Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the open letter from Scotland’s elite swimming athletes sent to the First Minister on 6 November 2025. (S6O-05376)

When it comes to the collection of data, I recommend that the residential outdoor education sector be involved in the discussions. I spoke to the sector bodies this morning. They acknowledged the help that the Scottish Government has provided, but there is a need to ensure that there is much more data from that sector and that it is involved in the discussions, because it could be immensely helpful.

Is the cabinet secretary aware that, earlier this morning, first at 9.48 am and then at 10.15 am, Shona Robison made a request to correct the record—I am not sure whether it is another of those “production errors”—to say that her answer to the question that Jackson Carlaw asked on Tuesday on the budget statement was factually inaccurate? Namely, the one-year commitment is not, in fact, one year but is being rolled out over a sustainable period. That is welcome, but what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the 18 local authorities that are not making full provision for swimming lessons will now do so and that children in those areas have access to swimming pools in the first place?

It is very good to see, in table 9.01 of the Scottish budget, a little extra money for employability schemes, which was a recommendation from Sandy Begbie in relation to Developing the Young Workforce. However, the enterprise, trade and investment budget—which is crucial to enabling employers to take on young people—has been squeezed, this time from £420 million down to £398 million. Why is that?

I want to ask Jamie Hepburn about the content of Mr Leonard’s excellent speech. Mr Leonard set out the evidence that has been provided by the Auditor General for Scotland about the extent of the underspend. Does Mr Hepburn agree that that money would be much better spent in addressing these problems to sort this urgent issue?

That is the extra time gone. [Laughter.]

The minister will have seen the warnings from Welsh mountain rescue teams just before Christmas about the worrying increase in irresponsible behaviour in the mountains placing unsustainable pressure on resources. She will also have seen the report from Cairngorm Mountain Rescue Team, which had to rescue two young men who had headed out to Ben Macdui in trainers and joggers at night and in -15°C.

What is the Scottish Government doing to address such irresponsible behaviour, much of which is championed on social media? It is clear that the current strategy is not working.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with Scottish mountain rescue teams regarding mountain safety this winter. (S6O-05342)

No, I do not entirely accept that. The bill is a specific, Scotland-centred bill and we, as Scottish parliamentarians, have to take a decision on its merits. That is the basis on which I am making these points.

Along with my colleagues on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I listened very carefully to witnesses, who provided us with extensive written and oral evidence across three different evidence sessions before Christmas. As set out in the committee’s report, there was unanimous concern—including from Mr Mason—about several key aspects of the bill and the negative externalities that are likely to result. As colleagues know, it is unusual for a committee not to fully endorse the general principles of a bill. However, on this occasion, it has not endorsed them, and for good reason.

As the convener said, the major issue is the likely impact on the housing market, which, as we all know, has already been facing significant challenges for quite some time. The most significant concern among witnesses and members of the committee was the fact that the bill could reduce house-building capacity, because it would make certain sites unviable and thereby have a detrimental effect on the ability to deliver much-needed affordable housing. Homes for Scotland estimated that the levy would probably add around £3,500 to the cost of building a new home, and Bancon Homes told us that it would have an impact of up to 20 per cent on its profit margins. Those are not inconsiderable fiscal effects.

Different but nonetheless related are the potential effects on rural Scotland, where depopulation is already a significant problem. I have heard the minister’s concerns about some of the rurality issues, but several factors have already combined to create a very complex situation for rural housing. House prices are often high in relation to local incomes in rural areas, and there is a shortage of housing that is suitable for families, which means, sadly, that too many families choose to move away. The combination of that, the weak infrastructure that we find in rural areas in relation to accessibility of transport and the internet and the complexities in the planning process means that we encounter major challenges. Scottish Land & Estates told us that the cost of delivering rural housing could be almost double that of mainstream housing. That must be a serious concern. That is on top of a lot of the other issues that affect rural areas, such as the farm tax, national insurance charges and various other aspects of tourism and hospitality. That whole combination is a very serious matter for the rural sector.

Although there appeared, in some quarters, to be an understanding of the problem, particularly in relation to the islands issue, part of it is that we do not have a clear definition of what rurality is, and there are accompanying inconsistencies. I hope that the minister means what he said today and in committee, which is that he is prepared to lodge some amendments.

There is likely to be a disproportionate effect on smaller developers, owing to the fact that they will inevitably find it more difficult to absorb the necessary costs. The Scottish Property Federation was extremely clear about that. There was also concern that the bill could have a detrimental impact on those who want to build over a long period of time, such as the build-to-rent sector, as the financial returns there take longer to be realised.

Much of the debate among stakeholders was about how to address the issue of the polluter-pays principle. They worry that those who have acted responsibly will end up footing the bill for the levy. I think that it is worse than that, because some responsible builders will go well beyond the basic safety regulations, and they are the ones who will have to pick up the tab, whereas those who have not been responsible can, to some extent, get away with it.

The committee is unanimously concerned, for very good reasons, about some of the macroeconomic effects of the bill. Once again, I think that the Parliament is faced with a Scottish Government bill that, although well intentioned, nonetheless has very significant problems. On that basis, the Conservatives cannot support it at stage 1.