Official Report 375KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20814, in the name of Ivan McKee, on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.
14:58
Scotland benefits from having a significant number of first-class sectors that compete with the best in the world, including our world-renowned tourism sector. The Scottish Government is absolutely committed to working closely with the sector to support it and make it as effective as it can be in continuing to attract large numbers of visitors and in enabling those visitors to witness the fabulous culture, heritage and warm welcome that Scotland offers and to take advantage of the services that the tourism sector provides around our country.
We continue to engage significantly with the sector across a range of measures to strengthen the provision for tourists visiting Scotland. In that regard, the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill was introduced to Parliament in January. The measures in the bill build on the existing framework that the Parliament agreed through the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024. Local government and tourism stakeholders sought a mechanism to raise revenue to support local infrastructure and services that are impacted by tourism, which is a desire that the Scottish Government very much supports.
The 2024 act provided the discretionary power for local authorities to introduce a visitor levy on the purchase of overnight accommodation. This bill responds to stakeholder calls for effective and proportionate further measures to increase flexibility in designing visitor levy schemes.
In its evidence to the committee, the Law Society of Scotland suggested that an exemption from the levy be considered for visitors who are compelled to stay in accommodation for the purposes of attending hospital for diagnosis or treatment and for those attending a court or a tribunal as a litigant, witness or accused person. Will the Government consider lodging a stage 2 amendment to deal with that?
Minister, I will give you the time back.
The exemption powers that local authorities have would already enable such an exemption to be made at the local level. However, I am willing to engage in further discussions if Sarah Boyack considers that aspects of that issue are not covered effectively by the existing powers.
The bill will strengthen the existing framework in a way that supports Scotland’s excellent tourism sector. It reflects the recognition from parts of industry that a clear, workable and locally responsive system can provide benefits for communities and visitors alike.
The bill as introduced will bring positive changes by enhancing flexibility for local authorities with an additional basis of charge that will allow levies to be set as a fixed amount or amounts. It also clarifies the arrangements for sales of accommodation to third parties and amends returns provisions so that returns are calculated on the date of stay and not on the date of the chargeable transaction.
The minister is right to say that the bill is about responding to need and that it affords additional possibilities. However, he has not acknowledged the fundamental point that the bill is intended to amend another piece of legislation that was recently passed. What reflections does the Government have about how it constructs such measures before it legislates? Could consideration be given to that? I am trying to raise that in as diplomatic a way as I can.
That is a very fair point. The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee asked why more of those issues were not picked up at stage 2 of the previous bill, and, in my engagement with the sector, I asked that question. The sector reflected and said that parts of it did not fully understand the implications for them of some of the proposed measures. There are lessons to be learned from everyone’s point of view.
However, it is testament to the processes that we have that, where such things occur and where there is consensus—across stakeholders and members in the chamber—that things need to change, we are able to bring forward the changes that are required expeditiously.
I will be less diplomatic than Daniel Johnson. Does the minister regret not listening to the Conservatives, who were making exactly those points to him during the passage of the initial bill?
To be clear, they were not making exactly the same points. The Conservative proposition was to not give councils the flexibility to operate a percentage scheme and to limit them to a flat-rate scheme. In other words, the Conservatives did not want to broaden the scope and provide the increased flexibility that councils and industry very much welcome in the proposals that we have brought forward. If we had taken forward their proposal at that time, we would probably be back here anyway, widening out the provisions through a separate bill.
The bill also includes a regulation-making power, which will enable ministers to give effect to any changes that may be required once the system is operational.
I want to reiterate that I have welcomed stakeholder input throughout the stage 1 process and that I continue to listen. I am grateful to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its constructive engagement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities and industry throughout the process.
Last week, I arranged a meeting with local authorities and key industry stakeholders to discuss their calls for further changes to implementation periods. They have helpfully provided written suggestions, which I am giving further consideration to as we move towards stage 2.
My recent response to the committee’s stage 1 report confirmed that the financial memorandum sets out the best available central cost estimates. However, we will, of course, continue to refine those with local authorities, as the provisions in the bill may change through stages 2 and 3.
The flexibility for councils will be balanced with clarity for businesses. I am considering the committee’s recommendations, including those on the practical operation of multiple schemes, fixed amounts and regulation-making powers.
My officials and I will continue to engage closely with stakeholders and the Parliament to ensure that we have a proportionate and effective visitor levy framework for Scotland that suits local circumstances while supporting local authorities and businesses.
Although the bill has been expedited, there has been stakeholder engagement throughout to inform the measures in it. That engagement will continue as the bill progresses through the Parliament and, if it is passed, as we move towards implementation. The bill will provide local authorities with greater discretion to shape schemes in a way that reflects local needs and visitor patterns, and it will support the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of Scotland’s world-leading tourism sector.
I am grateful that the committee has indicated its support for the general principles of the bill. Those principles will be welcomed across Scotland as we aim to improve visitor services and support that world-leading sector.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
I advise members that we have a little bit of time in hand.
15:05
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I thank everyone who gave evidence to the committee, including councils, accommodation providers, national booking platforms, small family businesses and island communities, and the many individuals who took time to share their views. We are grateful for their contribution to our scrutiny.
The bill does four main things. To ensure that we are clear, I will spell them all out. First, it will provide flexibility by allowing councils to charge a visitor levy on the basis of a fixed amount or a percentage of accommodation costs. Secondly, it will allow tailored rates so that councils can set different amounts by place, by season or by type of accommodation to suit local circumstances. Thirdly, it will bring clarity to the administration of bookings that are made through third parties when an online agent or tour operator is involved. The charge will be based on the first transaction between the accommodation provider and the third party. Finally, it will deliver simplicity through levy returns being based on when guests stay, not when they book.
I will cover the committee’s consideration of the bill and what we recommended as a result. We launched a call for views as soon as we were designated as the lead committee for consideration of the bill at stage 1, and we received 60 responses. We took oral evidence from those in local government, from representatives of the tourism industry and accommodation providers and, finally, from the Minister for Public Finance.
The committee welcomes the Government’s response to stakeholders’ calls for greater flexibility. We support giving councils a clear choice of charging a percentage rate or a flat rate for each scheme, so that they can pick what best fits with local circumstances. We heard that a percentage-only model could be hard to operate in practice, especially for smaller operators.
