Seòmar agus comataidhean

Perhaps I will ask you one follow-up question on that, Mr Swinney. I have been approached by a number of accommodation providers and people who run guest houses and bed and breakfasts who do not qualify for support under the heading of hospitality but whose businesses have nevertheless suffered a major impact from cancellations. Concerts, football matches and, indeed, Hogmanay events have all been cancelled, and the people who had been coming here to attend them have been cancelling their trips, too, with the sector in question taking a major hit as a result. Are accommodation providers in the mix as one of the sectors that might be eligible for assistance?

Thank you for that very comprehensive answer, Mr Swinney. I am sure that other committee colleagues will want to pursue some of those issues.

In view of the time that is available, I am keen to ask you a question on another matter: business support. This week, there have been announcements from the Scottish Government on support for the hospitality sector, which I know will be welcomed by businesses that have been hard-hit by cancellations. However, I seek clarity on the other business sectors that you are proposing to help. When will we hear more about what will be available for them?

I will touch on a couple of different issues. I will start by picking up on what the cabinet secretary said in his introductory comments about the latest study, from the University of Edinburgh and the University of Strathclyde, on the impact of omicron. There is a lot of media coverage on a similar study from Imperial College London that comes to much the same conclusion, which is that omicron seems to result in a much lower level of hospitalisation than delta does. I appreciate that the studies are based on very limited data in a short space of time. Nevertheless, it is very encouraging news. However, there must be a risk that, after seeing those headlines, members of the public will start to relax and let their guard down, which could have serious consequences.

I am interested in the cabinet secretary’s view on that. Specifically, how will the new studies that are emerging feed into decision making in the coming week about new restrictions that might be introduced after the Christmas period?

I have a couple of questions about costs to local authorities and to businesses. The committee has had a lot of evidence from local authorities and from the sector about potential costs and there has been a lot of criticism of the figures in the business and regulatory impact assessment, which assessed the estimated costs as being £200 to £400 per property. The evidence that the committee has heard suggests that it could be far higher than that. The Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators in Scotland has said that fees are more likely to be £1,500 to £2,000, which would be a major burden for councils and small businesses.

Individual councils have also raised concerns. In my area, Perth and Kinross Council has raised the issue. Fife Council has said that the fees set out are incredibly low and that the BRIA should be more realistic and should not give applicants false hope of low fees.

How were the figures in the BRIA calculated? How robust are they? If it turns out that the local authorities that submitted evidence to the committee are correct, how will the balance be made up? Will they be expected to raise the fees on a full cost recovery basis, or will the Scottish Government step in to provide additional financial assistance?

Thank you for that response, cabinet secretary. It is helpful that you confirmed that the scheme will take a full cost recovery approach but there is still a wide discrepancy between the figures that are in the BRIA and those that are quoted by, for example, SOLAR. Can you explain the reason for that? I would think that people working in local government would have a closer understanding of the likely costs than Scottish Government officials would.

I have just one follow-up question. The cabinet secretary might be aware that bed and breakfast owners have had a really tough time over the past couple of years because of the number of restrictions that have impacted on tourism. At the moment, they are also experiencing substantial increases in costs, such as energy costs, which are a major part of the cost base of B and Bs. In the area that I represent, I have seen a lot of people leaving the B and B sector, and successful B and Bs are being turned back into private houses. That has a negative impact, because it narrows the choice of accommodation for visitors, who are so important to the economy, particularly in rural Scotland.

Why was it not possible in drafting the order to exclude B and Bs where the owners live on the premises? That would seem to be an obvious cut-off point. There is a clear distinction between something that is available for short-term let and the discrete side of accommodation, and a traditional B and B where the owners live in the same building and provide other services such as breakfast or teas and coffees. Was it not possible to draft the legislation in that way?

Thank you.

I have another question on costs, but from a slightly different angle. It is not only the cost of the licence fee that must be considered, but the costs of compliance to businesses. I accept the cabinet secretary’s point that some businesses already comply, but for others, the BRIA in June calculated that compliance costs could be £963. Operators have suggested that the actual average cost could be three times that amount—as much as £3,000. The difficulty is that the cumulative costs add up, and act as a real deterrent to participation in the tourism sector.

What is being proposed impacts not only short-term lets, but, due to the way in which the regulations have been framed, small bed and breakfast properties. In the area that I represent, towns such as Pitlochry are heavily dependent on tourism as a source of income. They have a broad range of small accommodation providers and owner-run bed and breakfasts that are also being caught by the regulations, which are seen simply as another form of taxation.

The providers are struggling to see what benefit they will get out of the new regulations, and they will be hit by substantial annual costs in order to comply with them. Why have bed and breakfasts been brought into the ambit of the regulations, when doing so could mean that some of them decide to drop out of the industry altogether?

Good morning. I have two interests that might be relevant to the committee’s work and today’s session. I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, although I am not currently practising, and I derive some income from two rental properties that I have an interest in, although neither of those is let on a short-term basis.

Convener, I have a slightly different question on the costs of compliance. Perhaps you will want to bring in Paul McLennan at this point. I think that he had a follow-up question to my earlier one.