Seòmar agus comataidhean

The huge population growth in Edinburgh is having an effect on both rent and house purchase prices. Given that population growth, is the Scottish Government taking specific actions to address the issue in Edinburgh? Can priority be given to Edinburgh in relation to the £600 million of funding that is provided for affordable housing in the programme for government?

While Mr Lumsden is engaged in this period of reflection, does he want to touch on the fact that the UK Government subsidy change, from renewables obligation certificates—ROCs—to contracts for difference, happened at a key time for onshore wind, and that the UK Government could have helped the onshore wind industry to be even further ahead than it is now?

I associate myself with the remarks on today’s significant news that were made by the First Minister, party leaders and members who represent the Grangemouth refinery area. My thoughts are also with all the workers and people who are involved in the refinery’s operation and in the wider economy throughout the Forth estuary area, part of which I represent. The closure of the refinery is a significant development in Scotland’s overall history of capacity for energy and electricity production, which has been really positive, including in recent years.

At this point, it is important to recognise Scotland’s remarkable journey in growing the green economy, particularly in the production of renewable electricity. For example, in 2010, the operational capacity for renewable electricity generation was 4.4GW and, in March this year, it was 15.4GW. Just through the projects that are in the pipeline, we envisage that more than three times that capacity could be realised.

As Kevin Stewart did, people often talk about the impact on energy demand, but if we think about the capacity that I mentioned and the huge progress that has been made, there is no doubt that Scotland’s green economy development has been a huge success.

In the context of the times that we have been in—austerity from 2010, which was a UK Government choice; Brexit, a development that has negatively impacted the UK economy; an unpredictable pandemic that affected us all in negative ways; the cost of living crisis and global issues such as the war in Ukraine—through all of that, Scotland’s renewable energy has increased and its green economy has strengthened.

For me, that is most clearly demonstrated in the recent story of the port of Leith. In about 2010, just before the financial crisis, the proposals were to drain the port of Leith and turn it into a residential development for people who work in the financial sector. After the banking crisis, those plans changed dramatically.

Now the plan for the port of Leith, backed by inward investment and patient capital, is to create one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Europe, with £50 million of investment—something that I strongly support. As things stand, that plan is in a good position. There is an exciting proposal for Vestas, the huge Danish wind turbine manufacturer, to build in the port of Leith what might be Europe’s biggest offshore wind power production plant. I am working to support that and I am grateful that the Government is engaged in that proposal.

As others have said, the Berwick Bank development is connected to that work. I have previously raised in Parliament the issue of consenting times, so I welcome the planning hub proposals in the programme for government. That is an important step forward.

Colleagues should also remember that the concerns that RSPB Scotland raised about Berwick Bank relate to the biodiversity challenge that we face. If we are going to have passion for increasing our renewable energy production and protecting biodiversity, sometimes those matters have to be mutually considered.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the implementation of the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024 and cladding remediation programme, including the Scottish safer buildings accord and single building assessment pilot programme. (S6O-03701)

I welcome the progress that has been made through passing the 2024 act and undertaking what the minister has set out, and I appreciate the complex work that Scottish Government officials are doing on the issue. However, many of my constituents remain frustrated at the lack of progress and clear information coming both from the Government and from developers on their particular buildings.

Can the minister provide further insight into when my constituents will start to receive more regular, clear proactive information on when remediation work may start in their buildings and, when it has started, on progress thereafter?

I was clear that the policy has made a difference but we are in a situation of public finance restraint. I am sure that Mr Kerr will tell me where, in the Conservative Party’s proposals, the cut to the revenue budget would fall if it were to reinstate the policy.

I will build on the point that Mr Simpson made. If we do not have tenement law reform that obliges tenement owners to organise through owners associations and enables finance to be obtained and raised together, it could be very difficult, practically, to deliver on the 2045 targets. That will be the case if organising and getting all the owners of a tenement property to agree on a position remains as difficult as it is today.

Given the last speech, I note that Conservative colleagues who brought the debate to the chamber should consider that the people whom we represent know what is going on across these isles, and they know about the absolute folly of privatisation of rail services from the 1990s by the Conservative Party, which is having ramifications to this day. For example, there was the very long delay through the night that some of my constituents experienced on the Avanti service just a few days ago, as has been reported in The Scotsman in the past days.

We also know that, compared with elsewhere, the value for money that consumers receive from ScotRail is superior, and that there is strong support across the country for ScotRail’s having been in public hands since 2022.

I am a bit perplexed by members on the Conservative benches who have, in their previous contributions, spoken critically about public ownership of ScotRail but now seem to be demanding continued subsidy that can be utilised and delivered only because of public ownership. What does the Scottish Conservative Party stand for, in this instance? Is it in favour of public ownership or not? It is a mystery.

Please. Enlighten me.

I ask Mark Griffin in good faith whether he will agree that an important point for consideration, which many campaigners and those involved in the working group have suggested before, is whether we could reduce VAT on retrofitting and home improvements in order to help people to afford and facilitate that work.