However, we recognise the risk of creating a complicated landscape across Scotland, and even within council areas, so monitoring will be essential. The 2024 act requires a report on the visitor levy three years after the first scheme comes into effect. However, that is a one-off, not an on-going, mechanism. On-going engagement with councils and other stakeholders, which the minister referred to in his written response to the committee, will be important.
The current uncertainty about whether a single chargeable transaction could be caught by more than one scheme is unhelpful. Therefore, we recommend that the Government clarifies the position through amendments. I welcome the minister’s commitment to consider that ahead of stage 2.
We support allowing for a range of fixed-rate options. That will let councils tailor schemes, maintain a progressive element to the levy, protect lower-income visitors and support rural and island economies. However, we also recognise stakeholders’ views on the practical difficulties that could arise with a per-person, per-night approach, so we recommend that the Government clarifies how the model will work. I note that the minister has said that that recommendation is being considered ahead of stage 2.
Some councils have already consulted on a percentage scheme and have announced plans to progress with the visitor levy. What options are available to those councils now? We heard that a requirement to consult again and adhere to an 18-month transition period before introducing a fixed-rate scheme could create delay and disruption. Therefore, we welcome the minister’s commitment to lodge amendments on those periods when appropriate. The minister told us that that was
“one area where there will absolutely be changes.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 3 February 2026; c 11.]
However, the Government’s response to our stage 1 report says:
“We are considering these matters ahead of Stage 2”,
so it would be helpful if the minister could confirm today what those changes will be.
We support the clarification in the bill that, when that parties are involved, the initial transaction between the accommodation provider and the third party is the chargeable transaction. That avoids double charging and improves certainty.
We support the regulation-making powers to resolve operational issues quickly but not to rewrite fundamental policy without full parliamentary scrutiny. I acknowledge that the minister’s response regarding the broad regulation-making powers was:
“this provision would not apply to changes to the basis on which the levy is charged. We consider that such significant changes are best made through primary legislation”.
That is welcome. However, it would be helpful if the minister could address whether the language in the bill is sufficient to rule out significant changes through subordinate legislation.
Finally, a word on timing: the timetable was challenging. I acknowledge that some of the provisions in the bill will support the smooth implementation of the first scheme in Edinburgh, which is due to commence in July, and that it is therefore helpful that the changes have been proposed now. However, we cannot ignore the fact that some of the issues that are addressed in the bill arose during consideration of the original bill back in 2023.
We support the general principles of the bill. Local flexibility absolutely matters: councils and accommodation providers should have the flexibility to design schemes based on local circumstances.
15:11
Let me make it clear from the outset that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1. The bill is a welcome step in the right direction and it follows sustained pressure from the Scottish Conservatives and the tourist industry. For years, we and the sector have been arguing that the visitor levy as proposed in the original legislation is potentially deeply damaging to a tourist industry that is already under severe financial pressure elsewhere. It is good that we are finally seeing recognition of that—at least in part—from the Scottish Government.
As we have heard, the bill does two things. First, it gives local authorities flexibility to introduce a flat-rate charge, or a tiered flat-rate charge, as well as having a percentage scheme. That is a welcome change that local authorities and others have been pressing for, and it will allow much greater local flexibility.
Secondly, the bill fixes an error in the original legislation, whereby third-party providers were not able to properly set and collect the visitor levy. That led to complications where platforms such as Booking.com were asking accommodation providers to manually process refunds to those staying more than five nights in their accommodation. That was an entirely foreseeable mess created by the original legislation, and it is good to see it fixed, although it should never have happened in the first place.
Many of those difficulties could have been avoided if we and others had been listened to at the time. Back in 2024, we lodged amendments to the bill to allow a flat fee to be presented, but those were not supported by other parties. At committee, the Scottish National Party and the Greens voted against our amendments and Labour abstained. It is good to see that our concerns were vindicated and the changes being introduced now, but it would have been far better if that had been sorted out at the time, rather than our having to introduce remedial legislation.
I pay tribute to all the industry bodies that pushed the Government for action. The Scottish Tourism Alliance co-ordinated a joint letter to the Scottish Government in May last year expressing concerns. It brought together 78 representatives of the tourism and hospitality sector and said:
“Without swift and coordinated action, we risk an unworkable system that will damage confidence and compliance across the sector.”
Others, such as Fiona Campbell of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, David Weston of the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association, and the Federation of Small Businesses, among many others, joined in with those calls, and it is good to see them being listened to.
Although the bill is welcome, it does not fix all the issues with the visitor levy. The Holiday and Residential Parks Association has raised concerns about the proposed per-person-per-night charging mechanism, which it says will fall heavily on families. Staying in static caravans is an attractive option for low-cost holidays in the United Kingdom and is particularly important to those who are struggling with the rising cost of living. However, as the association has made clear, a levy set at the modest sum of £2 per person per night would add the significant extra charge of £168 to the cost for a family of six of staying in a static caravan for a fortnight. For people who are already struggling to meet the cost of a family holiday, that is a very significant additional tax burden.
There are other issues with the visitor levy that the bill does not address. The levy catches not only people who are tourists but those who have to stay away from home for work or for a variety of other purposes. For example, a resident of Glasgow who is sent to Aberdeen for a few days’ work as part of their job and has to stay overnight will pay the visitor levy, as will someone who visits a family member in hospital and has to stay nearby overnight. A family whose property is damaged by a flood or a fire and has to stay in a hotel or a B and B on a short-term basis will pay the visitor levy. It is not a tourist tax, as it is sometimes classified. It is paid by everyone who stays somewhere other than in their own home, regardless of the reason.
I cannot speak for all local authorities, but I understood that at least some local authorities had agreed not to charge the visitor levy for people who were visiting their local authority area for the purpose of visiting someone in hospital.
I accept that that may be the case, but I think that it would be far better, from the point of view of clarity, if we had a scheme that made it very clear who was eligible to pay and who was not, rather than leaving it up to individual local authorities to make those choices.
