Chamber and committees

I welcome that. There may be another amendment for stage 3 on who from tourism representative bodies in a wider council area would then be involved in that decision making on expenditure. I am happy to take that on board.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I welcome many of Sarah Boyack’s amendments. However, other council areas, though perhaps not Edinburgh and Highland, which have both long advocated for a tourist levy, are concerned about it being established. We need to take into account the many concerns that have been expressed about the set-up period and the systems that businesses would use. Therefore, we do not support amendments 21 and 25, but we support Sarah Boyack’s other amendments in the group.

I will not be moving amendment 46, convener.

In light of the minister’s comments, I will not move amendment 46.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Section 13 agreed to.

Sections 14 to 16 agreed to.

Section 17—Use of net proceeds of scheme

I support all the amendments in the grouping, which goes to the heart of who will be impacted by the bill, which is businesses the length and breadth of Scotland.

Our tourism sector is really diverse across many communities in Scotland. Importantly—Daniel Johnson touched on this—the levy will not just be about hotel chains with an information technology department and a bookings team; it will be about individuals who might run their business out of a diary and who, all of a sudden, are turned into a Government tax collector. We have to be mindful of what that will do to businesses and the consequences that they will face for not being able to report on time or collect what might be a complex levy.

On Pam Gosal’s amendments on VAT, it is important to note that around 20 per cent of unregistered borderline businesses admit to having taken action to remain below the threshold and outside of VAT systems, so it is important that we consider behaviour change in the industry.

My amendment 42 would make provision to ensure that a business impact assessment is undertaken. After the bill is passed, it could provide an opportunity to address concerns around the potential economic impact of the legislation. I hope that the minister and the committee will see that the introduction of such a provision could be useful in scoping the impact of the legislation.

During stage 1, the committee did not take a position on whether it supports a percentage scheme or a flat rate. However, it was clear that all the businesses that gave evidence to the committee, whether in person or through written submissions, would prefer a flat-rate fee. That was partly because of the simplicity of implementation. A flat rate would make returns far easier to introduce, administer, calculate and submit and, perhaps most important, it would be easier to explain to guests. As the committee heard, the use of a percentage system to calculate a visitor levy could also cause confusion because of the complexity of additional services being provided—for example, meals—which would make it harder to calculate the percentage fee.

Given the concerns that have been voiced with regard to the impact on business, Conservative members believe that, if the bill is passed, a flat-rate fee would be the simplest way of implementing a levy.

I move amendment 27.

In light of what the minister has said and his amendment 15, which we will be supporting, I will not move amendment 42. That will enable further conversations to take place ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 42 not moved.

Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.

Amendment 8 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

The Government’s decision to support a percentage rate raises concerns with regard to what that might mean and how it will be interpreted at council level. If the rate is set at 5 per cent—I think that is the rate that the Scottish Government is currently proposing—will that lead to a sliding scale on which different councils can appeal? That might lead, in turn, to different councils deciding to charge different rates, which I think is the concern that has been expressed by two of the key councils for tourism activity—the City of Edinburgh Council and Highland Council. Could the minister clarify that?

I thank the organisations that have provided briefings, our committee clerks for their support on the report and the witnesses who have given important evidence on how this issue has impacted on their lives, as the convener said.

The bill is technical and, as is the case with all framework bills, the devil will be in the detail of the guidance and ministerial direction that come from it. I put on record that I am concerned and not confident that the bill is the only solution for the householders who are affected. Although the Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill at decision time, we are concerned about the Government’s limited progress to date. The bill as drafted may not provide the solutions that home owners are desperately seeking to finally deliver the surveys and provide the framework in which any potential combustible cladding issues can be resolved.

As an Edinburgh MSP, I have been working with affected home owners since the start of the process. We must ensure that they are at the heart of the bill. Almost seven years since the tragedy of Grenfell tower and almost three years since the Scottish Government began its building assessment process, we have seen little progress on surveying buildings and progressing mitigation schemes.

For many home owners who are resident in the 105 developments that are in the cladding remediation programme, this has not only been a stressful time; their lives have been put on pause. In many cases, home owners are unable to insure or sell their property, or to make plans. They have the added stress of not knowing what will happen to their homes or even being kept informed of what is to happen. That must change, and the bill must be the start of a better process towards delivering a sustainable solution to cladding remediation in Scotland.

As I stated, it is concerning that the Scottish Government has failed to make any substantial progress. The committee’s report is clear about that—we say that progress has been concerningly slow. To date, of the 105 buildings that are in the programme, only two have had any remediation work undertaken or mitigations put in place. That is in sharp contrast to England, where more than two fifths—42 per cent—of the 1,608 buildings that the UK Government has in scope have had work either started or completed. That is why we need there to be progress. It is understandable why industry witnesses who have given evidence to the committee have expressed their significant frustration at the slow progress in Scotland and at the lack of leadership from the Scottish Government.

