Official Report 547KB pdf
09:37
The next item on our agenda is to take evidence on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. We will be joined by two panels of witnesses.
First, we will hear views on the bill from representatives of local government. We are joined in the room by Gareth Dixon, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and Elin Williamson, City of Edinburgh Council. We are joined online by Jamie Coventry from Aberdeen City Council, Christie Hartley from Orkney Islands Council, Malcolm MacLeod from Highland Council and Fergus Murray from Argyll and Bute Council. I welcome you all to the meeting and thank you for your attendance, particularly in light of the short notice and the tight timescales for the bill. There is no need for witnesses, either in the room or online, to turn on their microphones; we will do that for you.
I will start by asking a few questions. We want to cover a number of areas, and I will cover why the legislation is needed now. I will try to mix it up so that we do not always go first to the people in the room; however, in this instance I will do so. Gareth Dixon, I will direct my questions to you initially, so you know what is coming. What engagement have you had with the Scottish Government on the bill so far? What did local authorities ask for and what, if anything, changed as a result of that engagement?
Thank you, convener, for those three questions. I will do my best to answer them in order.
COSLA has engaged with the Scottish Government fairly regularly on the development of the bill. I imagine that you are asking about the amendment bill, rather than the original bill, which became the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024.
Yes. This whole item is about the amendment bill.
That is fine. There has been engagement between officers in order to share the original outline. We were first made aware of this development around September time last year, and that engagement was really just the notification, which I think became fairly public, with regard to the Housing (Scotland) Bill as it was going through stage 3.
It is worth highlighting that the reaction across local government has been fairly mixed. Some have been calling for a fixed-amount levy, on the basis that having flexibility and local discretion will allow them to design a scheme that is compatible with, and, indeed, is the best fit for, an area.
However, it is also worth noting that, at the time, many local authorities were in a critical phase in their consideration of this issue. Some were in the formal consultation phase, while others had already done a considerable amount of work, and this has obviously caused a bit of disruption to their considerations. A few proceeded with their consideration and approved their schemes in the interim period, but others felt that they required a little bit more certainty, and that led to some decision making that they had to look to delay that. Of course, there were others that had agreed a scheme a long time ago, and that created additional pressures and work for officers.
That is great—thank you very much. I have a specific question for Argyll and Bute Council, Highland Council and Orkney Islands Council, but I will tuck another question in before that.
From your perspective, given what you have said about some local authorities being in critical phases of development, what problem was so urgent that it needed primary legislation now? What would happen on the ground if the bill slipped into the next parliamentary session?
I suppose that it is worth dividing the bill into two parts. The first part is about introducing a fixed-amount levy, which will give local authorities additional flexibility to design something that suits their local area. It will aid them.
Other aspects of the bill seek to simplify the implementation of the levy as it currently stands. Some correct terminology that I think was already understood, but which, on the back of further legal consideration, needed to be tightened up. The proposal on the first sale price is a ready-made solution that has potential, but there are nuances in that respect, and I am mindful of unintended consequences. In short, things that had been suggested to improve the implementation of the levy are wrapped up in the bill.
What would happen if it slipped into the next session—after the election, basically?
There are, I think, some legal issues. My understanding is that the chargeable transaction elements need primary legislation in order to be fixed.
We might well hear about this from other colleagues, but I think that there are still opportunities to work within the existing legislation in order to find solutions. Some of this is needed, and some of it is more optional, if that makes sense.
Thanks very much for that. I will now ask the two questions that I have for Highland Council and Orkney Islands Council, and then I will open it up to others to come back on the two questions that I have just asked Gareth Dixon.
I am interested to understand from Fergus Murray and Malcolm MacLeod the impacts on their local authorities, because I believe that both were in a critical phase with their visitor levy schemes and then had to pause them. I know that the Highland scheme was about to go to a full council meeting, and then it got paused. I wonder whether we can hear first from Fergus and then from Malcolm at Highland Council.
Argyll and Bute is at a critical stage with the visitor levy. We have undertaken the 12-week consultation, and a significant number of people across Argyll and Bute have fed into it. Of course, the consultation was based on the original bill, and we had a lot of feedback on the practicality of delivery and concerns about the use of a percentage rate. We fed that back to our councillors, who made the decision to pause the levy. They also took into account initial feedback from the Scottish Government that it was looking at the issue, which was highlighted through previous public consultations done by councils.