Councils across Scotland are currently seeing the visitor levy as a source of additional revenue, which is not surprising when their budgets are being cut by the SNP Government. The levy represents an additional cost for a sector that is already suffering as a result of Labour’s national insurance increase, which is a tax on jobs, the additional cost of short-term let licensing for self-catering providers, rising energy costs and flat demand from customers. In addition, the sector as a whole faces staggering increases in non-domestic rates as a result of the current revaluation.
It makes no sense to add a visitor levy for a sector that is already struggling with all those other costs. Scotland is already seen as an expensive destination, compared with other parts of Europe or other parts of the world, and the visitor levy will make matters worse. The Government is at risk of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, given the importance of tourism to the Scottish economy.
As things stand, some councils are pushing ahead with introducing a visitor levy without even doing a proper economic assessment. In my region, when Perth and Kinross Council ran a consultation, it found that there was overwhelming local opposition to a visitor levy across all sectors, yet, shockingly, the SNP administration, propped up by the Liberal Democrats, is still pressing on. In Stirling, the SNP is committed to bringing in a visitor levy at 3 per cent from next year.
Although we support the bill today, we remain deeply concerned about the impact of a visitor levy on a sector that desperately needs more help from the Government before more jobs are lost and more businesses fold.
I observe, in closing, that what we have seen from the Government is a remarkably cack-handed way of making law. It is only three years since the Government passed a bill on the matter, and here we are back again trying to fix the mess that was made. The Government really should have properly thought through the implications of the legislation before it brought it in. I hope that the lesson has been learned from that. The bill tries to fix that mess, so we will support it.
15:18
I thank the organisations and individuals who provided evidence during the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s scrutiny of the bill and the original visitor levy legislation, whose contributions were central in shaping the committee’s deliberations. I also thank the committee clerks for supporting us in reaching the conclusions that we reached in our stage 1 report.
Labour agrees that the bill is absolutely necessary. Visitor levies will be an important tool for public authorities, and the bill seeks to ensure that those levies will operate within a workable and transparent framework. It recognises the diversity of Scotland’s visitor economy and the different pressures and opportunities that are faced by local areas. We support full devolution to councils and their having the flexibility to customise the system so that it meets local needs.
We are not here to debate the principle of a visitor levy, which was thoroughly examined during the passage of the original bill. However, we should also not be here to discuss implementation through further primary legislation. One law should have been enough, particularly given this Parliament’s already crowded legislative timetable.
The Government argues that the amending bill addresses issues that could not have been predicted, but that does not quite chime with my recollection of the original debate. I can remember not the current minister but the previous minister coming to the Parliament to say, “We couldn’t make a decision on this, so we passed the decision to committee.” The committee took evidence, realised the difficulties in making that decision and said, “No, thanks, that’s for the Government to decide.” The committee did not do so without highlighting the difficulties in deciding between a percentage rate and a flat rate; that was made very clear at the time, and we would have expected the Government to do its due diligence and research and to provide the proper leadership, instead of saying that it was the Parliament’s fault. The committee and the Parliament gave a clear steer to the Government that it was ministers’ decision to take.
The committee was also clear at the time—as it is now—that any levy system must be clear, manageable and proportionate for businesses and local authorities. Smaller operators and those with limited administrative capacity must be confident that compliance will not become an undue burden. Cost is therefore central to the bill’s success. It is evident from the committee’s report that the Government has not sufficiently clarified its implementation cost estimates or adequately explained discrepancies between the financial memorandum and stakeholder evidence. I welcome the opportunity to work constructively at stage 2 to ensure that we establish a realistic and robust financial framework.
Another key issue is the possibility of multiple levy schemes. The committee previously supported councils having flexibility to develop more than one scheme, while stressing the need to avoid unnecessary complexity. However, it remains uncertain whether a single transaction could fall under more than one scheme and, given the proposed flexibility across localities, that lack of clarity is unhelpful. The committee was right to recommend that that be addressed through amendment at stage 2.
I confirm that that will not be the case. That will be resolved.
I thank the minister for confirming that, and I look forward to supporting that amendment at stage 2.
We need a visitor levy that works for local communities while allowing Scotland’s world-class tourism industry to thrive. On that basis, we will support the bill. However, we must be clear that councils have endured years of underfunding under this Government and that the visitor levy cannot and must not become a substitute for core funding for local authorities.
We will scrutinise the bill carefully to ensure that it delivers genuine flexibility for councils and certainty for tourism businesses. However, I must put on record our frustration at having to revisit this legislation in such a rushed manner because the Government failed to get it right first time. Holding a stage 1 debate a little more than a month before the end of the parliamentary session is not good governance. After 19 years in office, the Government should be capable of producing workable legislation and managing a coherent timetable. Instead, we are correcting avoidable mistakes at the 11th hour.
The committee’s work has highlighted the need for clarity, consistency and proper communication as the bill progresses. There is an opportunity to create a model that supports local priorities while sustaining a strong visitor economy. That will need genuine engagement, careful amendment and constructive dialogue with the sector in the weeks ahead.
Scotland deserves legislation that has been thought through and that is properly costed and competently delivered; it does not deserve legislation that needs fixing before it is even implemented.
15:24
Ivan McKee is too much “team SNP” to dump his predecessor in it, but, if he had a bit more freedom to speak openly, he would admit that mistakes were made in the past and that, if he had been the minister at that time, the mistake would not have been made.
To give him credit, the minister listened and, despite a very busy parliamentary timetable, has managed to find a vehicle to make the change and to respond to the needs of the sector, which had been raising concerns for a long time. He deserves credit for that.
As we have repeatedly heard from various speakers, there were deep concerns about complexity leading to greater bureaucracy and undermining the scheme itself because the amount of revenue that would be secured would be minuscule due to the additional costs involved. It is therefore right to empower councils to have greater flexibility to choose between having a percentage or a fixed-rate levy, and a number of the other changes set out in the bill are also right. I am sure that the sector will appreciate that while, as Murdo Fraser said, still expressing a degree of resistance to the whole scheme in the first place. We should recognise that the bill is an improvement, and Liberals will therefore support it at stage 1 today and at all other stages.
However, I add my voice to the caution that has been expressed by others. The fact that local authorities have a power does not mean that they have to use it, especially in the really difficult financial circumstances that we all see every day. Local authorities should not just charge ahead and implement the levy because they have the power to do so. For example, as Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out, they should listen to what the Holiday and Residential Parks Association has said about the impact of per-night and per-person costs, particularly for families looking for lower-cost holidays.