In the time that I have this afternoon, I want to highlight a number of important issues on which changes need to be made to the bill swiftly at stage 2. The committee has heard clear calls for the scope of the single building assessment to be defined in the bill, and a key ask has been made of ministers to ensure that the SBA aligns with the PAS 9980. From what I have heard, ministers have accepted that that must take place, especially for businesses operating across the UK.

A UK-wide scheme should have been developed, with the Scottish Government a part of that. However, it is important that the Scottish ministers now drive forward the scheme in Scotland.

Concerns have also been expressed about the cladding assurance register. I note Propertymark’s briefing for MSPs, which states:

“It is important that the Cladding Assurance Register is freely and easily available.

The risk of not doing so is that the Register will fail to motivate building owners to remediate properties, especially where the cost of works is high.

Ensuring that the Register is freely and easily available also allows residents to play a role in enforcement, further motivating building owners to remediate properties and avoiding situations where local authorities do not have the capacity to investigate compliance.”

The issue of compliance is lacking from the bill.

Another important area is the right to recourse. As the committee’s work demonstrated, the UK Building Safety Act 2022 and the legislation that was introduced to address cladding remediation in England give a right to recourse, in relation to responsible developers, over 30 years, so that suppliers and other actors in the supply chain that share liability can be held accountable. In Scotland, under the bill, that window currently stands at just five years, so the Scottish Government should consider alignment with the UK legislation.

Issues relating to orphan schemes, which have been mentioned, are important. I have met people who live in such schemes in Edinburgh, and they are deeply concerned that they will find themselves at the end of the queue for remediation work, so the Government must prioritise orphan schemes, which no longer have a developer responsible for them.

The responsible developers scheme is really important. The committee highlighted the need for more detail on the scheme and for that to be included in the bill. Ahead of stage 2, there needs to be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder engagement on what the scheme should look like. I highlighted a number of issues during the committee’s stage 1 work, particularly in relation to buildings that are not within the scope of the bill. I continue to have concerns regarding student accommodation. I know that many student accommodation companies are already undertaking work in this area, which is welcome, but the Government must consider including not only student accommodation developers but hotels in the scope of the bill. The UK Government included them south of the border so, if we are to appropriately address the cladding issue in Scotland, we should seriously consider including them at stage 2.

As I stated at the start of my speech, the devil will be in the detail of the bill. The bill must include provisions on information for residents who have been impacted. As the convener highlighted, so many people reported to the committee a complete lack of information being provided to them. In many cases, that has added to their stress, as they have been getting hearsay about their building rather than facts. I hope that the minister and those who will be responsible for taking forward this work will include in the bill a segment on key information, because the information to residents must be properly managed.

Ministers should also have reporting duties. Some people feel that their issues might not be resolved for another decade. That cannot be the case. Ministers must have a duty to report to the Parliament so that we can scrutinise how funds are being spent.

Absolutely. For so many people—whether it is those who gave evidence to the committee or our constituents—there is huge frustration about being kept in the dark for too long. Politicians talking about this is one thing, but the work to come up with solutions for the developers that will be tasked with making buildings safe and undertaking surveys must progress at pace. There must be constant reporting so that the issues are resolved and people can move on with their lives by selling their property, if they want to, or getting insurance.

Ensuring that people who live in the buildings have peace of mind is probably the most important aspect. We must never forget that, as many people have said, people’s homes are at the heart of the issue. As well as it being a stressful time for them, those affected feel that they have not been communicated with and that they have often been kept in the dark in relation to the issues affecting their homes.

It is clear from the committee’s evidence and discussions that there will need to be specific on-going management and factoring solutions for many buildings. Such issues are not within the scope of the bill, but the Government needs to take them forward.

Specifically, concerns have been raised about electric bikes and cars being stored or parked underneath buildings that have cladding issues. Ministers cannot ignore the management risk around that. Although that is not within the scope of the bill, I think that, as a result of the bill, ministers will need to introduce a factoring or safety management bill.

The UK Government has provided the Scottish Government with £97 million of Barnett consequentials to carry out assessments and remove dangerous material from buildings. On Friday, we learned from data that the Scottish Government published that it has spent only 7 per cent of that money, or just over £7 million, on identifying and removing dangerous cladding on buildings. That has been a failure to date by the Government. Scottish Conservatives will work hard and scrutinise the bill at stage 2. I hope that the Scottish ministers will work cross-party to make sure that the bill is as good as it can be for the people who we represent and who are looking to the Parliament for solutions.

The minister will have seen the briefing that the Association of British Insurers has provided to all members—specifically, its concerns about the on-going problems that will exist in obtaining buildings cover if we do not hear from the Scottish Government about resolving or managing additional safety issues. Beyond the bill, will the Scottish Government look to introduce a factoring, fire safety and management bill for those properties, which could help to solve that problem?

It has now been more than a year since the public inquiry into the matter closed. Why is it taking so long for that to report? What assessment have ministers made of potential cost increases for the project? Given that the Scottish Government and the UK Government have committed £300 million to the project, it is clear that the huge delay—we are now in the middle of this session of Parliament—will have cost implications. What does that look like, and when will ministers make that information public?