Seòmar agus comataidhean

As has rightly been highlighted by my colleagues, Scotland is the highest-taxed part of the UK. That is largely, although not exclusively, because of Scottish Green MSPs, who backed and encouraged their nationalist SNP colleagues to hike taxes and who, as they stalked the ministerial corridors of St Andrew’s house, previously thought of new ways of putting up additional burdens on and barriers to Scotland’s businesses and individuals.

Of course, it is not about just taxes but about the impact of their ill-considered and poorly delivered policies, too. The botched attempt at introducing a deposit return scheme and the dismissal of the genuine concerns of the very industry that the scheme was being forced on will appear in textbooks as an example of how not to legislate. Unfortunately, the damage is done. As well as millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being lost, businesses right across Scotland, including my Highlands and Islands region, were forced to prepare for a scheme that never happened. All that time was wasted. All that money—the potential funding for future investments—was lost. There was the stress, strain and frustration of it, and all because Lorna Slater and other SNP-Green ministers just would not listen.

It has had a serious impact on a lot of those businesses, but it has also damaged their already low confidence in how the Scottish Government delivers policy. Why should they have any confidence? I recently met a group of hospitality, tourism and other local businesses in Fort William that are concerned about the implementation of the visitor levy. Because of the way that it has been drafted and introduced by the Scottish Government, as well as being forced into becoming tax collectors, businesses are now being taxed twice, with VAT being incurred on the levy cost. Businesses are being forced to pay tax on tax, which forces some of them over the VAT threshold and increases both the financial and regulatory burden for all.

As ever, it did not have to be that way. Solutions were suggested by industry, but they were ignored by the Scottish ministers. Only yesterday, in the Finance and Public Administration Committee, when I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Shona Robison, whether she is happy with what I hope was an unintended consequence of the legislation, I received a fairly indifferent response, and certainly not one that will give any comfort to the sector that the Scottish Government has any real interest in addressing its concerns. I suspect that tourism and hospitality businesses in my region will view the SNP’s response with the understandable suspicion that that botched legislation will not be amended and nothing will change.

Of course, the sector remembers that it was the Scottish Government that took the UK Government’s funding for hospitality and retail in Scotland but refused to pass it on to the very businesses that it was intended to support. It is a sector that is already reeling from, but yet to feel the full extent of, the impact of short-term lets licensing. The Scottish Conservatives have long argued that the best way to grow Scotland’s economy is to support businesses, to remove barriers to doing business and to build an environment that encourages entrepreneurship. However, Scotland has experienced a nationalist Government and a nationalist coalition that have heaped extra rules, regulations and burdens on our businesses.

I have focused on tourism and hospitality, but the same is true for our fishing sector, given the threat of highly protected marine areas, for the farming sector, and for almost any sector that actually wants to grow. All that has been exacerbated by Green politicians who continue to oppose much-needed investment infrastructure in projects such as the dualling of the A9 and the A96 and other road improvements. That has been devastating for communities across the Highlands and Islands.

The Scottish Green Party’s coalition with the SNP was a disaster for Scotland. We are now seeing another unofficial coalition that is built on the SNP’s desperation to squeeze through its endangered budget, threatening Scotland. If that happens, it will not be Scotland’s priorities that are delivered; it will be the priorities of the Scottish Greens, and we already know how damaging those have been to Scotland’s economy.

As other members have, I thank all those who were involved in providing evidence on and aiding our scrutiny of the bill, and I thank the two ministers for their efforts and engagement. They have helped us to get to where we are today, eight years after this power was originally devolved.

I recognise the broad support for the principle of the levy and the desire for consistency across the United Kingdom and within our important internal market. The tax must be kept as simple as possible for businesses, particularly those that operate across the border, which will now have to contend with two different tax regimes and accompanying rules and regulations. As other members have rightly said, getting tax regimes right is extremely important, particularly when setting up a new tax—or, at least, a new devolved tax—that could have significant impact on the sector if used unwisely.

I think that it was Fergus Ewing who noted in previous consideration of the bill that it could have a far wider impact than was intended, and he mentioned again today the impact on projects such as the A9. Daniel Johnson has highlighted the problems that we face on the islands with already higher costs and the impact that those can have.

Our stage 1 considerations in the chamber came only the day after the Scottish Government declared a housing emergency. As I said then, the Scottish Government will likely have choices to make between environmental and economic targets if it considers putting up the rate in the future.