I also urge caution about the use of funds, because I have heard some wide interpretations of what counts as the tourism sector. If the scheme is to work and have the confidence of the sector, it must be used directly for tourism purposes or that confidence will be shot. If there is going to be a virtuous benefit back into the sector, the fee must be ring fenced by local authorities, using the consultative mechanisms set out in the previous bill to make that work. It is difficult to introduce new taxes, but if, on day 1, people from some political parties come along with very wide interpretations of how the money can be used, that will undermine the very scheme that we are trying to promote.
To return to the economic circumstances, we already know that many businesses are facing significant increases in business rates and employer national insurance contributions while also dealing with low consumer confidence. I urge local authorities that are considering using the tax to look at the wider economy in their local areas and to consider carefully. That does not mean that they should never do it, but it does mean that they should look at the economic circumstances now to ensure that they are not further undermining what is, in some cases, a fragile sector.
My final caution is for Parliament. This is a tight bill for a specific purpose, to fix a problem that we have identified. Please do not add amendments to it. Do not add bells and whistles. Let us make sure that we can get the bill through, using an expedited process, so that we can fix a particular problem. I know that there are things that I would like to include in the bill, but, unusually for me, on this occasion I will be cautious and restrained. It is important—particularly because we have a tight schedule towards the end of the parliamentary session—that we do not add bells and whistles, to ensure that we can get the bill through and fix the problem.
15:28
I am pleased to contribute to today’s stage 1 debate on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill and to speak in support of its general principles, particularly as a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I place on record my thanks to my committee colleagues and to the clerks who took the bill on at what might be called short notice, as the convener hinted.
Although it is a quite technical piece of legislation, the bill is, in a nutshell, about strengthening local democracy, empowering councils and sustaining Scotland’s visitor economy in a way that best reflects local priorities. The legislation builds on the recent Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 and responds constructively to the experience, evidence and feedback gathered since the act was passed. We have already heard some commentary on that today.
The central purpose of the bill is to provide councils with greater flexibility in how they design and apply a visitor levy. It introduces the option of charging a fixed amount rather than only a percentage of accommodation costs. That additional choice will equip local authorities with a practical tool that better reflects the diversity of Scotland’s communities, tourism patterns and local economies.
A visitor levy offers councils the opportunity to invest directly in the visitor economy. Any revenue that is raised must be spent on facilities and services that are used largely by those visitors, supporting infrastructure, public spaces, transport, cultural attractions and local amenities. That will ensure that tourism growth remains sustainable and that communities that share their places with visitors will benefit directly from that success.
Importantly, the bill will not require councils to introduce a levy—Willie Rennie has just made that point—but will preserve local discretion. Councils will remain accountable to their residents and must consult communities, businesses and tourism organisations before bringing any scheme forward. That consultative approach will ensure that decisions are grounded in local knowledge and shaped by those who are most affected.
The flexibility that is offered by the bill is particularly welcome. Under the proposed framework, councils may choose between a percentage-based levy and a fixed-rate model, and they may also vary how the levy is applied, with options such as per-person or per-night charges. That will enable schemes to reflect local tourism pressures, economic conditions and seasonal demand. Such adaptability is vital across Scotland’s diverse landscapes. We have major cities that welcome millions of visitors each year, such as Edinburgh; rural, island and remote communities, where tourism patterns differ greatly; and areas such as my Coatbridge and Chryston constituency, where we have many great tourist attractions, such as the Time Capsule and the Summerlee museum, which are not always known about or regarded as particular tourist hot spots and do not have many hotels, for example. It is really important that we recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach would not serve Scotland well. The bill will ensure that councils have the tools to design schemes that align with their unique circumstances and can take decisions locally.
The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee—of which I am a member, as I said—recommends that the Parliament agree to the general principles of the bill. The committee supports the introduction of a choice between a percentage levy and a flat-rate model. We recognise the Government’s responsiveness to evidence and we welcome the steps to shorten consultation and transition periods where appropriate.
The bill also sits within a broader commitment to empowering local government. It contributes to the new deal for local government and builds on the Verity house agreement, reflecting a shared ambition to strengthen local decision making, support communities and improve public services. Alongside the record investment in the local government settlement, the measure will provide councils with an additional fiscal tool that complements existing funding streams.
International experience further supports the approach. Levies on overnight stays are common across Europe and beyond—I am sure that many members have experienced that. Many destinations use such levies to reinvest in tourism infrastructure, enhance their visitor services and protect natural and cultural assets, and Scotland’s model draws on those lessons while ensuring accountability, transparency and local control.
Stakeholder perspectives also underline the value of flexibility. Industry bodies, including representatives from rural and tourism sectors, have more or less welcomed the move towards fixed-rate options, which they view as being simpler, more predictable and better suited to varied accommodation models. Their contributions have strengthened the bill and will improve its practical application.
Of course, effective implementation will remain essential. On-going monitoring, clear guidance and continued engagement with councils and businesses will ensure that schemes operate smoothly and deliver tangible benefits. The statutory review mechanism that is built into the framework will provide an important safeguard, allowing Parliament to assess how the system is functioning in practice and to respond where necessary.
The bill represents a thoughtful evolution of Scotland’s visitor levy framework. It will enhance flexibility, respect local choice, support sustainable tourism and strengthen partnership working. It reflects the lessons learned from earlier implementation and the constructive engagement of stakeholders across the country, and it has gathered cross-party and stakeholder support. For those reasons, I support the general principles of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill and encourage colleagues across the chamber to do the same.
15:34
First, I want to respond to Willie Rennie—ever the father of the house—giving us that guidance on bells and whistles. I have to throw a tantrum and tell him that I like bells and whistles and I want to put lots of things into this vital bill. However, I thank him for his advice.
When the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill was introduced, we on the Conservative benches made it clear that we did not believe that introducing a visitor tax was the right approach for Scotland, and certainly not for fragile rural and island economies. However, once it became clear that that bill would proceed despite our efforts to advise the Parliament otherwise, our focus shifted to making the simple point that, if a levy was going to exist, it must be as flexible and workable as possible for the businesses that would be expected to collect it.
