would your priorities be? What is already happening that you would say is a priority to keep? Could you explain your position on mainstreaming and targeting a wee bit more, because there is a bit of a contradiction there?

That is extremely helpful. Would it be reasonable to say that we need to be pressing the Government on getting better value for the public purse from women’s contributions? That is a good economic argument, because the benefits of having more women being successful will have a disproportionate impact on tackling inequality. In a tight budget, that in itself will provide value from existing budgets.