Chamber and committees

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, 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?

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?

What challenges are there in that regard, and what would better enable that work to happen?

You have been very direct. That is helpful.

I want to talk about conservation designations and to ask the panel about the challenges for buildings, particularly in terms of potential restrictions on glazing and insulation options.

I know that Historic Environment Scotland has been active on innovation through work with the City of Edinburgh Council. Can a balance be struck for historic urban environments, with celebration and preservation of them while future-proofing them against climate change? We know that there has been a successful conservation area regeneration scheme across Scotland. Is there anything like a conservation area climate change scheme that would enable us to tackle conservation areas in particular?

Does anybody else want to comment? I know from my experience as a minister that there is work going on in that area. I suppose that we need to find out from local authorities why the work has not been rolled out as much as it could have been.

Thank you. Partnership is a theme of the inquiry.

I move on to water and the challenges of working together. You talk in your route map about innovative partnerships with local authorities and public sector agencies. I am particularly interested in your work with Scottish Water. There has been some good work done on flood prevention between local authorities, Scottish Water and Scottish Canals. From the perspective of Scottish Canals, more could be done with West Lothian Council and the City of Edinburgh Council on preventative work. Could you comment on opportunities in that respect?

We are limited by time, so could you also address issues around rivers and Scotland’s waterways? We know from the Environmental Audit Committee in England about concerns about levels of pollution. Scottish Water’s net zero emissions route map might be helpful in that respect. It would be interesting to hear your views on partnership working, particularly in relation to water.

That is very interesting. Does anyone else want to come in on water before I hand back to the convener?

In that case, I will hand back to the convener.