The correspondence that I received from businesses on Mull, Skye and across the Highlands and Islands paints a worrying picture. One long-established island business told me:
“We cannot rely on loyalty to the Scottish brand when families themselves are struggling with the cost of living.”
Another business said:
“2025 was the slowest year for bookings we have ever experienced, with large gaps in summer availability for the second year running. That is before any levy has been introduced.”
Great work has been by many regional campaigners, all of which I commend. The Skye and Badenoch business impact survey got many responses, including one that said:
“If the levy tips us over the VAT threshold, we could lose £15,000 to £20,000 a year. That is not marginal—that is business changing.”
Clearly, businesses were very worried from the outset.
The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, which does an incredible job, has consistently highlighted the risk to small operators, particularly those that are close to the VAT threshold, and the disproportionate administrative burden.
In the Highlands, the issue is not just about hotel chains. There are many farmers who are diversifying, island families with mortgages, and microbusinesses that are already having to cope with ferry disruption, labour shortages and rising costs.
Those of us on the Conservative benches know that if a levy is to function, it must be flexible. First, councils must have the ability to set a flat rate per night. In many rural areas, a modest fixed amount of £1 or £2 would be far more proportionate and predictable than a percentage-based charge that would penalise people booking longer stays or higher-quality accommodation.
Secondly, there must be clarity on who pays. If policy makers believe that the levy should focus on international tourism, the legislation must allow, for example, island residents who are travelling for medical appointments or families who are forced to stay overnight because of cancelled ferries not to be caught by a blunt instrument that would affect them, too.
Thirdly, the administrative burden must be minimal. It is not reasonable to expect busy small businesses to become unpaid tax collectors for the Government without clear systems, clarity on VAT treatment and proper cost recovery.
I remain of the view that the Highlands and Islands are fundamentally different from large cities such as Edinburgh. Our economies are seasonal, fragile and highly dependent on repeat visitors and community good will. A one-size-fits-all approach does not always work. That is why the proposed legislation is welcome. It improves flexibility and addresses some of the concerns that we have raised from the outset. We never wanted the levy but, if it exists, it must be workable.
Despite my opposition to the visitor levy, I am thankful that the minister listened to the Scottish Conservatives. Murdo Fraser said that we were there to hold Ivan McKee’s hand. We held his hand and enabled him to bring the legislation back to Parliament. If the minister needs his hand held with mistakes on other matters, such as non-domestic rates or the budget, he should come to us. We will be there to help him at any point.
Last year, 1,000 people signed my open letter to the minister. All they said that they wanted were certainty, fairness and common sense, and that is what we will continue to ask for. I am glad that the bill is here today.
15:38
A visitor levy is a welcome step forward for our local authorities, and I hope that it can now be implemented in a way that takes account of local factors. That is also the view that many tourist businesses in my constituency have expressed to me.
Tourism is of increasing importance to island communities, and we are, of course, supremely blessed in the Western Isles. To highlight just a few things at random, tourists can choose from the Callanish stones; the plane landing on the beach on Barra; our distilleries; boat trips to St Kilda; HebCelt, the world-famous Hebridean Celtic music festival; the Ceolas festival; and our countless white sandy beaches.
However, managing all of that requires local infrastructure. A visitor levy helps to ensure that that infrastructure is maintained without having to divert vital funds from other priorities.
Providing local authorities with additional flexibility on how a visitor levy is calculated is welcome. By giving councils the option to introduce a fixed rate, we can better ensure that the levy is implemented according to the needs of local authorities across Scotland and not only those in the cities.
A couple of additional island-specific points arose out of the Government’s recent consultation on cruise ship levies, and I hope that those issues can now be given consideration at the next stage of the bill.
In the Western Isles, many visitors arrive by cruise ship, or stay in camper vans rather than in hotels or Airbnbs. I reiterate a proposal from colleagues in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, as well as from tourism bodies such as Visit Outer Hebrides. To ensure a balanced approach, consideration should be given to implementing a similar levy on cruise ship visitors and camper vans that come to the islands. I appreciate that, as Mr Rennie pointed out, time is limited in this parliamentary session to allow us to consider everything, but a port-of-entry-style levy, if introduced, would, I believe, strengthen the measures. I would encourage further collaborative working to consider that option.
Small and medium-sized enterprises form the backbone of many rural and island communities. In implementing the levy, we must ensure that the administrative burden is minimised and that SMEs are not inadvertently brought above the VAT threshold. One of the beauties of a port-of-entry-style model in island areas is that it allows us to take advantage of the very limited number of means that most people have of getting there, thereby simplifying the task of levying any charge. I am glad that, rather than ignoring stakeholders, the Scottish Government continues to work with them on such questions.
I am pleased to support the general principles of the bill and see it move forward to stage 2. I look forward to discussing how we might strengthen the bill to ensure that it responds to the suggestions made by businesses and island communities. The legislation can help to provide the infrastructure that ensures that our tourism economy has the means to bring about its own success in future, and it will ensure that the communities that host the industry see all its benefits.
15:41
I, too, welcome the bill and, indeed, the dialogue that the Government has had with stakeholders and members across the chamber, because there was a real issue with the previous legislation.
I will continue my glass-half-full approach for a moment or two. It is a good thing for Parliament to consider legislation that is short and focused and has an explicit purpose. I am glad that Parliament does not consider that bills should always be lengthy. Sometimes, a focused bill is the right solution.
That said, the Government needs to think carefully about how it arrived at this position, because the issues were flagged previously. Indeed, when the minister proposed introducing the bill, I said to him that I would welcome it, but that I would also have to say, “I told you so.”
On the principle of taxation, the policy memorandum talks about efficiency. The problem with a percentage-based model is that it is inherently more complicated, both for those on whom it is levied and for those who seek to collect it. We have only to look at VAT to see an example of that. As anyone who has ever had to fill out a VAT return will know, doing so is inherently complicated. The minister might know that from direct experience, as do I.
Daniel Johnson is quite right to say things like, “I told you so,” although we need to consider Labour’s record in response to the progress of the bill through Parliament. Does he agree that a bit of post-legislative scrutiny is a good thing? We have not done much of it in this session of Parliament. Would Mr Johnson agree that this could be the fastest example on record of post-legislative scrutiny, because the Government got it so wrong the first time around?
