Chamber and committees

Amendment 21 and amendment 33 are probing amendments about how and when the levy will be paid and how small businesses that will be tasked with the administration of its collection and recording will best be able to undertake the duties that are outlined in the bill.

It is important that the Government has a consistent approach to the collection of the levy. We need to ensure that visitors do not pay the levy twice and, importantly, that businesses that will now be tasked with becoming tax collectors have the simplest way of recording and receiving the levy payments for which they have to account.

We know that there has been a significant shift towards online booking platforms, and many businesses now operate mixed booking systems and, indeed, mixed check-in models. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will ensure that the Government provides clarification on the collection of the levy and any flexibilities that could be provided for, to be set out in statutory guidance that ministers would develop.

I move amendment 21.

—to address the negative impacts on businesses and on the most vulnerable.

It is important that the cabinet secretary acknowledged how distressing last week’s situation was for families. I spoke to constituents who had young children and who were stuck on the bypass for hours. I, too, pay tribute to our emergency services for the work that they did.

Edinburgh city bypass has been desperate for investment for many years. I have raised the issue throughout my time as a member of this Parliament. Sadly, we are seeing delay after delay to investment—for example, that is the case with the delivery of the new Sheriffhall junction. Will the Scottish Government undertake a full review of the bypass to look at the impact that such incidents are having and ensure that we get on and deliver the investment that Edinburgh needs?

I am not sure that that is 100 per cent the case, to be honest. Sometimes, if people are travelling around the country on their boats, they stay on their boats. I am not sure what evidence Stuart McMillan can present on that.

That sums up the debate on the impact. What the minister has outlined means that, in future, people who go to a national park could find that different parts of that park have different rules on camping, on where they can park their caravan and on whether they will be charged. That is ridiculous.

In addition, as I have outlined, the levy will be an unwanted additional charge on people who are trying to have a more affordable holiday.

Thank you.

I have a wider question about the pipeline. That was one of our biggest concerns when we looked at NPF4, and we were reassured that it would not be a problem. However, developers are telling us that it is very much a problem. NPF4 has obviously removed the ability to support unallocated housing sites. Where is the Government on that? To get the balance right, could the Government consider having national interim planning guidance on some sites that have not been brought forward?

Thanks.

I have a couple of questions on different topics. The first is about 20-minute neighbourhoods. The committee has heard a number of concerns with regard to the centralisation of services and the commercial pressures on developers in realising those neighbourhoods. Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to unlock such developments?

My question is about the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods and the services for people within them. That also brings me on to my second question, which is about the infrastructure-first approach, so that people have services on their doorstep. For most developments, that is planned through a phased delivery, but it relates to services such as schools and general practitioner surgeries.

The committee has heard quite a lot, too, about leisure and retail facilities that are sometimes promised but not realised. NPF4 does not seem to have delivered some of that community infrastructure at this stage.

Most of us can see where new development has resulted in some of the new schools that are needed, but I do not think that we have seen that for GP services. I look at my area here in Edinburgh. Six or seven years ago, I asked questions about what investment was needed in our GP surgeries, and £60 million was the figure that was put forward at that point. New GP practices have not been built, but huge numbers of new houses have been, which are then absorbed into the current GP practices. It feels as though the situation is at breaking point in many communities, which are, quite rightly, campaigning for new practices. There is a recruitment side to the matter as well.

In relation to the pressures that our national health service is facing—especially around accident and emergency departments, when people go there instead of to their GP—and to whether a disconnect exists between new-build housing and the lack of development of additional GP capacity, where was the Government specifically looking? I understand that the issue sits in the different departments of health and planning, but there seems to be a specific issue in that a lot of additional homes are being built.