Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have touched on the VAT threshold a couple of times. Do you have any information on the number of businesses that operate just below the threshold, so that we would have an idea of the likely impact? Are you able to say what the financial impact on a business being pushed over the VAT threshold is likely to be? I will come to Stacey Dingwall first.

Okay. My next question is around the process of the introduction of a local levy scheme, and whether witnesses agreed with the requirements that are placed on local authorities and the duties that they have before they can introduce a scheme. Those include consultation with local stakeholders, impact assessment at a local level, and the requirement to publicise a scheme and for Government to approve that scheme. Do you agree with those burdens on local authorities? Are those requirements enough, or are they too much? What are your views, generally?

We touched on the issue of VAT with the previous panel, and I want to ask you similar questions. How many of your members are operating at a level of turnover below the VAT threshold, and what would be the indicative costs for them if they were pushed above the threshold by a visitor levy?

Those are really helpful numbers. I want to go back to David Weston. It is anecdotal, but the view of your members is that it would take a 50 per cent increase in turnover just to cover the cost of going over the threshold—turnover would have to increase from £85,000 to £120,000.

I do not know whether Stephen Young or Ben Edgar-Spier want to come in before I move on.

My next question is on the responsibility on local authorities, when they move to introduce a scheme, to do a consultation and an impact assessment, and the responsibility of Government to look at that and approve it or not. Do you feel that those burdens are appropriate, or should they go further? I am asking for people’s general views on local authorities’ responsibilities when they choose to introduce a scheme.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. What work has been done in Government to minimise closures of public buildings due to RAAC-related concerns, which we have seen across the local authority estate in the rest of the UK? I am thinking of things such as schools, social work services and one-stop shops. What work is under way to keep those buildings open? Are you aware of any related work across the wider public estate, including in the NHS and general practices?

We heard from the previous panel that the cost of some of those mitigation measures is pretty huge in comparison with potential research that might be undertaken. Rather than having continuous mitigation or monitoring of some buildings, an alternative avenue would be to invest in research to make sure that it is managed at a more appropriate cost level. What work has the Government done on that? Will you reflect on the opinion of the experts on the previous panel on that subject?

Thanks, convener. Good morning, everyone. I was going to ask a question about the staff and resources that local authorities need to do the identification and remediation work, but our local authority colleagues reflected on that under the previous question. Instead, I ask Sam Piplica and Chris Goodier to comment for their professional bodies on whether we have the numbers of surveyors and structural engineers that we need to do the identification and remediation work that is required. I have heard that, because of the way in which the UK Government has reacted, it has perhaps acted as a magnet and pulled skills down to the rest of the UK. I ask Sam and Chris to comment on the availability of skills in Scotland to do the identification and remediation work.

Last year’s spending review suggested that public sector workforces, including local authority workforces, would have to shrink if they were to remain sustainable. Minister, is that still the Government’s view?