Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is right to look for whatever sources of finance we can find when we are in a housing emergency, but I want to reflect the degree of nervousness that I am picking up from social landlords when it comes to changing the balance of funding for affordable housing, even if it is an ever-so-slight move away from grants to sources of private finance. How can we ensure that, when we potentially bring in other sources of funding, the end result is not that the burden of the return on investment, which investors rightly expect, falls on the tenant?

Good morning, minister. While we are on the subject of maintenance—in particular, the maintenance of existing flats—we have heard from witnesses that the current regime does not work well in relation to carrying out proactive maintenance to prevent long-term issues. Does the Government have any plans to review the legislation that governs the on-going maintenance and factoring of flatted developments?

We know that housing circumstances vary fairly dramatically across the country, particularly when we look at urban and rural areas. How successful do you feel the housing to 2040 strategy has been in addressing the differences between urban and rural housing needs and demands? Will there be any assessment of how well rural needs have been served by the housing to 2040 strategy?

I am Mark Griffin and am an MSP for Central Scotland.

We have skirted around the edges of net zero this morning, but Iain Gulland has honed in on the huge social and economic changes in train in the generation and consumption of heat and electricity. Those changes are about to ramp up, given the really challenging net zero ambitions and targets that we have in Scotland.

I have two questions. First, what is the role of community wealth building in achieving our challenging targets? Secondly, how do we shift away from our current economic models, with their generation and consumption of heat and power, to ones that are beneficial to communities? That is the more fundamental question.

Iain Gulland has kicked off on that subject. I will go back to him and then open up the questions to others around the table.

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?

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.