Chamber and committees

If I can get some time back, I would be happy to take an intervention.

Will Ross Greer take an intervention?

Will the minister take an intervention?

If we can get the national exemptions right, local exemptions will not be needed. It is a question of ensuring that those are included in the bill. Over the time that we have had in committee and in the limited time that we have had today, there has been an emerging consensus that the voucher scheme will not provide for that and that having those exemptions in the bill is important.

It would be unfair to capture some of the most vulnerable people in our society in the bill, which will be the case if there are not exemptions for people visiting children or family members in hospital or hospices, people visiting a family member in prison, business travellers, including actors and stage support staff, and people staying in an area for work reasons—for example, people who are working on renewable and net zero projects.

The Scottish Conservatives want to see workable solutions embedded in the bill. It is clear, as the minister has already acknowledged, that exemption schemes are in place across Europe and have been at the heart of different bits of legislation in different parts of Europe. In almost all schemes, children are exempt, and many also provide a clear list of additional groups that are exempt from paying the tax—for example, residents who reside in a local authority area, children and school and further education groups, and disabled people. I welcome the potential exemption that the minister has pointed towards. In practically every country in which a tourism levy operates, children under 18 are exempt. In Portugal, an exemption is made for people under 23.

As the Federation of Small Businesses stated in its briefing, there is concern about potential variation and a total lack of detail about how the exemptions will be applied and administered by businesses. That is why the Scottish Conservatives will lodge a number of amendments at stage 2 to try to ensure that clarification is provided and the necessary provisions are included. I hope that ministers will engage positively on that important issue. The bill might not come into force until spring 2026, but ensuring that those exemption schemes are built into the models and systems that are needed from the outset must be a real priority.

Finally, with other bills in recent years, such as the short-term lets bill, we have seen significant problems and costs faced by local authorities and businesses. The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers is right to say that the visitor levy expert group needs to provide detailed answers and mechanisms for the bill to operate effectively in a uniform way in the councils that decide to take the policy forward.

As things stand, there is a significant vacuum in many areas of the bill, and we must see details developed to provide clarity and help the tourism sector to limit the costs and negative impacts that the bill will have on its businesses. That is why the Scottish Tourism Alliance has made an urgent call for absolute clarity to be provided in the bill. I agree.

Our Scottish tourism sector already faces tax burdens that are among the highest that are faced anywhere in the world. I think that the tourism sector has accepted that the bill will be passed, with Scottish National Party, Green and Labour MSPs supporting the concept. However, the devil will be in the detail and, at present, that has not been provided for the bill.

The Parliament is developing a bad reputation for passing poorly drafted legislation. We cannot allow that to be the case for the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill and the measures that will be brought forward and administered, especially for small businesses such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation and guest houses, many of which do not currently operate an information technology system but will be forced to do so by the bill.

To conclude, we are opposed to the SNP-Green Government’s plans to introduce the measures in the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill. We believe that the bill could have a significant negative impact on an industry that has suffered, especially during the pandemic. We want to ensure that ministers listen to the concerns that have been raised and do all that they can. I genuinely hope that, in a spirit of consensus, ministers will reach out beyond the parties that support the bill in an effort to ensure that we put things right. I have led many conversations about the exemption schemes in the committee. I want to ensure that that is taken forward.

Ministers have stated that the purpose of a visitor levy is to generate revenue for local government in order to support and maintain tourism-related infrastructure, services and amenities. However, we are still not clear about how those funds will be ring fenced to help to achieve that. Who will take forward the decision making on where the moneys are spent?

In the coming weeks, Scottish Conservatives will work to try to limit the damage that the bill might cause our tourism businesses and to improve the bill by making it fairer and limiting its impact on those who might be captured by it, such as people who are visiting loved ones in hospital, young people, those who are on education visits and vulnerable families. I hope that we can work across the Parliament to take that forward to stage 2 and finally to stage 3.

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to address any challenges in relation to the accessibility of traditional skills programmes to ensure that young people have access to the same career opportunities. (S6O-02948)

The closure of Edinburgh College’s stonemasonry programme has raised serious concerns about the future of stonemasonry in the capital and across Scotland. A recent stonemasonry survey report found that more than 200,000 buildings in Scotland were built before 1919, and it stated that we will

“need a healthy supply of stonemasons to adapt”

them

“to ensure our buildings are fit for purpose ... for decades to come”.

What work is the Scottish Government doing to provide for future generations of stonemasons? What work is being undertaken to develop new models to deliver national courses and apprenticeship schemes?

The United Kingdom has a proud history of supporting refugees. Since 2015, as a country, we have offered a home to more than half a million men, women and children who have sought safety, including those from Hong Kong, Syria and Afghanistan, as well as, most recently, those fleeing President Putin’s illegal attack on Ukraine. To put that in context, it is equivalent to the population of Edinburgh being resettled in the UK. We all agree that it is right that we respond appropriately to the plight of individuals and families who are escaping violent, authoritarian and dictatorial regimes that systematically persecute and even execute their own people.