09:45
We wrote to the Scottish Government with some concerns about utilising the percentage rate and feedback from businesses about issues such as simplicity of collection, when the levy was to be collected and so on. A number of issues were raised through the consultation over the 12 weeks and then Ekosgen did a major study of the consultation response for us.
Given the information that we gathered through the consultation, the feedback and the analysis, and the potential for some amendments to be made to the legislation—although there was no guarantee of that—the council decided to pause. We wanted to see whether some of the concerns that we heard from businesses, residents and others could be taken into account by the Government through the amendment bill. We are still in the position of taking a pause.
There will be a further meeting of the council this week, but I think the recommendation will be to continue with the pause and wait to see what amendments might come through in the bill before coming back to the council again with a further recommendation. No decision has been taken on that yet. We are just waiting to see what the bill will offer the council in terms of flexibility. That is where we are.
Thanks very much for that picture, Fergus. Just to clarify, you held a consultation over 12 weeks, you got some very useful information, and you have some concerns. With the pause, you are not necessarily going to lose all that work, but you could add to or amend what you have based on the views received and on the amendment bill.
Definitely, we do not want to lose that work.
Great, I am glad to hear that the consultation work has not all been undone. If I can hear from Highland Council next, that would be great.
We took our report to the December council meeting seeking agreement to pause the implementation of the levy until after the bill process. That was on the back of a statutory consultation that we carried out in the first half of last year. We ended up with just over 4,000 responses. Not surprisingly, perhaps, to those who are aware of the issues, the top result was feedback on 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.
Our convener wrote a number of times, presenting the views that were coming from both the consultation and the visitor levy group that we set up with industry and reflecting the fact that a flat rate was seen as a more appropriate way forward.
Like in Argyll and Bute, the one thing that came out of our consultation generally, both in meetings and through people writing in, was that people were not against the principle of a levy, but they were certainly not happy with the percentage basis offered. That sums it up very simply. Should the legislation be amended, we will do a full statutory consultation again. That is not about throwing out the original consultation; it is just that we feel that the amendment bill will bring in such a change. That is why we will go through a 12-week consultation again. However, we hope that having certainty in being able to choose what route we go down will lead to a lot more buy-in. There are still some other issues, but they are not for today, I guess.
Okay, great. Thanks very much. I will go to Elin Williamson next—no, sorry, I actually have a question for Orkney Islands Council first. Christie Hartley, Scotland’s three all-island local authorities have decided against introducing a visitor levy at this time. Speaking on behalf of them, could you give us a view as to why Orkney Islands Council has decided that?
Back in March and April of last year, Western Isles Council, together with Orkney Islands Council and Shetland Islands Council, commissioned external consultants to undertake feasibility investigations for each island authority. Those investigations included a programme of engagement with stakeholders and a cost benefit analysis.
What we found for Orkney—I will just speak for Orkney—is that there is support in principle for a levy that funds long-term investment in infrastructure, environmental conservation and tourism, but the threshold for acceptance among stakeholders is fairness. The theme of fairness rang true through every consultation. There is an expectation that any visitor levy should apply more broadly to include high-impact tourism segments, especially cruise tourism. Here in Orkney, cruise tourism accounts for, on average, half of all visitors. Including cruise tourism is a clear red line for acceptance. There is also an expectation that local residents would be exempt.
In our cost benefit analysis, using conservative estimates, we were unable to accurately forecast the level of exemptions that would apply. However, given the visitor numbers, and the fact that a levy on overnight accommodation would apply to less than half of our visitors, there would simply not be sufficient revenue to make it viable.
However, we are discussing a point-of-entry levy. At the same time that the consultation was happening, the Scottish Government launched its cruise ship levy consultation, and question 18 in that consultation asked about the potential for a point-of-entry levy for island authorities. Stakeholders widely saw that as a much fairer option. It meets the threshold of fairness by applying more broadly, and it would include motorhomes, which are an increasing concern here, as well as cruise tourism. Also, given that we already have mechanisms in place from our transport operators for exemptions for local residents on flights and ferries, that would be most welcome. That type of levy is widely seen as the most—
Thanks very much for that clarity. That is a good point about the cruise ships.
I know that other witnesses have not had a chance to speak yet, but in the interests of time, I will move on to the theme of changes to the basis on which a visitor levy can be charged. I will bring in Meghan Gallacher, who has a number of questions. Meghan, I hope that you can bring in the people who have not spoken yet.
Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses. I am interested in how multiple schemes could operate within a local authority area. Certainly, it appears to me that, if the visitor levy is to go ahead and be implemented in local authority areas, it has to be a system that is simple, easy to process and not overburdensome for the operators, by which I mean all the people who work in the sector.
I am looking to find out what the operational risks are of having multiple schemes running, in the context of dynamic pricing, variable length of stay and multiple booking platforms. What contingency modelling has been done—if any local authority has done such modelling—specifically in relation to compliance loss and collection error?
I am not sure who might want to pick up on that, but I am interested to hear from those who have not been able to come in yet.
If that question is relevant to your situation, please indicate and I will bring you in.
As the local authority that is probably furthest ahead in implementation, I can certainly speak to that. There have been issues in the past few years, and the original legislation has had some unforeseen consequences. We have done our best to work through them with stakeholders, the Scottish Government and accommodation providers.
We have prepared contingencies in the sense that we have taken a strict approach with our forecasting models, and we have made financial assumptions around not fully committing the full levy up front until we have seen the initial collection results. We have set aside money in the scheme to ensure that we have a contingency pot for further down the road, in case the basis for a levy changes or there are any other unforeseen circumstances, such as another pandemic.
The most important thing for us has been to be prudent in our financial projections. Wherever possible, we have tried to go for the lowest possible result. Whenever there is a range, we assume the lower end of that range as opposed to the higher. However, as with all financial projections, it will obviously be subject to reality once the collections start.
I am sorry—the main focus of that was contingency. Could you remind me of the question?
It is in relation to contingency and future proofing against potential compliance loss and collection error. I can use Glasgow City Council as an example, because its modelling has shown a 5 per cent levy generating £16.9 million—approximately £4.86 per night—while the proposed tiered banded model could generate £23.6 million, but it comes with significantly higher complexity around the modelling. The question is about compliance and the loss that is generated and what suits local authorities alongside the sector to simplify the model and make it the best possible model.
We have said from the start that every local authority needs to decide what works for it and whether a visitor levy is right for it in the first place, depending on its visitor economy and its tourism sector as a whole. We firmly believe that a visitor levy is the right approach for Edinburgh.
Edinburgh offers a wide spread of the accommodation types. We have high-end luxury accommodation as well as budget accommodation—you can share a dorm bedroom, for example—and everything in between. As with Orkney, when we consulted our residents and visitors, fairness was often quoted by everyone. There was a strong sense that, if people can afford to pay £2,500 for a night in a suite, it would seem unfair that they would pay the same as someone who is paying £25 for a shared dorm bedroom. Percentage is therefore something that works for Edinburgh.
There have been issues with the implementation, but it still reflects the dynamic pricing that we see. Although Edinburgh is an all-year-round visitor city, we see an uptick in certain months of the year. I am sure that no one will be surprised to hear that August is one of the most popular months in Edinburgh. We also have strong events that will attract extra visitors, such as global artists performing, which has impacted hotel prices. A percentage takes into account dynamic pricing, seasonality and location in the city. Anyone who is staying outside the city will automatically pay less in their visitor levy, as their hotel room will likely cost much less than if they were staying in the city centre. All that is being taken into consideration, and it is one of the reasons why percentage works for Edinburgh.
I imagine that a fixed fee would work much better for a local authority that has a much more homogeneous offering, such as predominantly short-term let accommodation.
Thank you. I am conscious of time, convener, so I will move on to my next question.
There is a debate about whether the fixed-rate model for accommodation providers and customers should be a fixed rate per unit as opposed to per person. I would be interested to hear, briefly, from one or two local authorities why per unit is not favourable and why there seems to be more emphasis on per person.
10:00
We have looked at that. Gareth Dixon can perhaps say more on global research, but our understanding is that per person is much more common globally. A per person rate would allow for better intelligence for local authorities to understand exactly how many people are visiting the city. It would also make it easier to provide exemptions, because exemptions tend to be based on the person as opposed to the room.
A per person fee might be easier to administer from a local authority perspective, but I imagine that it would be much harder to administer from an accommodation provider perspective, as there is currently no obligation on them to know exactly how many people are in their unit at any given time. That is my understanding, though, and I apologise if that is not correct.