I will not rehash all the arguments and concerns about the bill that were expressed today or in previous considerations, but I will highlight a few contributions from colleagues. Michael Marra was right to say that, by the time the power is implemented, it will be 10 years since it was devolved. I accept the need for—and I think that industry would welcome—a clarification of the Government’s intent going forward, if not all the details.

Ross Greer was right to say that, although the bill is not headline grabbing, it is an important piece of legislation. He also highlighted that, although we often criticise the Government for delays to bills, the delay in this case was probably useful, as it has enabled us to have a better bill. Like me, however, he questioned how effective it will be in meeting its objectives—albeit that we are at different ends of the argument on it—without the rates being raised.

Willie Rennie made a more positive speech this time. I remember that, the last time we considered the bill, he was a bit of an Eeyore about this exciting piece of legislation. He was absolutely right to highlight the role that industry has played, and Fergus Ewing was also absolutely right in his intervention. I will say a little more about that later.

Daniel Johnson highlighted the role of Orkney and other remote communities and the impact there. There were some other excellent contributions and there were some dreadful puns, but I will move on.

My colleague Liz Smith talked about the quality and availability of recycled aggregates and the risk of more material being sent to landfill. She highlighted the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concern that, without changes in the rates, which the majority of witnesses were against, or at least a broadening of the classification of recycled aggregates, the new tax might have little impact on the uptake of secondary aggregates.

Liz Smith also highlighted the lack of data, which is a common concern that members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee have about this and other bills that have come before us for consideration. There is a lack of Scotland-specific data, although the situation will likely improve once collection starts—indeed, the Scottish Government has promised that. However, the lack of data does not aid consideration of the bill or any analysis or predictions of its consequences, intended or otherwise. We still do not know the amount of revenue that will likely be collected, or whether it will be more or less than is currently received as part of the block grant. For me, at least, that is a matter of some concern, given the constrained times. I ask the minister to clarify, when he sums up, how discussions with the new UK Government are progressing on that matter.

I am also concerned that the effectiveness of the new tax and the compliance with it will be largely down to awareness of it. As Michael Marra mentioned, the lack of formal consultation by Scottish ministers with key industry stakeholders on part 2 of the bill before its inclusion was not an encouraging sign. It is vital here, as in all else, that effective engagement is a key part of policy development. I was disappointed that the minister’s response to Fergus Ewing was not a little stronger, but I appreciate that the matter will be considered as the bill goes forward.

I believe, as other members do, that creating incentives for investing in recycling, using more recycled materials and keeping more away from landfill is a good thing. We will support the bill at decision time today, but I retain some scepticism about how effectively it will encourage meaningful behavioural change without the significant changes in the rates that we all—or most of us, anyway—recognise will only create inconsistency and challenges for those businesses that operate across the UK. I know that the minister is aware of that issue and that he recognises the importance of continuity and stability across the UK. Most of the witnesses agreed on the need to keep the rate in line with the UK rate.

The bill will pass today, but we will be clearer about its effectiveness and its impact on Scottish revenues only in the years to come.

To ask the Scottish Government what impact its recently announced budget reductions will have on investment in infrastructure that supports agriculture in remote and island communities. (S6O-03690)

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a partner in a farming business. On back British farming day, I thank farmers across the country, and particularly those from my region of the Highlands and Islands, for all that they do.

It is now more than six years since Orkney’s abattoir closed and, despite the efforts of local stakeholders and warm words from the Scottish Government, no solution has yet been found for a new facility. Local abattoirs play an important role in supporting local rural businesses in agriculture, ensuring animal welfare and reducing food miles.

On back British farming day, will the minister advise whether the Scottish Government is playing any role in supporting the establishment of a new abattoir in Orkney?

In the consultation for its new heat in buildings bill, the Scottish Government proposes

“to introduce a new law which will: Require those purchasing a property to comply with the prohibition on polluting heating within a specified amount of time following completion of the sale.”

I understand that Fergus Ewing’s question related to the impact of the new build heat standard and the ban on wood burners in new-build properties. Can the minister assure me that his Government is not about to get itself into another mess by trying to ban wood burners and other forms of direct heating from homes? If it is, what analysis has it undertaken of the further economic impact that that will have on businesses?