Recently, as a member of the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party group on Bangladesh, I visited the Rohingya refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I think that I speak for all MSPs who were on the trip when I say that it was a deeply humbling experience. It demonstrated not only the vulnerable humanitarian situation but the unstable situation that the Rohingya people continue to face. The on-going civil war in Myanmar is deeply concerning, and an estimated 1.4 million Rohingya people have fled into neighbouring Bangladesh since 2017.

I pay tribute to the Bangladesh Government’s response to the crisis and, indeed, to the global response, including the support that has been provided. I very much welcome the UK Government’s leading role in that regard. Since 2017, the UK Government has provided £370 million to support Rohingya refugees and host communities in Bangladesh, and it has provided nearly £30 million to support Rohingya and other Muslim minorities in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.

The UK Government is a force for good in the world and a global leader in supporting refugees. Although Scottish National Party and Green ministers do not wish to acknowledge that and have tried to make the debate about independence, the UK has a record that we should be proud of.

I agree with the minister that the backlog and the time that is taken to decide whether a person can remain in the UK are not acceptable. It is vital that agencies process asylum claims quickly and efficiently for the good of all concerned. It is welcome that the UK Government has taken steps in recent months to address that situation.

I want to make some progress. I have taken two interventions and I am not sure that the Deputy Presiding Officer would give me that much time back.

Uncontrolled immigration and unchecked illegal immigration can have very serious consequences. We have seen that with the unacceptable loss of life in the English Channel. That is why it is right to find solutions to stop people putting their lives at risk by crossing the English Channel in small boats and coming to this country illegally. We must ensure that those who come to this country to seek asylum do so through legal routes.

The significant increase in dangerous journeys across the Channel is something that we in Scotland do not directly witness. However, working to stop people traffickers and those who put people’s lives in such great danger should be a priority for us in this place, too. Those who are in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, rather than risking their lives and paying people smugglers to take them on illegal and dangerous journeys.

We all want to see an effective asylum system, and it is wrong to suggest that the UK Government does not take the welfare of people in the asylum system extremely seriously. At every stage of the process, the UK Government seeks to ensure that the needs and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers are identified and shared with local authorities and health partners. That is why the UK Government has spent £3.7 billion in the current fiscal year alone to support refugees in the UK. The minister should maybe also reflect on the decisions that the Scottish Government has taken to cut council budgets and the impact of those on housing in Scotland. Both of our main cities have already declared a housing emergency.

There has always been a need to review policies and look at how support can be provided, working closely with the national health service, local authorities and non-governmental organisations to ensure that people can access healthcare and the vital support that they need. In my casework since I was elected, I have come across the need for mental health support in particular. We know about the challenges with regard to mental health services not just for those who are seeking asylum, but for all of us in this country.

Asylum seekers have access to health and social care services from the point of their arrival in the UK. All asylum seekers, regardless of the type of accommodation that they are in, have the same access to free NHS services as British citizens and other permanent residents. Getting access to those services is often the problem. The Home Office also operates safeguarding hubs to support vulnerable individuals in quickly accessing healthcare services and information.

I also pay tribute to the third sector, which is doing much good work in the policy area. A number of organisations made important points in the briefings that they provided ahead of the debate, including the British Red Cross’s call for the Scottish Government to better monitor, inspect and regulate the use of housing in Scotland by empowering local authorities and regulatory agencies such as the Scottish Housing Regulator. We should look at that. Conservative members would be open to considering it actively as part of the housing bill, which the Government is still to introduce.

Delivering a modern and responsive immigration system for people who are seeking asylum is not easy but, in an ever-changing world and with growing pressure from the global movement of people, such a system must be based on people coming through safe and legal routes. We understand the pressures that our asylum system faces, but I hope that the Scottish Government and the UK Government will commit to working together this year to put solutions in place.

I move amendment S6M-11803.1, to leave out from “the impact” to end and insert:

“that the topics of immigration and asylum are reserved to the UK Parliament and that it is therefore not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on these issues; further recognises that the UK Government spent £3.7 billion in the fiscal year 2022-23 to support refugees, that it continues to provide asylum seekers with financial support to cover essential living needs and that it is committed to delivering an asylum system that protects individuals from persecution based on their protected characteristics; agrees that the Scottish Government must engage positively with the UK Government, local authorities and public services across asylum matters to reduce negative impacts on people, communities and services; expresses concern over both the pause of the Scottish Government’s Super Sponsor Scheme for displaced Ukrainians and the Scottish Government’s inability to renew the £10 million in funding initially granted to local authorities to support resettlement for displaced Ukrainians, and calls on the Scottish Government to declare a housing emergency, given the increase in homelessness applications by 9% and the record number of children placed in temporary accommodation for the fiscal year 2022-23, which is likely to be exacerbated given the recent cuts to the housing budget.”

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that Mr Doris needs to get a life and understand that we are in Parliament to represent people.

I will come to that point later in my speech. The briefings that were provided for the debate make a very important case for that extension and it is something that colleagues across the UK should look at. I am more than happy to assist in trying to find resolutions to improve that situation and create more safeguards.

With regard to the minister’s comments about the 4,500 complex cases that have been highlighted, we know that those need additional checks and investigations. They are hard cases that often involve asylum seekers who present as children, where age verification must take place; with serious medical issues; or with suspected past convictions that need to be checked. There is therefore more complexity to those cases.