Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will get into bother with the convener if I start getting into supply chain development statements versus conditionality, but that is a well-made point about ScotWind.

Dominic Pritchard, I will follow up something from the GMB submission. We have talked a lot about the importance of the Acorn project to Grangemouth and, in fact, the importance of that project with regard to a jobs-first just transition, because of the opportunities that it brings. However, I noted a concern in the GMB submission that, although hydrogen and carbon capture have the potential to create jobs, they will not do so at a scale that will replace the jobs that will be lost in the carbon-intensive industry. Do you have a view on what the difference will be between what we can create through Acorn and carbon capture and hydrogen, and what we have at the moment?

In effect, it is about delivering more opportunities over and above these. It is not a silver bullet.

I refer members to my voluntary registration as a member of Unite and the GMB.

You mentioned the Scottish cluster, specifically the Acorn project and the fact that it has been awarded track-2 status. How important is that project to a just transition for the Grangemouth area? What are your expectations of receiving the ultimate go-ahead from Government? Are there any barriers, or is it a case of waiting for that go-ahead?

What will ensure that we get the absolute maximum benefits from that? You mentioned earlier the consenting process, and obviously that steady stream of work is increasingly important. However, what other roles do Government and the policy makers need to play to ensure that that investment continues? Will it all come from the private sector? Is there a need for Government investment? What else do we need to do to maximise the potential of ScotWind for Scottish ports?

Good morning. I want to follow up on Colin Beattie and Maggie Chapman’s points. One of the biggest criticisms of the current transition to renewables is that although it may have reduced emissions, it has not delivered economic benefits to Scottish businesses, particularly regarding onshore wind. How do we avoid making the same mistakes when it comes to offshore wind?

Stuart Wallace, what level of investment in port infrastructure in Scotland is needed to ensure that Scottish firms benefit from the opportunities—particularly from, for example, the leasing of the ScotWind projects? Where will the investment come from?

Good morning, minister. You talked about how you are close to reaching the target 50 per cent employment rate for disabled people. The figure specifically for people with autism is a pretty shocking—it is 16 per cent, compared with 73 per cent for the wider population. However, the committee is constantly being told by employers that they have real labour supply shortages. They are obviously missing out on a talented workforce.

Given that that priority group should be supported in order to tackle that low figure, why are organisations that work with young people with autism, for example, being plagued by considerable delays in funding? Many organisations were told that decisions on Government funding would be made by the end of December; they are now being told that decisions are delayed until well into the next financial year. That obviously makes it impossible for them to plan, and in some cases it is leading to their being under threat. They need to hand out redundancy notices to staff because they will not be notified of funding until beyond the current financial year. What has caused those delays, and what is their extent?

I can give you an example. I appreciate that it might relate to another portfolio, but I can quote one letter to a third sector organisation. It says:

“Thank you for your application to the Scottish Government’s Children, Young People, Families and Adult Learning Third Sector Fund. We had planned to inform applicants of funding decisions by the end of 2022. Unfortunately, this will not happen. As a result, the funding decisions will be shared in early 2023 with the intention of commencing in July 2023.”

That means that anybody who employs staff has to hand out notices, because they have been given a timescale of nine months to wait but need funding now to pay salaries. They face real uncertainty. I hope that you will investigate that, because the committee has had real difficulty in getting to the bottom of the issue. We are being told there are differing delays across the board, but nobody from the Government is telling us in detail why the delays are happening, how much funding in the budget has been delayed and what the impact is.

One issue that organisations have raised is about why we are not moving to multiyear funding. I know that there are challenges around that. We have the debate every year; we should be having it every three years, but we have it every year. Nevertheless, there must be a way for priority projects that deal with these issues to be given at least a minimum commitment of funding over more than one year, in order to avoid such issues.

We know that budgets vary, but the whole Government budget does not vary. The Government does not tell local government, “We are going to completely stop all your education funding.” However, that is perhaps not a good example to choose. The Government knows that there is a minimum baseline level that will be carried over each year. Why, for priority projects, do we not have a minimum level for more than one financial year, bearing in mind the knowledge that the overall figure might change?

The particular cases in which decisions have been delayed until the next financial year are not for the long-term—they are a short-term challenge at the moment. It would be good for the committee to hear about the full extent of the problem for disabled people across portfolios—I appreciate that the matter cuts across portfolios—and on what action the Government is taking to tackle it, because it is causing a lot of uncertainty.

I raised a particular case in the chamber with you a few weeks ago.