 The next item for business is consideration of business motion 10339, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to this week's business. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request-to-speak button. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer and moved. Thank you minister. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 10339 be agreed are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is topical questions. At question number one, I call Murdo Fraser. To ask the Scottish Government what percentage of short-term let operators have applied to be licensed in advance of the deadline for applications under the licensing scheme of 1 October. Minister Paul McLennan. Over the last decade, the short-term let sector has grown significantly and changed in nature, which has brought economic benefits but also raised concerns about consistency of quality and the impact on local communities. Following two public consultations and independent research, this Parliament passed licensing legislation in January 2022. All existing hosts will need to have their application in before 1 October to continue trading, having had 20 months to apply. According to local councils' public registers, as of 31 August, 6,323 applications had been received, and just over half of those have been issued with a licence with none, none refused. Over the next three days, I will be writing to all MSPs on how they can encourage and support all operators to submit an application. Murdo Fraser. Thank you. Today, operators of self-catering properties are rallying outside this Parliament to highlight concerns that they have about the unintended consequences of the legislation. The Association of Scottish Self-Caterers estimates that nearly two thirds of those currently operating could give up their businesses as a result, which would have a devastating impact on our tourist sector. What assessment has the Scottish Government done of the financial cost and the jobs that will be lost as a result of this policy? In terms of that, I have been negotiating and working with the sector over a period of months. In fact, in my first day in the role, I met the Association of Scottish Self-Caterers and I met them three times since March. I have also spoken to the Solar, which is the licensing bodies for local authorities in terms of that. Now, costs vary depending on the size of the building and depending on what they need to do. The Bria, for example, looked in terms of cost averaging around about £250 to £450. As I said, that varies depending on the size of the application and the details around that required. Murdo Fraser. Thank you, but there was no answer about the number of jobs that might be lost or the cost to the economy. That legislation does not affect just stand-alone self-catering units in city centres. It affects traditional bed and breakfasts, guest houses, home chairs, house swaps and farm cottages, many of which have been operating successfully for years, providing excellent service to visitors with no negative issues and yet now face substantial additional bureaucracy and cost. In a few minutes, we are going to hear from the First Minister, apparently telling us how he wants a better relationship with business. If this policy is not now delayed to allow a proper review of the economic impact on our vital tourist sector, will not the First Minister's words just be exposed as no more than empty rhetoric? Minister. That Government listened to the sector. That is why there was a six-month delay about that. Any legislation that comes through is always around about a balance and licensing is always about safeguarding the quality and consistency of the sector. There were three public consultations before the Scottish Parliament passed legislation in January 2022. As I said, that has brought economic benefits in terms of that, but it has also raised concerns in the consultation about the consistency of quality and the impact of neighbourhoods which this scheme is addressing. I call Colin Beattie. Did the minister agree that, 22 months notice, six months of which was a very well-publicised extension at the request of operators, is more than enough time to have prepared and submitted an application, especially for the majority of short-term let hosts who already abide by high standards and that the opposition should be encouraging operators to apply in that time that remains, rather than claiming that legislation passed by this Parliament in January 2022 is being implemented too quickly? I agree with what the member has rightly pointed out, that operators have now had just under two years to ensure that they comply with licensing conditions. Most of which high standards should already be doing under existing legislation and a year to prepare and submit their applications. The fact is that no one today has been refused a licence. Among the thousands that have already applied, I have spoken to businesses and councils and I am hearing different messages from those shared here today that it was straightforward to apply and obtain a licence and that the councils are working with applicants where information is in complete. The responsible and balanced course of action, of course, is for everyone to get behind a task of encouraging and supporting existing short-term let operators to apply for a licence before the 1st of October deadline. The key thing is that they have to apply before the 1st of October. The local authority then has 12 months to look at that and give them their licence beyond that. Licence applications have to be granted by licence authorities unless there are good reasons to refuse them. As a Highland and Island MSP, I know the benefits that the holiday industry can bring to often fragile rural economies. I also see the negative impact of poorly managed high turnover properties on many of the same communities. Can the minister say more about how regulation will offer reassurance to communities facing those negative impacts? I undertook a summer tour around lots of local authorities and that question was raised. I know from exchanges we have had in recent years across all parties that members have heard from constituents negatively affected by the significant growth of short-term let. I am worried about the inconsistency of quality and impact on local communities. Independent research undertaken in 2019 identified those impacts in more detail and we acted on after public consultation to regulate short-term let to address that. Licencing offers reassurance providing protection and benefits for all businesses, guests, neighbours and communities all across Scotland. It puts in place a formal framework with conditions that responsible businesses should already be functioning within. The minister knows that I favour sensible controls and regulation. That is why I favour the control areas. However, he needs to listen to the strength of the opposition to the licensing arrangements. That is really strong. At a time of great economic strain, those regulations are heavy-handed and have also been the subject of mission creep. Why does the minister not understand the strength of feeling and reflect on that? In the first day that I was in the role that I engaged with the sector straight off, I have met them twice since then. I have met numerous local authorities talking about that, the licensing schemes. He is coming straight from solar, the licensing scheme themselves, who think that it is a proportionate response to what came through in public consultation in 2019. We will continue to listen to stakeholders going forward, but that is a proportionate response to what came through in the 2019 consultation. We move on to question 2. To ask the Scottish Government how many public buildings are currently at risk due to the exposure of reinforced autoclave-erated concrete. Cabinet secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville. Survey work is under way across the public sector where the presence of rack is confirmed in a public building. We expect the owner to take appropriate