Chamber and committees

My next question is on the national performance framework, a refreshed version of which is about to be considered by Parliament. How are community wealth building and the challenge of tackling inequality feeding into the national performance framework? What do we need to do to give those things more importance in the national framework and to encourage more development on the ground?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the development of an accredited qualification and registration programme for additional support needs assistants. (S6O-03233)

We know that support assistants’ jobs are expanding. Their teaching burdens are increasing, they are more likely to be attacked and they have higher workloads, but they often get less training and support. They have to be classroom teachers, mental health workers and speech and language therapists in order to cover up some gaps in pupil provision. Will the cabinet secretary be clear about whether the Government will follow through on its commitment and give a timeline for publication of a pathway for additional support needs teachers’ training and education?

The Scottish Government has cut capital funding for projects such as schools in North Lanarkshire by 31 per cent this year—which is far higher than the cut that was received by the Government.

The last new school project to receive money from the Scottish Government was back in 2014. Over the three phases of the funding programme that the cabinet secretary talked about, North Lanarkshire received funding for only one existing secondary extension, despite presenting a number of excellent bids for much-needed new schools.

When can pupils in North Lanarkshire expect to receive Government funding for new-build schools that are fit for modern education?

The young carer grant has been a fantastic addition to the social security landscape in Scotland. The minister talks about fairness. There is a slight unfairness in eligibility. Siblings or people in the same household need to choose between themselves who applies and qualifies for the young carer grant, even if they both provide the same level of care. Will the minister consider extending the criteria slightly, so that siblings in the same household could both qualify?

To ask the Scottish Government how it is working with North Lanarkshire Council to improve the school estate. (S6O-03207)

I seek clarification on a cruise ship levy. If there is not enough time to insert such a levy into the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill and it is introduced via a different legislative vehicle, will the measures in the bill in relation to timescales and consultation still apply? Will local authorities have to carry out the same work with regard to a potential cruise ship levy that they have to do with the visitor levy?

I am interested to see the Government’s response to the amendments on the VAT threshold. We have heard strong evidence from operators that they operate up to the VAT threshold, because, to recoup the costs of being VAT registered should they go beyond that annual turnover level, they would need to increase their turnover from £85,000 a year to more than £250,000 a year. That is a significant increase in turnover that they would have to achieve to break even due to a levy being imposed on their business. Although the amendments as lodged are good for starting a debate on the issue, I am interested to hear the Government’s response to that particular point about the VAT threshold.

I have a degree of sympathy with the other amendments in the group as well, but it seems that they would increase the administrative burdens on local authorities, and the opportunity to recoup costs for businesses would take away from the sums that businesses, the tourism sector and the culture sector hope to see being invested in local communities to improve the tourism offer. I am concerned about the unintended consequence of hard-raised funds from visitors going to administration schemes rather than being invested in the attractions that they would want to be invested in.

I am looking to hear the Government’s response to the VAT amendments, but I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the remainder of the amendments in the group.

I do not object to the principle of a review—in fact, I think that it is sensible—but the only point that I will make to Miles Briggs is that we might not get any meaningful information from a review only a year after a scheme’s introduction.

Moreover, what if some authorities introduce a scheme but others do not? I know that amendment 50 points directly to a review in areas where a scheme has been in place for a year, but I think that having a review with potentially very few other schemes being in place after the first is introduced might make any learning and data that we get less meaningful than it could be. Given that, perhaps the member could reflect on the length of time before which there should be a review.

I thank Miles Briggs for lodging his amendments and giving us the opportunity to debate the merits of a flat rate versus a percentage charge. As members will be aware, this was one of the more difficult elements of the legislation that we grappled with, and in the end, we did not take a view on the matter, because there were merits on both sides. A flat rate offers ease of collection, while a percentage rate offers fairness in the way that it scales up according to the cost of accommodation.

I point out to Mr Briggs that there is no consensus among local authorities and operators on the matter, so I ask him to withdraw amendment 27 and not to move his other amendments in the group on the basis that we are continuing to have discussions about it. I thank the member for giving us the opportunity to have this discussion again, but I ask him to allow us not to vote on the amendments, as doing so would prejudice the discussions that will, no doubt, carry on to stage 3.