I agree with that, but I will leave it to members to decide whether that is in a good way or a bad way.
Above all, it is worth remembering a couple of fundamental points. First, when the original bill was going through Parliament, a lot of members highlighted the fact that a tourist levy happens in other countries. We have to remember that VAT will be charged on top of the levy. In many of those other jurisdictions, either VAT has been reduced or no VAT is charged on accommodation. We need to remember the context.
Likewise, Murdo Fraser, who is not in the chamber right now, was right to reflect that we are a relatively high-cost destination. Without wishing to get into too much economic theory, I would also ask whether the visitor accommodation sector in this country is a price setter or a price taker.
We kid ourselves that people will come here if we charge whatever we like. There will be a point at the margins where a particular tourist or visitor will choose not to come here and to go somewhere else instead, and we need to bear that in mind.
We should reflect on the fact that the levy reflects a more fundamental dysfunction in that economic growth and success in an area does not feed through to local councils.
I approve of the variation powers—it is important that the Government can be flexible. I think that the point about third-party charging is right, and a flat fee will definitely be easier to levy and collect.
I also want to reflect on a couple of other points. Alasdair Allan is absolutely right to raise the prevalence of cruise ships and camper vans, which are a big issue for many parts of the country. However, above all else, I agree with a great deal of what Willie Rennie said, which needs to be heeded. We cannot have people trying to add lots of bells and whistles to this process. Let us do a serious job and pass the bit of legislation that we are being asked to.
Finally, I would like to highlight that we need to look very carefully at the per-person, per-night approach, because it might well fall foul of the efficiency and practicality reasons for supporting the bill, and I ask whether that might not add its own complexity to passing the legislation.
15:46
I am glad to speak in the debate and share some of what the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee heard during its stage 1 considerations.
Tourism is important to Scotland, but it is undeniable that the added footfall brings strain to our infrastructure. As we have heard in the debate, a visitor levy is used in many places across the world to help mitigate that. A small additional fee, multiplied by thousands of visitors, will make a real material difference to the communities that are most impacted, and to the experience of visitors.
It is important that the levy works for the tourism sector and local authorities. It was evident that a level of flexibility was required that was not set out in the initial legislation. I welcome the Scottish Government’s effective response to calls from stakeholders. Stakeholders spoke very positively about that, and the bill is a good example of stakeholders, the Scottish Government and Parliament working collaboratively.
I am grateful to all those who took the time to engage with our committee on the issue, especially given the shorter-than-usual timeframe. I am aware that some have raised concerns about the short timeframe, and I understand that the forthcoming election curtails the time that we have available, but good scrutiny is still essential.
Evelyn Tweed will be aware that, in Stirling, the SNP proposes the introduction of a levy. It is one of the few places that is sticking firmly to the idea. There was a consultation, which had 75 responses, and very few of them were in favour of the proposal from the SNP in Stirling for a visitor levy. Therefore, why is the SNP pressing on, in the constituency that Evelyn Tweed represents, with a levy that the sector says will damage tourism in Stirling?
I thank the member for the intervention, but I think that I have already covered that point. [Interruption.] Yes, I have. It is up to individual local authorities to make their own decisions, including when it comes to infrastructure issues and what happens in local areas. If that is what the local authority wants to do, I agree with it.
I also note that the concerns that are being addressed by the bill were raised during the passage of the initial legislation, and I am pleased to note that the minister acknowledges that lessons can be learned from that.
Over the course of our evidence taking, we heard some concerns that I hope can be addressed at stage 2. The flexibility that the bill brings to vary the fixed amount of the levy, based on many factors across accommodation types and times of year, was welcomed. However, concerns were raised about the potential impact of the per-person, per-night model. Although COSLA pointed out that that option is used widely outside Scotland and the City of Edinburgh Council highlighted the benefits that it would bring for data collection, others had reservations. Stakeholders have suggested that that would add up for families who are travelling with children and create additional barriers for those on low incomes when travelling in Scotland. The measures would also create potential complications for those working in the sector, in that it might place pressure on staff to verify visitor numbers. Many accommodation providers operate a contactless check-in system, and accommodation in holiday parks is often booked by pitch, rather than by person.
I completely agree with Willie Rennie’s comments about where we are with the bill. Time is of the essence; I think that we need to get on with it. The cross-party group on tourism, which I convene, heard that there is a need for an ambitious, robust, long-term strategy. I welcome the work that has been done to remedy the concerns so far and I look forward to a constructive stage 2 process.
We move to closing speeches.
15:51
I start by thanking the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for its excellent work on the legislation. It feels like yesterday when the 2024 act was passed, which was vital for my city of Edinburgh. Our visitor levy scheme will start this year and is a practical and vital tool that will allow our capital to manage the pressures and opportunities that come with being one of the most popular and visited cities in Europe. Edinburgh welcomes millions of visitors every year, and the number of visitors is set only to increase. Visitors are drawn by our festivals, our heritage, our culture and our global reputation, which we are proud of. However, that success comes with real costs.
The City of Edinburgh Council estimates that the visitor levy could raise around £90 million over three years when it is implemented. For us, that will be transformative. That money could be used to maintain and improve the infrastructure that visitors rely on, including our streets, public transport and parks, and our cultural venues. It could protect our historic environment and help to ensure that the benefits of tourism are felt across the city, not just in the city centre. For example, Leith theatre is lined up to receive £4 million to help it to reopen and £3 million is set to go to the old Royal high school. Our culture sector cannot wait to see money being invested in its projects, but we need to ensure that we get it right.
I say to members who have not been in the Parliament since 1999 that the area has been transformed by tourism and we have a housing emergency. The modest amount of cash that will go to support affordable homes will enable workers who support the tourism sector to live and stay in our city. As many members have said, it is about recognising that tourism, as with any major industry, requires reinvestment. Other European cities have long used visitor levies to balance the needs of residents and visitors alike.
A key issue that has been highlighted by committee members is that, when the 2024 act was passed, there was a need for flexibility in different areas of Scotland that faced different challenges and opportunities in managing tourism, but that was not reflected in the legislation. Alasdair Allan’s point about cruise ships was well made, although, of course, there must be a balance, as we do not want to have millions of amendments between now and the end of parliamentary session.