We are not having a huge debate about that and, from our point of view, both approaches will work for us if we decide to take this way forward. What I would say is that, as we develop the scheme, flexibility is important, so that we can go through the things that were mentioned in the previous answer about what works best. Having flexibility right now is a good thing, so that we can engage with industry as we move forward. We need to reflect on the reason why this has been brought forward, which is perhaps because things were too restricted to begin with. Certainly, from Highland Council’s point of view, keeping things as open as possible at this point will allow us much more room to discuss and change in the context of the consultation that we will carry out.
I have a brief supplementary question for Malcolm MacLeod. I appreciate the remarks that you have made on flexibility for local authorities, but can you understand how difficult it could be for an accommodation provider that works across more than one local authority area, if, for example, one local authority area decides to go with per unit and another decides to go with per person? You can surely understand that a simplified system would then no longer be simple and would become complex for accommodation providers to operate. Some providers might decide to leave the sector entirely, because it is just not workable for them.
Businesses that are across different local authorities tend to be larger businesses and therefore much more able to build such things into their business models. I accept that that is a complexity, but the implementation of the levy as a whole will be a challenge. I go back to the feedback that we got from our consultation, which was that businesses from small to very large were not against the principle. The devil will be in the detail, and we will look to engage on things such as that as we move forward.
I know that other witnesses wanted to come in on that, but I will bring in Mark Griffin, in the interest of time—I will be saying that a lot this morning. I apologise for that, but I am really glad that you have all come to engage in this important bit of work. I will bring in Mark Griffin with his questions, which might provide an opportunity to bring in other points that you wanted to make.
Good morning. I want to quickly go around the witnesses to ask for their views on whether the new legislation should set a maximum amount to be charged per night.
Personally, I would say that there should be flexibility over the maximum. That was the intention of the legislation, and it should be left to local authorities to decide what the maximum should be.
I will rephrase Mark Griffin’s question, in the interests of time. Elin Williamson has said that we should keep the flexibility—echoing what was said previously—and not put in a maximum amount. Does anyone disagree with that? It seems not.
Do you want to ask your next question, Mark?
Yes, thank you, convener—that was straightforward. We have touched briefly on some of these answers already in relation to some local authorities potentially having to consult again if we introduce the flexibility. Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Stirling and West Dunbartonshire councils are already operating their schemes. I wonder what COSLA’s view is. The City of Edinburgh Council is represented here as well, but I do not think that we have any others. What are their views on how any potential change might impact on them? What do they feel the requirements might be to reconsult on any proposed alterations to their schemes?
We notified the Scottish Government in September last year to proceed with the percentage rate scheme, which was provisionally due to be implemented on 1 April 2027. With the 2024 act, we would have to reconsult for whatever the period is, but there would then be the council decision-making processes. The council would subsequently notify the Government again and give an 18-month period, like last time. That process for the percentage rate scheme takes about two years. If the consultation period or the notification period was shortened, that period could be shorter. Obviously, that is a significant period of time, both when it comes to shifting from the percentage rate scheme and for any subsequent changes.
For instance, under the act, there is a stipulation to review the scheme every three years. If a fixed-rate scheme is used, it might be desirable to consider the rate every three years. Within about a year of that three-year cycle, it would already be the consultation period—we would perpetually be in it. I suppose that moving to that would be a consideration.
How much has that process cost Aberdeen City Council up until now? Would you expect that cost to be repeated if you had to reconsult?
The process of designing the proposal was just done by existing staff. I do not know how much that cost, but the consultation process was fairly minimal. It cost a few thousand pounds or something. I do not know exactly how much it was, to be honest. Yes, we would have to do it again.
If the consultation period was shorter, what would be a reasonable amount of time to shorten it to?
I do not know. I think that it was 12 weeks previously. I am sure that we could have done it in half that time.
So you think that you could have done it in six weeks.
Yes. Perhaps a bigger consideration is the implementation period afterwards. Even if the consultation is six weeks, you still have 18 months after that. I am thinking more about the whole cycle that you would be in.
So, it would be better to reduce it, because that gets kicked off every time you want to reassess the situation.
Yes—and that will be a consideration for anybody who is in a fixed-rate scheme, because of inflation or, perhaps, deflation in local authority circumstances. We might come on to that.
I was going to say, in the interests of time, that my colleague has summarised the points that I was going to raise very well, but there are a few things that I could add.
