Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for the advance sight of his statement.

Today will mark the start of a 10-year time bomb for more than half of Scotland’s home owners. SNP and Green ministers have come to the chamber today with a timescale but not a plan for how they will achieve what they have set out.

There is nothing in the statement today to provide reassurances that SNP and Green ministers understand the true costs that will face home owners the length and breadth of Scotland. Estimates have suggested that it may cost more than £30,000 to achieve the minimum energy efficiency standards in a rural property for example. What estimation of the costs of compliance for the average home has been undertaken?

I thank Willie Coffey for securing the debate and welcome the people who have joined us in the public gallery. I also pay tribute to Clare Adamson, who has committed to bringing the debate to the chamber in all the time that I have been in Parliament. I thank her for the opportunity in the past, because the debate has become an important point for us as a Parliament to come together and consider the issues.

Many members who are in the chamber will have personal knowledge of someone who has suffered from pancreatic cancer, whether a family member, friend, colleague or constituent. I am always moved by people who contact us beyond the debates.

I thank colleagues for mentioning John Scott and the speech that he made about his personal experience in one of the debates. I saw him at the Royal Highland Show this year, and he is doing well. He always emails us to keep us on our toes in Parliament. It is always good to see and hear from John. I thank colleagues for their comments.

As Willie Coffey outlined, the real cruelty of pancreatic cancer is that it is especially hard to detect. That, allied with the lack of timely treatment and care, means that the chance of best quality of life is significantly lowered for many people who discover that they have it, which often happens in A and E.

Just under 900 people a year are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in Scotland, and pancreatic cancer survival has not shown any real improvement over the past 50 years. In Scotland, pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer, with more than half of people who are diagnosed dying within the first three months, and seven out of 10 people receiving no treatment.

In our debate on the subject last year, I raised a number of issues on decisions to treat and the call for long-term funding to embed the learnings of the Scottish diagnostic pathway improvement project in our NHS. It is good to see some of the work that is happening around that. I was pleased to attend, with others, the Pancreatic Cancer UK drop-in that was held in Parliament recently, and to speak to a number of patients and family members about the issues that they wanted to raise and the changes that they want to see.

Pancreatic Cancer UK has worked with experts across the field to develop the faster, fairer and funded optimal care pathway, which will inform how best to diagnose, treat and care for pancreatic cancer patients. However, we still need far more work to be taken forward on decision making around decision to treat, and cancer workforce planning is critical to that. Funding for specialist pancreatic cancer roles in every health board across Scotland and the delivery of the workforce plan in the Scottish Government’s cancer plan need to be the top priorities if we are to achieve what we want to see. I very much welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has committed to improving pancreatic cancer survival, but we now need to see what that will look like in reality within the plan. That will require action and not just words if we are to ensure that improvements become a reality.

It is hoped that, through implementation of the optimal care pathway, significant progress can be made to improve treatment for people, with—importantly—more decisions to treat being made. However, if this work is to progress significantly, we need to see something that is an opportunity for Scotland—the doubling of treatment pathways and improvement in survival rates. That could see around 400 more people in Scotland living longer and better lives over the next five years.

Although we have to be honest—this is always an honest debate—that the current statistics paint a challenging picture, we know that early diagnosis and treatment can improve the lives of people with pancreatic cancer. Scotland has an opportunity to lead the way in the United Kingdom in improving treatment of pancreatic cancer and survival rates. I believe that, with focus and determination, we can help to move Scotland and the UK from being one of the worst-performing countries to being one of the best.

Every member in the chamber has a duty to their family, their friends and their constituents to hold the Government to account on this and ensure that we stand by the commitments that we have made to try to improve the survival rates. As others have said, time is a luxury that those who are suffering from pancreatic cancer do not have, so we must act now and make that a priority.

I have spoken in every debate that we have had on the subject since I was elected, because I know that we can make a difference. Every campaigner I have met, every individual I have worked with and every family that has lost a loved one to pancreatic cancer has demanded that we do better. As Clare Adamson said, when we meet campaigners, it is an odd feeling, because we come away with hope even though they have had such a negative time. They may know that our work is not going to make a difference for their loved one, but they are demanding that we make a change for other people’s families and loved ones.

I hope that today’s debate shows that we always have all those people in mind and that we want to continue to work to improve treatment and pathways, and above all to celebrate the lives of people we have lost to pancreatic cancer. They are all individuals we need to celebrate, and I hope that today’s debate gives us the opportunity to do that.

Throughout the time that we have been looking at the bill, I have raised the issue of exemptions for individuals. The fact is that this is more of an accommodation tax than a tourist tax and some groups of people—those who are staying in hotels while they visit family members in hospital, for example—should not be captured by it. First, does COSLA support exemptions, and secondly, how could such exemptions best be delivered? The bill includes a section on voucher schemes, but that is the only detail that the Scottish Government has given.

Has the Government been in touch with the Manchester scheme, which is the only scheme that is currently operational in the UK?

Okay. Thank you.

My questions relate to exemptions, which is a matter that I have been trying to pursue throughout our work on the bill.

Currently, in the bill, the Government proposes a voucher scheme. To date, it has not been clear how accommodation providers would be able to check whether individuals who thought that they were not eligible for a visitor levy were actually eligible or not. What work is going on in that respect, given the broad consensus that some people should not pay—for example, those who are visiting children in hospital or family members in prison? Actually, quite a broad range of people should, I think, be exempt.

I realise that at the minute you are answering quite a few questions from me on this issue, but it is quite important that we get it right before the bill is administered, likely by hotels and individual businesses. What is the Government’s thinking on how exemptions will work in practice?

Thank you both for joining us today.

I will carry on with a couple of questions about the flexibility of the levy. There have been calls for a nationally set cap, either on the percentage rate or on the number of nights that would be chargeable. If different local authorities each set a levy, that might create a postcode lottery for people visiting Scotland. What is COSLA’s view on that? Specifically, what is COSLA’s view on the number of nights for which the levy would be charged?

Good morning, minister, and good morning to your officials, too.

I want to get some clarification on cruise ships. Two weeks ago, your Green ministerial colleague was quite clear that they would be part of the bill, but I think that what you are saying today is that there will need to be a consultation. Given that we are scrutinising the bill now, it is probably unlikely that cruise ships will be included in the eventual legislation. Is that right?

Thanks for that. It is important that clear work is done on the issue, because a broad range of people have said that they want certain people to be exempt. An accommodation tax is, by its very nature, not just about tourists and visitors, but there is no detail on how it is going to be administered not just by businesses and not necessarily in councils. The voucher scheme itself does not seem to cover that. It is really important that the matter is looked at, if it is taken forward.

Tourism organisations have made some criticisms about certain assumptions and calculations in the current financial memorandum. What is the minister’s view on that? You have touched on some of the potentially changing environments that we might see before the bill comes into force, but what about, say, online platforms and credit card charging? How will small businesses be able to administer that sort of thing?

I want to ask about the Scottish Government’s powers to introduce a full national freeze, given that it appears not to have the necessary powers to do so. Previous freezes have happened under a concordat with councils. Are you confident that you will be able to effect a council tax freeze across Scotland, and how else do you plan to incentivise councils to buy into this measure?