A key point that has been made repeatedly is that it is critical that local authorities have flexibility. Although a percentage tax makes sense for a city such as Edinburgh, other councils want to take a different approach. It would be good to get clarification in the minister’s closing speech as to whether the Scottish Government will publish its draft amendments as soon as possible for stage 2, and then for stage 3, which I think he is willing to do. That would enable us to properly scrutinise the amendments and ensure that stakeholders are listened to, so that we can do the parliamentary work that we are here to do.
The minister is willing to consider the concerns that have been raised by the Law Society of Scotland about fairness. For example, people may have to stay in a tourist area that has a levy in place because of hospital appointments or court proceedings. It is absolutely critical that we do not create unintended burdens for people who are already going through stressful situations.
The bill gives local authorities powers to act, and it enables them to do so in a way that suits local businesses. I support the committee’s call for implementation to be monitored. With different approaches taken in different parts of the country, it is important that lessons are learned. I suggest that the Government could think about guidance. One issue that frequently comes up in representations from those who have been consulted is the challenge for small businesses in working their way through the process of a visitor levy. It is critical that there is guidance and monitoring, and that lesson are learned from how the visitor levy is implemented across the country.
Stakeholders have made the point that the use and booking of accommodation has all got much more complicated in the past few years, and that needs to be reflected so that the bill works as intended.
One point that has been made quite a lot of times is about the importance of ensuring that the amendments to the 2024 act will work. We need to strengthen the legislation and we need to keep up with the growth that parts of our country are now experiencing.
I note Ariane Burgess’s comments about the Scottish Government’s response of
“We are considering these matters”.
The sooner we get clarity, the better—not just for members, but for key stakeholders.
I urge colleagues to support the bill. We need to engage constructively with the concerns that have been raised so that we deliver future-focused, successful legislation. The legislation has to work. I suspect that those who are members in the next session will be discussing the matter again, in relation to cruise ships, how the legislation is working or the details—and details in legislation are important. Guidance, monitoring, ensuring that we have made the bill the best that it can be, given the circumstances that we are going through—that is our job. Let us work constructively to do it.
15:57
We had a refreshing moment of honesty from the minister in his opening remarks, when he volunteered that the Government had introduced legislation for a sector that it did not fully understand. The fact that we are back here with an amendment bill suggests that what he said is very honest and true.
Will the member give way on that point?
He may now wish to say something about that.
If the member listens back to what I said, he will find that I said that the sector had said that it did not fully understand the whole range of activities that happened across the sector. That is what I said.
He is blaming the sector for the fact that the Government did not really understand the sector.
Before any proposed legislation is brought before the Parliament, there ought to be proper understanding of what the measure, the remit and the effect are. That has clearly not been understood in this case.
When the original Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill was brought before the Parliament in 2023, we were unenthused by the idea of a new tax. We are Conservatives, after all: we are not that much in favour of raising taxes, of new taxes or of more regulation. We warned the Government that it was getting key aspects of its legislation completely wrong. We were told that we were being negative. As has happened today, members used the justification that the levy would be a really good source of revenue, as if there was some source of free money available from the private sector that will always be there to take more and more tax from.
We warned then that the percentage-only approach was wrong, but we were told that it was right. The sector was not listened to by anyone in the Parliament other than the Scottish Conservatives. We are back here again, amending primary legislation. Earlier, I facetiously intervened on Daniel Johnson—I do not have any particular animus towards him personally—to point out that here we have legislative scrutiny as it is not intended to be conducted. It is so unnecessary.
Will the member give way?
Yes, I will happily give way.
I am grateful to Mr Kerr for giving way, and I am not being facetious in any way. If we boil it down, one of the critical errors is that the Government did not look at how the mechanisms of charging work in a practical sense or at how collection might work. That is a mistake that the Government has made previously—for example, that was one of the issues with the deposit return scheme. Do you agree with one of my fundamental points, which is that the Government needs to look at the practicalities of the charging mechanisms before it embarks on such a levy?
Always speak through the chair.
Absolutely, I agree, but let us be fair—it is a Thursday afternoon. [Interruption.] Well, look at the place—it is empty. [Interruption.] In all honesty, I do not think that SNP members can afford to make such a point in our direction. [Interruption.]
Members!
I want to be generous to the minister by saying that at least he has had the courage to listen and act now. That is maybe because Ivan McKee is, at heart, a pragmatist. He understands a little about what makes a business work and he has seen through the bill that we previously passed, and noticed its flaws.
We heard the convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee speak earlier. The committee’s stage 1 report said that the core issue in the bill, which is
“the basis on which the levy can be charged”,
was
“not unforeseen.”
That is so diplomatic. In other words, it was obvious what the issues were, but they were all raised during the passage of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill, and ministers were indeed warned.
Murdo Fraser, who is back again, was a salient voice in warning ministers, and he was not alone, because Miles Briggs, Liz Smith and Jamie Halcro Johnston also took part in that. We all tried to make the bill workable. We argued for flexibility and simplicity. We argued that locking Scotland in a rigid percentage-only model would cause real-world problems for businesses on the ground. Those were not ideological objections; they were practical ones, and the evidence has borne that out.
Highland Council undertook a statutory consultation and received more than 4,000 responses. Its assistant chief executive told the committee that the top feedback concerned
“the perceived advantages of a per-night fee rather than a percentage-based levy. We had gone with a 5 per cent levy as part of our consultation.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 27 January 2026; c 5.]
That was clearly seen as the salient and outstanding problem. This is not abstract theory; it is the voice of the sector. It is saying that structure matters, detail matters and impact matters.
Tim Eagle said that, when asked, the businesses in the region that he represents said that they wanted certainty, fairness and common sense. We have tried to be a voice for exactly that in this Parliament—in relation to this and other measures.
As Daniel Johnson said, before we impose a new tax on a globally competitive sector, we must assess the impact properly, model it rigorously, examine price sensitivity, consider displacement and look seriously at what happens if visitors simply choose somewhere else. I sit on the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which Daniel Johnson convenes, and we have heard from representatives of the tourism sector that that is a live issue in Scotland. Tourism is not a spreadsheet exercise. It is about jobs, livelihoods, family businesses and fragile rural and island economies, where margins are tight and seasonality is unforgiving.