On the costs of consultation, a local authority has various options. It could externally commission the consultation, for instance. That was estimated at around £20,000 in previous submissions. Some local authorities have experienced a high response rate, which has required additional support, such as an independent analysis. Those that have would have a figure for the cost of that. I am speculating, but it could cost more than £20,000.
On the points relating to the consultation period and whether it could be shortened, local authorities have a lot of experience in running consultations, and I think that it is right that the period is proportionate to the consideration involved. Meaningful time is needed to allow for due consideration, so we need to ask whether shortening the consultation period would be the right thing, or whether it is about looking at the whole system, as my colleague outlined, in terms of that implementation notice period.
The 18-month implementation notice period is part of that whole system.
Yes, that period plays into it. It kicks in after local authorities have decided. There is the consultation, then the analysis of findings, and then that 18-month notice period.
From talking to colleagues, is your sense that the 18-month period could reasonably be shortened?
It is something that could be looked at.
Fergus Murray, you indicated that you wanted to come in, but I will move on and bring in Alexander Stewart, who has questions on additional flexibility—that seems to be today’s word of the day—around the different fixed-amount models. You might want to speak to that issue, and then you can respond to other bits as well.
We have talked about additional flexibility. Are there risks that such flexibility for local authorities could mean confusion for businesses and consumers? Is anything required in the bill to ensure that visitor levies are not more confusing than they need to be?
We are underestimating the consumer. Having travelled to countries where there have been different rates in different parts of the country, I have never felt confused by it.
However, there is a risk of unintended consequences. We have talked about a fixed tiered rating system, for example. What would those tiers be based on? Would it be pre or post-VAT, or would the percentage be based, as it is to be currently, on accommodation only? There are other possible unintended consequences.
Flexibility is desirable for local authorities, and they should be given the opportunity to decide. We have legislation, and it is working. There have been issues, and we are working through them. We are risking opening ourselves up to more confusion when it comes to implementation, rather than focusing our efforts on solving the challenges that are in front of us. At the three-year review, we should absolutely see whether what we have implemented has worked or whether we need to make other changes. There could be a lot of unintended consequences—not necessarily for the consumer but for local authorities and businesses in the area.
I want to emphasise that communication is important for any local authority that is putting in place a visitor levy. It is important that attention is given to that. That is why engagement with businesses is important, as is comms work to educate potential visitors. I have seen a number of local hoteliers, especially in Edinburgh, putting that information out on their site. That is to be encouraged and welcomed. We can all collectively send that message.
On the point about confusion, it is worth reminding ourselves that a visitor levy is not a new thing. We all travel, we are all exposed to different rates, and there is variation within all countries. Some countries have percentages and some have fixed rates, but they operate levies and have done so for decades. There is still learning that we can apply, but it is worth knowing that.
I want to re-emphasise the points that have been made. It is about the flexibility that can be delivered at the local level. The consumer will see what the levy is if we clearly communicate about it. Experience in Europe and elsewhere has shown that. The key thing is to communicate the simplicity of the system that is delivered at a local level. We should remember that councils regularly speak to each other about such issues and co-operate with each other at different levels. We will want to continue to do so as part of the introduction of any kind of levy in Scotland.
The scheme cannot set different percentage rates for different types of accommodation, but the amendment bill will allow different flat rates for different types of accommodation. Do you have any views on that?
10:15
It comes down to the good taxation principle of proportionality. Having the ability to vary the rate depending on the type of accommodation is a useful option for local authorities that want to consider that proportionality when they are designing the scheme—it is obviously up to them how they decide that with their local communities. There is always a balance between achieving proportionality and simplicity, and it is for local authorities to decide on how they design and implement a scheme.
Fulton, I believe that you might have a supplementary in this area.
It is not so much a supplementary as a different question. When I was looking through our briefing papers, I felt that this was probably the best place to bring it in. If you can bear with me, I am happy to bring it in now or at the end—at your discretion, convener.
Please just go ahead.
Okay, thanks, convener. My question is probably best directed to Gareth Dixon. It might not be fair for the other witnesses to answer it. If the amendment bill passes and the visitor levy is introduced, do you see any situation in which certain local authorities might be financially disadvantaged by a levy?
In local authorities such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, for example, we can see the huge appeal of such a levy, but if other local authorities, such as my own in North Lanarkshire, decide to bring it in or not to bring it in, could there be any financial disadvantage for them? How could that be remedied by the Government in the amendment bill?
