Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, minister, and welcome to your officials. The committee noted that there were only two responses to the Scottish Government consultation, but I am aware of how much proactive engagement the Scottish Government—including you, of course—generally does with stakeholders. Could you reassure us that the Government is confident that all necessary and appropriate steps have been taken to hear the views of stakeholders and that you have obtained the feedback that you would want to get this right?

Minister, in order to assist you and colleagues with these important deliberations, I note that an important point—as colleagues have emphasised—is the need for opportunities for primary legislation, in order to act on any conclusions that come from the round table.

To state the obvious, law making is the most important bit of work that we do in this Parliament. If the timetable for stage 3 does not permit input from that round table to be acted on and the actions that are agreed through that process to be undertaken, I think that it would be appropriate and beneficial for the Parliament to receive reassurance from you ahead of stage 3 that those considerations, and any conclusions, would form the input for another piece of primary legislation in the current session of Parliament.

Good morning. I welcome the amendments, especially amendments 24 and 48, which address matters that were discussed during the stage 1 process and in the committee’s stage 1 report, and which had been raised by stakeholders, including Glasgow Caledonian University.

I support the amendments, but I would like to draw the minister’s attention to the University of Glasgow’s 19 January submission to the committee. If the Government has not received a copy of that, the committee can share it. I ask the Government to reflect on that submission prior to stage 3 and to consider whether further refinement of the proposed amendments might be beneficial in dealing with the issues at hand.

Thank you.

Good morning to both cabinet secretaries and to all the officials. I thank you for all the engagement and work that you have put into the budget, particularly in the challenging context of a 10 per cent capital reduction.

As the constituency MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith, one of the areas of capital spending that I am pleased to see progressing is the investment in the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. It has a 350 year-plus history and has more than 13,500 plant species, many of which are endangered or extinct in their native habitats. The importance of the institution—not only as a major visitor attraction—should not be underestimated.

As part of protecting what the botanic garden holds for the future, the investment in the Edinburgh biomes project is the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh’s biggest-ever capital infrastructure project and, as many will know, aims to produce a world-leading facility for biodiversity research and for the public to be able to engage with more of what the botanic garden does. Ms Gougeon, will you update the committee on the future of the biomes project and any commitments that the Scottish Government has made to help to secure its future? Will the £17 million allocation in capital funding in the 2024-25 budget enable the project to progress with its full original plans, noting what Audit Scotland said last year?

I have a question for the cabinet secretary who is in the room, if that is okay.

Scotland is rightly well known for its remarkable nature, which is part of its attraction and what makes it a great place to live. We are also increasingly becoming known for having a remarkable renewables industry, growth in net zero technology development and the installation of technologies to produce renewable electricity from onshore wind and offshore wind, as well as other technologies such as tidal energy, which requires development of our ports and a range of other infrastructure projects.

Last week, when I was engaging with the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing, Economy, Fair Work and Energy at committee and in the chamber, we discussed how NatureScot’s and Marine Scotland’s planning and licensing teams need sufficient capacity to support the scale and pace of the Government’s net zero infrastructure ambitions and, indeed, Scotland’s wider ambitions in that space. We need to ensure that renewables are scaled up in harmony with nature and that, where it is appropriate, we deliver the projects that so many of us—developers, the energy industry, the Government and the populace—want.

Will you comment, in budgetary terms, on how you look at the infrastructure ambitions across Government and between your directorates to ensure that we avoid costly consenting and licensing bottlenecks, and to ensure that there is robust consenting, but that decisions are supported by good evidence and made as quickly as possible so that we can realise projects and Scotland’s potential?

I have a brief supplementary question. Heating our buildings in an energy-efficient and environmentally friendly way is one of the biggest challenges that we face in meeting our targets. Most people in Scotland live in urban constituencies, such as the one that I represent. I am pleased to see that, although the Government is showing its determination to move as quickly as practically possible, the consultation that is currently live shows an understanding that that will take time.

The biggest challenge that is faced by people in my constituency who live in pre-1919 tenements is that general maintenance and repair are difficult to action and achieve under the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004. There are similar challenges with factored properties under the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011. Parliament has undertaken some work with the tenement maintenance working group, which I initiated and which has been brilliantly taken forward by Graham Simpson and colleagues in recent years. Cabinet secretary, I want to make sure that the issue is on your radar, as well as being considered by Mr Harvie and Mr McLennan.

The Scottish Law Commission is undertaking a project that is considering sinking funds and making owners associations mandatory. If we do not enable the thousands of pre-1919 tenement owners—and I should declare an interest as I am one—we will not meet those targets. This law is crucial. It is hard law and it is rightly being considered in a patient way, but we need to get it right. Do you have any comment on that?

Thank you very much for that, cabinet secretary. Just for clarity, it is understandable that, because of the staging and phasing of such a big project, there are fluctuations in the figures from year to year, but are you emphasising today that there is a commitment to progressing with the full plans that the botanic garden agreed with the Government in the infancy of the project?

When I met RBGE representatives recently, they emphasised how good the engagement with the Scottish Government was at both official and ministerial level.

Cabinet Secretary Gougeon, do you want to add to that?

I thank you both. It is reassuring that there is attention, investment and co-ordination across Government, including the creation of a ScotWind directorate, which is most welcome.

I emphasise the point that I made because some of the feedback from the people who are developing renewables technologies projects is that there has been a delay that has added to inflationary costs. It is a risk for the development of our renewables potential if the consenting process is unnecessarily slow.

However, I also appreciate that it takes time to create expertise and develop capacity through recruitment. I am glad to hear that work is on-going and that you are both focused on the matter.