Chamber and committees

Yes.

15:30

I accept the minister’s invitation to speak about my objective, which I think he recognises, in connection with amendment 19. Therefore, I withdraw amendment 19.

Amendment 19, by agreement, withdrawn.

Would you not accept that all that amendment 12 seeks to do is to guarantee that the voices of those very business that the minister has just described are heard, that those businesses are part of the process, and that their concerns and consideration weigh heavily in the final decision making by the local authority? All that amendment 12 seeks to do is to make statutory a piece of good practice; it would ensure that that happens, rather than it not happening, such that businesses in remote and island locations feel more vulnerable.

What is considered in the amendment is a process by which that decision is reached that involves the evaluations that I mentioned in my remarks. Does that not add a different complexion to the whole idea?

However, the requirement in the amendment is for there to be a reporting process, which would reach conclusions that would be transparent to everybody—the people in the sector and the wider community. That would create the opportunity for the power, which the minister says already exists in the legislation—of course it does—to be exercised. Does he not accept that that creates the opportunity?

The next three groups consist entirely of my amendments. I will comment on them as swiftly as I can.

Amendments 14 to 18 go to the very heart of public confidence in the visitor levy. The question is not simply how the levy is calculated or applied, but what happens to the money once it is raised.

When the Parliament first legislated to create a visitor levy, it did so on the basis that proceeds would be used to develop, support and sustain facilities and services that are substantially used by visitors. That was the compact—it was never presented as a general revenue-raising device to plug unrelated gaps in local authority budgets. Amendments 14 to 18 are designed to tighten that link. They would strengthen the requirement for net proceeds to be directed towards purposes that are connected to tourism and the visitor economy. They would also enhance transparency on how funds are allocated and provide a process for challenge if the net proceeds of the visitor levy are not being used as intended.

The amendments would also create clearer reporting and accountability processes. Amendment 18 would create an annual reporting scheme on how the visitor levy has impacted aspects of tourism such as visitor numbers, the length of visitor stays and the viability of tourism businesses. That would reassure businesses that pay the visitor levy and communities that live with its consequences that its impact is being monitored and that the money will directly improve tourist activity.

If a hotel, guest house or self-catering operator collects a levy from its customers, it should be entitled to say to them, “This is being invested in improving the place you’re visiting.”

Such investments might be in infrastructure, environmental maintenance, cultural assets or services that sustain the visitor experience. They should not become an indistinguishable line in a council’s general account. It is not about mistrusting local authorities; it is about clarity of purpose. We all know that local government is under severe financial pressure, but if the levy is perceived to be a back-door tax that is detached from visible benefit, support will quickly erode.

My amendments would also protect councils. Clear statutory guardrails would reduce the risk of challenge and strengthen the legitimacy of decisions that are taken. They would give councillors a firmer foundation on which to explain and defend how funds are used. If the levy is to endure, it must command consent, which flows from fairness, proportionality and transparency. Agreeing to amendments 14 to 18 would reinforce those principles and keep faith with what the Parliament intended and with what the sector was told. I ask colleagues to support them.

I move amendment 14.

The essence of amendment 19 is the event that would lead to the requirement for there to be a conclusion and a decision. I understand what the minister is saying about the powers that exist. Of course the power exists to create the levy in the first place, to introduce it and to operate it. With regard to taxes in this country, let us never forget that income tax, when it was introduced, was supposed to be a temporary measure. Taxes, by their very definition, are introduced as an idea. They are very rarely then withdrawn. There is a very short history book that lists all the taxes that were introduced and subsequently withdrawn. There have maybe been one or two, but I cannot think of any as I sit here. Maybe someone else in the room can think of one. Amendment 19 seeks to create the event—or sequence of events—that objectively decides whether the levy has been a good thing and whether it is delivering what it was supposed to deliver. On that basis, there would be an objective evaluation as to whether the tax should expire.

I appreciate that. I will not press or move the amendments in this group.

Amendment 14, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 15 to 18 not moved.

Again, I am aware of what the 2024 act says, but I am also aware of what the practice means. I think that the minister knows exactly where I might be coming from, in respect of the operation of government. At all levels, there are reviews and reports. These things roll up—

I apologise to you all for having to listen at length to my voice this afternoon, but there we go.

Amendments 20 to 22 deal with exemptions. That subject might sound like a technical corner of the bill, but, in truth, it goes to fairness, proportionality and, I think, common sense.

A visitor levy is designed to apply to people who choose to travel for leisure or business and who make discretionary use of overnight accommodation. That is the underlying rationale. It follows that there are categories of stay that do not sit comfortably within that rationale and that should not automatically be treated as though they do.

There are circumstances in which individuals stay away from home not by choice but by necessity. Such circumstances may involve medical treatment, emergency displacement, domestic crisis or other forms of vulnerability, or they may involve carers or family members supporting someone in hospital. To treat those stays in precisely the same way as a weekend break or a short city stay is to ignore context.

Amendments 20 to 22 seek to ensure that local authorities will be required to consider, and, where appropriate, to provide clear exemptions for, categories of stay that are fundamentally different in character from tourism. My amendments are not about creating loopholes; they are about recognising that not every overnight stay is a holiday and that not every occupant is a tourist in any meaningful sense.

There is also a practical dimension. If we do not define exemptions carefully, we risk creating inconsistency across Scotland, which could generate confusion for accommodation providers, uneven treatment for individuals and reputational harm to the policy itself.

Clear statutory guardrails would reduce that risk and give councils a framework within which to act sensibly. I am seeking not to undermine local flexibility but to empower it. Councils should retain discretion within a defined structure, but discretion must operate within principles. Those principles include fairness to those in vulnerable situations and clarity for those who must administer the scheme.

If the levy is to command broad public consent, it must be seen to be targeted and proportionate. It should not fall on those who are already under strain and who have little genuine choice about their circumstances. Amendments 20 to 22 are designed to embed that principle in the bill. They are about getting the edges of the scheme right, aligning the levy with its stated purpose and avoiding avoidable hardship. I ask colleagues to support amendments 20 to 22.

I move amendment 20.

15:45