It is really up to local authorities to do that forecasting and to work out whether they are raising enough revenue or whether they want to design a scheme that works for their local area and get the balance right between the two. Forecasting is part of the equation. Five local authorities have advanced the percentage scheme and they have all designed it slightly differently. That is a perfect example of why local discretion is important, because the schemes are designed in collaboration with businesses, residents and visitors. It is a good example of localism.
I guess that you are saying that we will need to see how the levy works in the fullness of time. I understand that; I am asking questions when we do not know how things will work out.
More broadly, I am pointing out that Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and some of the other council areas that have been mentioned and are represented here today, are able to introduce visitor levy schemes that raise significant sums of money, which can be reinvested in local services. There are other council areas, however, where the tourism infrastructure, particularly for overnight stays, just is not there to the same extent and they could not generate the same money to put back into services. At the end of the financial year, there would be a disparity. Would the Scottish Government need to be involved in levelling the playing field, if you like, for want of a better expression?
I will use that favourite word—flexibility. It is about the comparison between a fixed amount and a percentage. A percentage has built-in future proofing, because it will rise or fall depending on the price or the success or otherwise of the visitor economy. A fixed amount is static and it will remain the same unless it is changed.
There are stipulations in the legislation that elongate the process for change to an already established scheme and that might fit with what you are saying about a potential financial disadvantage, because if a scheme is developed that uses a fixed amount, the benefits could erode with inflation over time, whereas a percentage has that in-built protection.
Thank you; that is useful.
Thank you for that clarity, Gareth.
We will move to a new topic and seek clarification about chargeable transactions and third-party operators. Evelyn Tweed has some questions.
Good morning and thank you for your answers so far.
My question is for Elin, because I want to consider Edinburgh, which is further ahead in the process than some other local authorities and has already introduced a 5 per cent levy on any advance bookings made since October 2025 for stays on or after 24 July 2026. Will the provisions that we are discussing today impact bookings that have already been made through third-party operators?
We have consistently said that any enforcement response will be proportionate and reasonable. We absolutely appreciate that the legislation will not be retrospective and that that is the simplest solution and will provide clarification for both accommodation providers and local authorities. I fully anticipate that we will enforce the legislation as it is now laid, as opposed to how it was. It would be difficult to ask accommodation providers to give evidence that the law was different at the time of the booking, because we would have to ask for even more evidence and clarification than before. We have assumed from the start that, if the legislation changes, we will apply that to all bookings.
Does that answer your question?
You are talking about flexibility and changing with the times.
Absolutely. We are collaborating with the industry, which has raised the issue. We have been doing our best for the past year to work together with the industry and to find solutions so that the levy can be applied in a way that is easy and achievable for everyone.
We will move on to talk about section 6 of the bill, which says that
“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make further provision about the operation of Parts 2 and 3”
of the 2024 act. I will bring in Willie Coffey.
Do any of the witnesses have a particular view on that issue? If any further changes to the visitor levy are required, would it, in your view, be okay to do that via the Scottish Parliament’s secondary legislation process? Any comments on that would be most welcome.
Does anyone want to answer? Gareth, you seem to be the main spokesperson.
As you all know, the secondary legislation process involves a little less scrutiny than the other one. It is important not to circumvent scrutiny and the opportunity for effective and meaningful engagement between the Government and stakeholders. I would like to have some assurance about that engagement and I have confidence in the officers and ministers. It is fairly common to have that ability to refine legislation and the Government is committed to making the visitor levy work. I, and my colleagues in other local authorities, appreciate that, and it is another reason why we have the bill in front of us today.
Does anyone else want to come in?
There is still a requirement to consult, but, as Gareth Dixon said, the scrutiny element would be diminished compared to the scrutiny of a whole bill.
Convener, did I see a hand waving in the bottom right of the screen?
I thought that Fergus Murray was indicating that he would like to come in, but I was wrong.
I have a follow-up question to yours, Willie, if I can jump in. Gareth, you said that you have been working really well with the Scottish Government on the process. Is that partly because of the Verity house agreement and the commitment to a more collaborative co-design approach? I would like to think that, if we can keep that agreement in place and follow the Verity house principle of communication, there would be engagement with COSLA and local authorities at an early point in any change process.