measures to manage any risk identified. We expect risk assessment of buildings with a confirmed rack presence and recommendations for mitigation to follow the current guidance published by the institution of structural engineers. Returns from councils do confirm some presence in 37 schools. Councils have reassured ministers that, in the small number of schools to a rack is present, appropriate mitigation plans are in place. I am very grateful for that response. I must thank the Liberal Democratic Party for their FOIs that raised the issue as early as May this year. It has been something that the Government, both north and south of the border, has apparently been aware of for a number of years. Can the Scottish Government confirm that, when they are aware of the list of public buildings that are at risk, it will publish that list, keep it updated and ensure what steps have been taken to make sure that the building is still safe to open? That has been an issue that the Government has been aware of for some time. That is why action has been undertaken and has been for some time. For example, way back in July, 22 Scottish Government officials made contact with the Scottish Heads of Property Services, for example, and directors of education in Scotland to share information on rack. That work has been on-going for some time. I can completely appreciate why there is public concern on that, particularly given the way that announcements have been handled down in England. I reassure the member that we appreciate that public concern means that we need to be as open, as possible, as we can be for that, because parents and staff are concerned about that issue. It is for councils, of course, to publish that information on schools alongside communication with parents and staff, because it is important that we reassure them, both at a national and local level, about the mitigations that are already being taken place. I confirm that we will now move on to Martyn Wittfield. I am grateful for the confirmation that that list will be published. Indeed, we will follow from that support for our local authorities with regard to the money that is required, first to ensure that the surveys are taken properly, that the mitigation measures are correct and appropriate, and indeed that they are supported, particularly for some buildings. I am thinking of particularly some schools that have lost out because of the lack of publication of the learning estate investment programme. Cabinet Secretary. As I mentioned, it is for local authorities to publish that information on schools, and they should do so to ensure that parents and staff are reassured. Can I again reassure the member that both myself and Jenny Gilruthry, education secretary, are in regular contact with COSLA to ensure that we are offering support where that is needed and ensuring that we are sharing good practice and information, and reaffirming the importance of looking at that professional advice that came from the institution of structural engineers. We will, of course, keep up that contact, that very close contact with local authorities as this situation develops. Recognising that any repairs will result in additional spending commitments for the responsible bodies, what discussion has been had with the UK Government on capital funding to remediate where the material is found in buildings? Her letter of the 3 September of the Cabinet Secretary for Education asked the UK Secretary of State for Education to clarify the public commitment made by the Chancellor to spend what it takes to make schools safe. That statement was welcomed in early details of the financial support package that would then follow to devolved governments as sought. This follows an earlier letter on 16 August from the Deputy First Minister to HM Treasury regarding further financial support to help to deal with the consequences of RAC to which we have yet to receive a reply. It is essential that we do receive early clarity on this matter. In Preston, Lodge and Preston pans, 20 classrooms are closed and S1 pupils are being taught off campus. East Lothian Council has already spent over £300,000 to maintain education standards, a sum that is not budgeted for at a time of extreme financial pressure for the council. Will the cabinet secretary therefore commit to reimbursing councils and health boards that have incurred significant non-construction and inspection-related costs due to the discovery of RAC? I refer the member to the answer that I have just given. This is clearly an issue that is affecting administrations right across the United Kingdom. It is important that the UK Government and the Chancellor take cognisant of that. We are working at a time where we are already having cuts made to our capital budgets. That is making it difficult across Government to fulfil the obligations that we already have. Of course, we are committed to working with local authorities, but there is, quite frankly, an obligation on the UK Government to also step up and ensure that everybody is supported on this issue. Alex Cole-Hamilton It has now been months since I first brought this issue to the attention of the very top of the Scottish Government. There is still no central register of affected buildings, no strategy for the swift and wholesale replacement of this potentially deadly concrete and no national fund for cash scrap schools, health boards and others landed with it. Mitigation and monitoring offers little reassurance when a concrete beam that was marked as safe collapsed prompting the closure of schools across England. Can the cabinet secretary say with confidence today that pupils, patients and staff do not have rack in the ceilings above them? Is it possible that there are classrooms and wards with this problem concrete still in use right now? With the greatest respect, Mr Cole-Hamilton, he did not bring this to the eyes of the Scottish Government. We are already well aware of it for some time and have already had plans in place. That is why there are discovery methods already in place right across Government and the public sector on this issue. Can I urge him to have some caution about what he is advising here? Can I urge him please to respect the advice of the Institute of Structural Engineers which has not changed over the past week despite what has been happening in England? Let us listen to that professional advice. Let us play close attention, of course, if that does change, but it has not. Let us ensure that we listen to the professionals and the experts. We, of course, take action where it is needed. That is exactly why mitigation measures are already in place and where rack has been identified and those mitigation measures have been required. In December 2021, the Government told Parliament that it would publish in 2022 the schools that would form phase 3 of the learning estate investment programme. They failed to do so. In May and then in June, the education secretary said that there would be an announcement by the summer recess but failed to deliver that announcement. How many schools, such as Dumfries Academy, are at risk due to rack where the refurbishment or the rebuild is being held up because of the failure of the Government to announce the funding that they promised to announce months ago? I think that there are two different issues here. Yes, we are working very closely with the councils where rack has been identified, as I have said in my previous answers. When it comes to the announcement of leap phase 3, I would hope that everyone across the chamber recognises the very difficult circumstances for all capital projects at the moment, particularly because of increasing capital costs, construction costs and the implications that that has. It is quite right at that time that Government does take longer than perhaps people would like to ensure that we are getting the maximum out of that project and looking at that very seriously. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Education will make an announcement on that in due course when we are ready to do so.