Seòmar agus comataidhean

Monica Lennon covered some of the area that I wanted to ask about. Does the minister have any final message to those who are concerned about the environmental impact of plastic pollution in particular?

What are the top planning, practice and regulation changes that will be most helpful for your membership to deliver net zero in the short term and the long term?

Is it easier to do offsetting to address that issue than to be part of the decarbonisation agenda for pension funds and their trustees?

I am glad that the witnesses could join us to share their valuable insights. I will ask you separate questions, to pursue some of the points that you have already made.

The Scottish Government has established a green heat finance task force. As its work has just started, your perspective on what that should cover would be helpful.

I will come to Jeremy Lawson first on the idea of aggregating investable propositions. I very much appreciate your comments on wider concepts and frameworks, but what does that look like in terms of aggregation? The Scottish Government has established a green investment portfolio, but even with £3 billion-worth of funding, things will be challenging, particularly given that there are subsets to that portfolio. What size of investment would your investment colleagues consider it worth coming to the table for?

It is about the speed and scale of co-investment between councils and private companies, which is important if we are to deliver on net zero. The Subsidy Control Bill is going through Westminster. Obviously, we want subsidy control and understand its importance but, if there is risk aversion because of the nature of that system, that could affect the scale and speed of co-investment between private companies and councils. With previous co-investments between private companies and councils, there have been streamlined schemes to help to get rapid approval. Given that we need clarity to move forward with tackling net zero, would your membership welcome some kind of streamlined scheme for approvals of subsidy by local authorities?

If you want to come back to us on that, I am happy for you to do so, but that is a live issue in the Parliament just now.

Can you make clear that the Scottish Government is in support of subsidy control measures but that they have to be the right ones for Scotland? The Subsidy Control Bill is a consequence of Brexit, but even those in favour of Brexit wanted to see economic growth. As we have heard, risk aversion is implicit in the practical measures of this legislation. If the UK Government could deal with the constitutional aspects and the asymmetry of this, everybody could focus on trying to get the bill right in terms of its measures.

If we forge ahead on net zero with a combination of contributions from the private and public sectors, there is a real danger for one of the biggest areas for economic growth, not just for Scotland but for the rest of the UK. Those practical measures, if they are not addressed—whatever your views on Brexit—will end up having a negative drag on what should be an economic growth opportunity. What are your comments on that?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I, too, want to focus on tourism. I will begin by following up on what you said about STERG’s recommendations. Have you calculated how much its funding ask comes to?

Bearing in mind that we are talking about the budget for 2022-23, any spend on phase 2 of the tourism recovery plan to attract visitors and build confidence would be for next summer as well as this summer. If there is a clear indication that visitors need to have confidence in the sector, not including that expenditure in the budget will have an impact. How much do you think phase 2 would cost? If you are saying that you are committed to funding it and that, although you cannot put it in the budget at this stage, you want to do so during 2022-23, do you know much that would cost?

It is okay, as I would like to move on. If you are thinking about figures of £25 million for resource and £24 million for capital for phase 2, that is almost equivalent to the whole of the tourism budget. It is not an insubstantial amount to be missing from the budget, although I think that people will take comfort from the comments that you made, especially those on the tourism sector.

If we look at the budget before us, we can see that the resource budget for VisitScotland is flatlined. The capital expenditure has reduced, but we know that, by and large, VisitScotland’s refurbishments have been completed. Can you give an assurance that the rural tourism infrastructure fund—in which, as you know, I have a keen interest—will not be reduced as a result of the capital reduction?

That leaves the “Tourism special projects” line as the line in the tourism budget that will experience a major reduction. That relates to recovery, as you have explained. Can you provide reassurance on the capital for impact for communities and reassure us that the rural tourism infrastructure fund will be protected? Can you also comment on the fact that phase 2 of the tourism recovery plan might double the tourism budget as it is currently set out in the budget if and when you can get the resources for it?

Good morning, minister. I want to cover agriculture. In its submission on the Subsidy Control Bill, NFU Scotland has said:

“It is critical that devolved governments can continue to develop agricultural policies that suit the unique domestic needs and policy ambitions that are essential for rural businesses and the communities and the economies they underpin. The inclusion of agriculture in the Subsidy Control Bill could severely constrain this.

Safeguards are already in place to secure the integrity of the UK internal market through existing international commitments (WTO Agreement on Agriculture) and the UK controls”.

It also says:

“Agricultural policy is devolved and must not be re-nationalised via the back door by UK-wide subsidy control measures.”

Given that even the agricultural leadership of NFU Scotland is saying that, in terms of your discussions, why is the UK Government including agriculture when it is not normally put together with other subsidies and subsidy control measures? Why is that happening?

Thank you for joining us. I am interested in the positives and what community organisations want to do in the net zero space. If there are no local authority funding streams as yet, what support can local authorities give? I am particularly interested in heat in buildings. Does the power of local organisations to influence and deliver on that offer great possibility? As has been mentioned, volunteers are the backbone of community organisations. If central funding is given mostly for capital or projects, will people capacity be an issue? If councils are interested only in what they finance—or, to be brutal, in the short term, as we have heard—what is needed for the people resource to help communities to do their projects?

I would like to hear from all three witnesses on that, if possible. After that, I will be happy to hand back to the convener.