Chamber and committees

I have said that my amendments are mostly probing amendments, and I want to get some comments on the record today. I welcome the minister’s assurance that the bill would not preclude investment of the revenue in housing and regeneration, in particular given Edinburgh’s housing emergency. I declare an interest in that respect, given my previous employment.

I have made some points about the huge impact of tourism, which is very beneficial but also poses challenges, so a bit more thought and flexibility would be welcome in that regard. I will not move amendment 21 in my name—I will leave that for today and engage in conversation with the minister.

On timing, we in Edinburgh have been in discussions for a long time already, as I know certain other councils have too, because this is a now issue. City of Edinburgh Council is already working in consultation with a range of tourism and business-related organisations in advance of a potential visitor levy, and to support those businesses. Personally, therefore, I am disappointed that there does not seem to be support for reducing the lead time from 18 months to 12 months. I want to put that on record, and highlight that that period would begin after a scheme proposal had been agreed, which could be a long way down the track.

However, I recognise the feedback from other members today. I seek permission to withdraw amendment 20, and I will not move the other amendments in my name.

Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.

I will not move amendment 24, and I will reflect on the minister’s comments from our discussion.

Amendment 24 not moved.

I think that that is a constructive approach, but I want to put on the record the fact that there are days in the year in which tens of thousands of additional people can come, not just for the festivals. If people come at the same time, that can deliver major challenges. Policing, for example, is not about leisure or culture, but it is critical to success and safety in our tourism economy. I hope that the minister will accept that point.

What will be the impact of us recommending approval of the order? How will it affect the actual price of electricity for the plants that will be affected? How much do you calculate that it will save energy intensive industries in Scotland?

How many industries—individual plants—are we talking about?

My questions are partly about digging in and just trying to get some backdrop as we make the decision, so that is useful. Thank you.

I am not sure who the best person is to answer questions about the LNG installations. The update that you sent us at the beginning of February said:

“Supply of the final parts of the piping systems should have taken place in the last quarter of 2023, but was delayed”.

When did you first become aware of the issue? What action was taken to prevent it from delaying the project?

I have a couple of questions that have been sparked by Graham Simpson’s questions. We have focused on the 801 and 802 ferries, but the responses to some of Graham Simpson’s questions have prompted some other questions about additional opportunities for construction at the yard.

You mentioned wind farm support vessels. Importing and moving wind farm products around the country and our seas for onshore and offshore developments is a huge part of Scotland’s economy. The other thing that prompted a thought was about the repair and maintenance of existing ferries, which has not been mentioned. It is not just about building new ferries. It is about having ferries that run on time and are safe, and that can be innovated or upgraded. There are therefore two other potential opportunities in the market through CMAL and the wind farm and renewables industry. Could you comment on whether they will be opportunities for the yard in future?

We have had a lot of discussion about additional infrastructure. To what extent would additional infrastructure to upgrade the yard provide opportunities for a new market for the yard going forward?

Okay. I just thought I would ask. Thank you.

I thank the clerks for the papers that they have sent us, which are useful in taking us through the proposals. I say at the outset that I do not have any objections, but I have one or two questions about the extent to which stakeholders can be consulted. The notification states that the instrument is

“not expected to have any significant impact on stakeholders”.

It is good to see the Scottish and UK Governments agreeing. The instruments that are to be revoked are seen as entirely obsolete.

However, I would like more feedback about what monitoring will be done. Some of the statutory instruments that are to be revoked are more than 20 years old, but others are a lot more recent. How will the situation be monitored? The benefit will clearly be a reduced need for animal testing, but I would like more monitoring of the impact of the statutory instrument. It is quite unusual, in terms of parliamentary accountability, to not have feedback from stakeholders, so there is a gap. I understand the logistics and that we need to get the measure through, because otherwise Scotland will miss out.

Those are my comments, having read the background papers.