A levy might look neat in a forecast or as an idea, and it might produce an attractive revenue headline on a spreadsheet but, if it shortens the length of stay, shifts bookings to competing destinations or adds friction in a competitive market, the wider economic cost could outweigh the gain. That is why modelling matters. It is reckless to introduce a new tax without properly understanding behavioural impact. Listening to the SNP members who spoke this afternoon, we would have thought that the whole thing was a surprise to them, particularly given—
Mr Kerr, could you please bring your remarks to a close? You are well over your time.
Can I say a couple of words to close?
I am asking you to bring your remarks to a close, so please do that now.
I conclude by saying that we will not necessarily follow the advice of Willie Rennie, because we will seek to lodge a controlled, restrained number of amendments to the bill in order to improve it and to make it more pragmatic, which is something that I hope that all members of the Parliament would agree with. The Scottish Conservatives are, unapologetically, the party of business, and we will speak up for the businesses and jobs in our country.
I call the minister, Ivan McKee, to close on behalf of the Scottish Government.
16:05
Visitors should be welcome across Scotland. We want them to share our unique culture, landscapes and warm hospitality. We also want the attractiveness of our local areas to be maintained well and continually enhanced in a way that supports the visitor economy. By directing the funding through the levy, we intend to enable local authorities to do that. That is why we introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill in 2023. The 2024 act now provides a means for authorities to levy a charge on the sale of overnight accommodation and to generate additional resources to support and sustain facilities that are used mainly by visitors. Sarah Boyack gave some fine examples of how those resources can be deployed in Edinburgh.
The bill seeks to deliver changes to the 2024 act to ensure that visitor levy schemes can be tailored by local authorities to work in the interests of visitors, residents and the tourism and hospitality sectors. If the bill is passed, the measures will have tangible benefits for years to come. Those changes will support clarity and flexibility in the design and implementation of schemes that meet the needs of local areas.
We have heard emergent plans from local authorities, which have told us that they intend to use the money that is raised from a visitor levy to invest in growing the visitor economy—for example, by boosting events with visitor management and providing valued jobs in the tourism sector for local people; by supporting culture and heritage opportunities; and through tourism infrastructure, such as by developing connectivity to make it easier to travel between islands and destinations.
As I stated in my opening remarks, the bill will help to implement visitor levy schemes that are responsive to local economies and communities, for the benefit of everyone. By providing local authorities with increased flexibility to shape their schemes around local circumstances, the bill will strengthen their ability to support and sustain tourism in their areas. Clear, adaptable and proportionate frameworks can deliver shared benefits for businesses, communities and visitors alike.
Can the minister assure us that he will take the opportunity to go slightly beyond a narrow technical clean-up exercise? Will he be brave and look at any pragmatic suggestions that we might make that would improve the measure?
I am always happy to look at pragmatic measures, but we must bear in mind that the consensus across the chamber, which I will come on to talk about, is that we need a focused bill that delivers on the objectives, to ensure that everything is done before the end of the parliamentary session.
I will touch on a few of the comments that members made. The convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, Ariane Burgess, raised a number of points. I have already addressed the point about multiple schemes applying to the same transaction. We are listening closely to concerns that have been raised about the per-person-per-night fee, and we will respond shortly.
On implementation periods, to clarify the language, we propose to make changes in that regard, so that moving between schemes or making changes can be done in a way that has the consensus of everybody who is engaged in the process. As I said, that was one of the major topics of discussion in my engagement with industry and local authorities last week.
With regard to regulation-making powers, we are giving the assurance that those are to enable us to deal with specific issues that might arise, and not to make wholesale changes to the bill or its provisions.
A number of members made the point about exemptions. Local authorities already have the power to put in place exemptions—we have already provided local authorities with the mechanism to do exactly that.
On council costs, there is already a provision in section 19 of the 2024 act to allow councils to recover their costs from revenues that are raised by the levy, which gives some comfort in that regard.
I thank the cautious Willie Rennie for his clear and principled position in opposition to bells and whistles—in this instance, at least—although that was challenged by Tim Eagle and others, who are taking a more pro-bell-and-whistle position. It will be interesting to see how that plays out through stages 2 and 3. Indeed, Tim Eagle was also involved in controversy when he chose to have a disagreement with Davy Russell on the important subject of seagulls in an earlier debate, so he is making a bit of a habit of that today.
Willie Rennie made the important point that, although the bill gives powers to local authorities, it does not compel them to do anything. That point was well made.
Some members took the opportunity to support and promote their local tourist attractions. Fulton MacGregor did a wonderful job of promoting many of North Lanarkshire’s often overlooked but excellent tourist attractions, and Alasdair Allan highlighted some of the fabulous tourist attractions in Na h-Eileanan an Iar.
Tim Eagle made sensible points about the administrative burden on local businesses. Of course, we recognise that, and it is one of the drivers for the changes that we are introducing through the bill. I always welcome offers of collaboration from across the chamber, wherever they come from, so members should recognise that.
I am grateful to members for their contributions to today’s debate, and—
Will the member take an intervention?
That is just on cue—I was about to reiterate my thanks to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.
Sarah Boyack raised a point about the cruise ship levy. It would be good if you could address that. My understanding from the evidence that we took is that such a levy would need a different legal mechanism, as the bill is about overnight accommodation in a place, and that the Government is taking forward measures on that. I would appreciate hearing from you—I mean, from the minister.
Always speak through the chair.
That is an important point. I know that members would like a cruise ship levy and a point of entry levy to be considered for some parts of the country. We have had a consultation on a cruise ship levy, which will be for the next Government to consider post-election, but it will not be part of the bill. I hope that there is recognition that trying to attach it to the bill would cause real challenges for getting this important legislation through in time.
I thank the officials, who have done a power of work over a short period to get the bill to where it is now, and who are very much across all the issues that need to be addressed in stages 2 and 3.
I will continue to work closely throughout the bill process with stakeholders to ensure that the legislation balances the needs of industry and local government and that it supports the effective operation of the local visitor levy schemes.
That concludes the debate on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.