Chamber and committees

I am aware that a lot of good work is done by VisitScotland, by the kickstart scheme and by colleges and universities throughout the country; I will not name them, as it would take too long. Much good work is also done by the industry itself, which has partnered with the public sector in many ways to help young people into tourism and to give specific practical work experience to youngsters while they pursue primarily academic, classroom-based training courses, certificates or degrees. The industry is to be congratulated on that.

I would be grateful if UK Hospitality and bodies such as the Scottish Tourism Alliance could continue the good relationship that they have with the public sector and the Scottish Government to build on that work, because I think that more needs to be done. I agree with Leon Thompson’s point that there is still a perception risk, even though tourism and hospitality, along with food and drink and events, offer terrific career opportunities and will continue to do so in the future, just as much as they have done in the past.

I invite Paul Mitchell to respond.

Good morning to the witnesses, and thank you for joining us today. The written submissions that we have received indicate that, following the effects of the pandemic, in order to help us to achieve a common economic recovery, business wishes, rightly, to focus on areas where there has been especial damage. Tourism and retail have been mentioned, although there are others. I agree with and welcome the wish for that focus. In particular, Leon Thompson will be aware of the work that the tourism task force has completed, which looked at specific measures that involve particular universities, colleges and establishments with a distinguished track record—for example, in tourism. In the evidence from our retail colleagues, I was slightly concerned to see that the number of apprentices in retail has reduced over recent years.

To supplement their written submissions, I would like the witnesses to provide us with a prognosis and a set of measures that they wish to see in place, and I would like them to be as specific as possible instead of generally saying that we should do more. What, in particular, should that “more” be? Who should provide it?

Having been in a driving seat of sorts, as a minister for 14 years, I am acutely aware that those are complex matters and that it is difficult to deliver objectives into reality. Nevertheless, some very positive, specific, prescriptive suggestions about how we can help younger people, in particular, and how money should be focused on areas such as tourism and retail would be very welcome. My questions go to both witnesses.

Secondly, is it the case that what we are doing here will, in effect, bring Scotland into line with England, which will mean that the same hurdles and time provisions apply?

Thank you, minister.

Both witnesses have provided positive suggestions, which we should pursue afterwards, convener. There is no doubt that we can discuss that. We have some pretty concrete pointers in the right direction.

I have a small supplementary question for Paul Mitchell. Is there a concern in the construction sector that, generally, there is a shortage of skilled labour in many of the trades that are essential to pursue construction projects? Do you agree with me, as someone who represents a largely rural constituency, that the shortage of available contractors means that it is difficult to get competitive prices for projects, which has led to price inflation in many projects in the public and private sectors? Do you consider that, as part of the solution to those issues, we need to take up the suggestions that you have made to ensure that there is a larger stream of young people in rural and urban Scotland going into the construction sector to carry out the work that we all believe is necessary for schools, roads, hospitals, railways and private sector projects?

I endorse what Ross Greer has just said and have a couple of points to add. My understanding of the officials’ response is that, if the regulations are passed, there will be no change to the test that is applied, which protects the public from those who have committed more serious offences. There will be no change at all.

The only alteration is that people will be allowed to make an application at an earlier age. An application that would be refused would also be refused when they are younger. Any suggestion that there is an increased risk is nothing short of scaremongering. I am sure that no one would wish to do that. It is particularly disappointing to hear those arguments when we have already heard that one of the benefits will be a consistency of approach throughout the UK. That means that children who succeed in an application that is made in Scotland would be able to move south to take up advantages there, and vice versa. There may be practical benefits. For those reasons, I will vote against the motion to annul.

Thank you. I also want to ask how a registration scheme might operate in practice. At the outset, we heard that each of the four witnesses supports a registration scheme; you have referred to schemes that operate in other countries in the world. Fiona Campbell mentioned that she first proposed that in 2017, and I believe that she has had engagement about how such a scheme might work, so it might be appropriate to ask Fiona—to start off with—how such a scheme would work and in what way it would deliver benefits, as opposed to the licensing scheme that the Scottish Government is proposing.

There are many questions, but I will ask just one more, convener, because I appreciate that time is short. I have been in lengthy correspondence with the minister on all those matters, and more.

Fiona Campbell might be best placed to respond to this question. At the outset, the purpose of the regulations appeared to be primarily, or even solely, to deal with antisocial behaviour, which was perceived to be arising from use for party purposes of tenemental flatted properties in the city of Edinburgh. In my constituency, very large properties that are used for stag parties and so on also, on occasion, cause concerns about antisocial behaviour. However, does Fiona Campbell believe that the Scottish Government no longer sees the regulations as playing a role in that respect? Is not it the case that there are already powers under the Antisocial Behaviour Notices (Houses Used for Holiday Purposes) (Scotland) Order 2011, which provides local government with the powers to tackle such antisocial behaviour? In other words, there are already regulations that enable local authorities to act in serious cases of antisocial behaviour.

I put that question to Fiona Campbell, but if other witnesses have views, I would be very interested to hear their evidence, too.

I thank the four witnesses, whose evidence has been comprehensive, persuasive and compelling. I want to pursue a few specific points.

My first question is for David Weston and is about the fire and safety provisions that apply to the operation of bed-and-breakfast premises. Is not it the case that there is already a well-established and successful set of guidance to protect B and B customers? I believe that it has operated for some years now without incident, following its introduction when I was the minister responsible for tourism.

Do the other witnesses believe that the guests in Airbnb and self-catering properties are sufficiently well catered for in respect of fire safety?