That is definitely worth raising. The Verity house agreement has delivered a number of successes. There are still things to build on, improve and baseline. It is definitely encouraging, and I would like to see more of that, so that would be welcome.
I do not know whether it is due to the Verity house agreement—I do not have prior experience of working with the Scottish Government on this type of matter—but the engagement and the exchange of experience and understanding have been very good over the past year. I have nothing but praise for the Scottish Government in that sense—for listening and then trying to act.
That is a good point.
We have a few minutes left, because we have managed time so well. I am aware that some witnesses have indicated that they want to come in. If anyone online has a burning issue that they want to get on the record, I have—dare I say—a few more minutes in which to bring you in. If you do not have anything that you want to say now, but you think of something afterwards, you can always put that in writing to us.
I think that Fergus Murray is indicating that he wants to come in.
Yes, I am. I want to reiterate the point about consultation arising as a result of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. Public consultation is critical and, if we as a council continue with the levy process, we will go out and speak to all stakeholders across the region, which is a large area of Scotland. It will cost a considerable amount of money to consult 23 inhabited islands and so on, but doing so is critical. The key point that I want to emphasise is the 18-month period before a scheme can be implemented, which is of considerable concern. That is my focus. Can that period be shortened, bearing in mind that we must carry out full public consultation on the important issue of the levy?
Thanks very much for underscoring that point, which we have heard a few times. What would be a reasonable or realistic implementation period that would work better for you? I hear your point about the 23 inhabited islands and all that—I am familiar with Argyll and Bute.
Of course—sorry about that.
I do not have a specific period in mind, but it could be shorter. Obviously, there must be a period of transition and understanding, but several colleagues who are giving evidence today are going through the process and we could learn from them, including on how to set up a system. We have a group that talks about, for example, the practicalities of the administration of the levy across Scotland, so I believe that that period could be considerably shortened. Once we start a public consultation, we cannot trigger the 18-month implementation period until the consultation is finished and the council has made a decision. There would have to be a transition period, but it could be shorter.
Gareth Dixon, in the discussions with the Government and with colleagues, has any shorter period been discussed as to what would be reasonable?
At this stage, no.
No, not at this stage. Okay. Meghan Gallacher wants to come back in—very briefly, please.
On Fergus Murray’s point, I appreciate that a shorter time between decision and implementation would make it easier for local authorities, but I want to return to the businesses that will have to navigate the implementation period. Would you be open to amending section 17 of the 2024 act, so that no levy liability arises unless both the transaction and the stay occur after the formal commencement date? Would you support that change to the implementation timeframe in order to protect businesses further?
We want the simplest system for businesses and for councils to administer, which is why we are so keen on the fixed rate and when that could be applied through the transaction. We found there to be a lot of complexity with a percentage rate. When would that be applied? Would that be at pre-booking time or would it be a transaction at the premises? We are really interested in the fixed-rate approach, because it can be applied more flexibly.
Obviously, we would want to work with industry on implementation, and we will need a period in which to do that that meets our particular circumstances. My issue is that there is to be a full 18-month reset, despite our having conducted extensive consultation and learned a great deal from observing the levy being introduced elsewhere in the country and speaking to a lot of different people about the process.
I will have to leave it there. Others wanted to come in on the back of this question. If you have something to communicate to the committee, I would be really grateful if you could put that in writing to us. Many thanks for coming in this morning and contributing to our scrutiny of this piece of legislation.
I briefly suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of the panel.
10:30
Meeting suspended.
10:35
On resuming—
In our second evidence session on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, we will focus on the views of the tourism industry. We are joined in the room by Marc Crothall from the Scottish Tourism Alliance, and Fiona MacConnacher from Booking.com; and we are joined online by Fiona Campbell from the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, Sheila Gilmore from VisitArran, and David Weston from the Scottish Bed & Breakfast Association. I welcome you all to the meeting. Thank you for joining us today, particularly given the short notice and the tight timescales for the bill.
On a technical issue, there is no need for you to turn on your microphones—we will do that for you.
Those of you who were watching the previous evidence session will know that we are very short on time, so I will be reining us all in and directing questions to specific people.
My first question is for Marc Crothall. We will be asking pretty much the same questions as we asked the previous witnesses. I am interested in hearing the industry’s perspective on how engagement has worked. What have you discussed with the Government and asked it to change? What progress have you seen in relation to the bill?