The MV Alfred was first chartered in April 2023 for an initial period of nine months at a cost of £9 million—or £1 million per month. There have been two further extensions, with the latest extension scheduled to end in March 2025. That will mean that the MV Alfred will have been chartered for just short of 24 months. Can the cabinet secretary advise me what the total cost to the taxpayer of that charter will be? If she does not have that figure to hand, can she at least confirm whether the total cost of the nearly two-year charter is more or less than the reported £14.5 million cost to Pentland Ferries Ltd to buy the ferry outright in the first place?

Does the minister think that private operators who provide services to houses in hard-to-reach areas, such as those mentioned by Emma Harper and others, are sufficiently involved in the process? Are we bringing all the technologies, including 4G, together well enough to deliver those service, or are we still seeing a bit of a smorgasbord of approaches?

I thank Beatrice Wishart for bringing to the chamber this debate on a subject that is extremely important for my constituents across the Highlands and Islands. Like Beatrice Wishart, I live in the northern isles and, for our communities, connectivity—whether that is transport or digital—is vitally important. However, for island communities across Scotland, not only is a lack of connectivity an issue but it is an issue that is growing.

Many of our connections to other islands and the Scottish mainland are better than they have been before—certainly better than they have been historically, although there are serious problems with our ferries network. However, while other communities benefit from improvements in how they are wired into the world through broadband, island and other rural communities risk being left behind. Although endless promises have been made on delivering superfast connections to our communities, like so many promises that emanate from the Scottish ministers in Edinburgh, they have not been delivered and the figures remain stark.

In the Western Isles, R100—including the voucher scheme—has seen only 14 homes and businesses connected to superfast broadband, and 2,206 properties await connection. Nearly 4,000 premises in Shetland and 2,760 in Orkney are still to be connected.

I am relatively fortunate because work has been carried out in the past few months to connect my home in Orkney, although we have not yet subscribed to the service. Before then, we were reliant on slow and intermittent broadband that, too often, cut out entirely. That left us struggling to access the increasing numbers of services—including many public services—which are now delivered online. In most of Scotland, folk take for granted things such as online banking, both personal and business; ordering supplies and deliveries from Tesco or other local shops; accessing online medical appointments; booking travel; or submitting data, such as that which the Scottish Government and its agencies require on our farm.

All of those things are vital, but they do not include the social connectivity that good broadband also supports. That is important not just for many younger people but for older residents of our islands who are feeling increasingly isolated.

Let us be clear that the failure to deliver on promises of improved broadband makes island life harder and risks damaging the long-term sustainability of our rural communities.

I will turn to phone connectivity. For many island and rural homes, although mobile coverage can be okay outside of the property, the signal inside can be limited. That is not great in bad weather, when power has been lost or an emergency call needs to be made.

Resilience is key for those who live in remote areas, and people want to stay in their own homes when they can, but they have to feel safe in doing so. As I said during my debate on wood-burning stoves, people cannot always pop next door for help, because their neighbours might be a significant distance away and they are often all but isolated. That is why a good mobile signal is important, but also why many of us are reliant on our powered land lines when there is a crisis.

Therefore, although I welcome the efforts that BT is making to ensure that a powered line will be available for some households until 2030, I wonder whether, when that is removed, a reliable alternative will be in place to ensure that resilience is maintained. I also wonder how many households are actually aware of the new product, so I ask the minister, in his summing up, to lay out what the Scottish Government is doing to ensure that households are made aware of it, particularly how the Government is working on that with local councils and third sector agencies, and how that work is being supported and funded.

I take this opportunity to thank all those organisations, particularly those in the charity and third sectors—and, of course, local government—that have continued to play an important part in providing many services in our community and that are working to ensure that any changes with things such as care alarms happen as seamlessly as possible. One of my family members has a care alarm, and I can say from my own experience that the part of Orkney Islands Council responsible for such things has been extremely proactive in warning us of any changes and what we need to do. That is appreciated, because these are quite literally lifeline services.

I could go on, Presiding Officer, but I think that my time is nearly up. In conclusion, then, I would just say that promises made about digital connectivity need to be delivered and that island and rural communities’ needs—particularly the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities—must be better understood by the Government. If they are not, we risk seeing the rural and islands divide widen even further.

Does the cabinet secretary consider that there may be an extension, or has any extension been considered, for the MV Alfred, given that it has been taken off its normal route in Orkney?

Does Jamie Greene recognise that, as well as the issues with CalMac, there is a ticking time bomb of ferry replacement needs in ferry fleets right across Scotland, including a lot of internal ferry fleets such as in Orkney and Shetland, and that it will cost billions to replace them all?