Good morning. Our engagement with the Government on the amendment bill has been exceptional. We have really enjoyed that and have welcomed the Government’s openness and its recognition of the industry’s concerns. Government officials have been extremely accommodating and have been available throughout what has seemed like a very long period.
As you know, from the outset of the visitor levy proposals, the industry has expressed our desire for a flat-fee approach instead of a percentage model, so we would not have wanted to find ourselves in this position. However, the fact that we have been listened to and an expedited bill is being taken through the Parliament is extremely welcome.
Does anybody else want to come in on that question? Does anyone have a different view?
Good afternoon—or good morning, where you are.
We absolutely welcome the engagement that there has been over the past few months. We have never said that we are against the levy per se—we understand the rationale for it—but, when the Vistor (Levy) Scotland Bill was given royal assent in 2024, it became clear that there were insurmountable operational challenges. The Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill gives us the opportunity to address those challenges and make the system more workable.
We welcome the committee’s scrutiny of the bill so that we get this right. We very much welcome the expedited sped-up process for taking the bill through the Parliament. It is critical that the amendment bill is passed in this parliamentary session; the issue should not be shunted into the next session. We need to get this right because, as it stands under the 2024 act, there are very challenging operational issues and things are open to legal challenge. We want to work with the Scottish Government to get this right.
You have said that it is great that the bill has been introduced and that you have had good engagement with the Government. I get the sense that there is a desire for urgent action, but I just want to stress test that. Do you think that the urgency is real? If we pass the bill quickly, where does the biggest risk of getting it wrong lie? Is there the potential to get anything in the bill wrong when it comes to the tourism economy? Fiona Campbell, I will come to you on that.
It is critical that it is done now, because what we are currently faced with—certainly in Edinburgh—is operationally impossible and legally challengeable, and nobody wants that. From the point of view of operators, local authorities and guests, we need clarity, consistency and certainty. This amazing expedited bill is our opportunity to get it right. We are doing this extra fast. We are all up to speed. The brilliant thing about this is that we have—[Inaudible.]
Fiona, you are maybe too far away, in another part of the world. We lost a bit of what you said there, but I think that we got the gist of it.
We will move on to a new theme, which is changes to the basis on which a visitor levy can be charged. I will bring in Meghan Gallacher.
Good morning. I hope to find out a little bit more about how multiple schemes might operate, or not, in a local authority area. My understanding is that we need the system to be simplified so that it is easy to understand and process. I see a couple of nodding heads.
Marc, you are looking at me, so I will come to you first.
“Flexibility” has been a word of the day, although I would say that “simplicity” is the most important one. The consumer has also been mentioned. We must continue to put ourselves in the consumer’s shoes, as well as thinking about businesses. The scope and scale of businesses’ capacities and capabilities are very varied. It is fine if you are a large corporate business with the infrastructure to navigate a variety of schemes. However, that is not what we want—we want something that is straightforward, simple and easy to communicate, and that gives absolute confidence and reassurance to visitors, businesses and local authorities.
Having a multiple-scheme option is definitely not something that we would advocate. We are very much of the view that there should be a single approach across the country. Local authorities should have the flexibility to set the flat rate—that should absolutely be their decision; we would not remove that ability—but having variable per person, per night rates as well as flat fees would create unintended consequences and do a lot more harm than good. I think that the VisitScotland submission also raises concern around having multiple approaches, and I am sure that Fiona MacConnacher, from a booking platform perspective, will share my view.
Simplicity really is key here. Booking.com is a large global platform. We deal with tourism taxes and visitor levies of different shapes and sizes across the world. If a scheme is not simple, it is difficult for us, even though we are a large organisation, because it involves looking at the complexities at the local level. Having to magnify further into the local level adds complexity.
I can speak from a booking platform perspective, but bear in mind that many operators will list not only on Booking.com but on multiple platforms, which will show the levy in different ways. We attribute 5 per cent of the stay to a levy. If there are differentials within the existing percentage model, we could potentially overcharge. We use that specific model to align with other platforms, but bear in mind that, as well as platforms, you have hotels with their own back-end systems, and you then have smaller businesses that will have to display their rates on their direct channels. There are various other ways in which people put their prices out there to make it clear for the consumer.
I agree with Marc Crothall—the consumer must have clarity as to what is in place. This is governed by overarching consumer law, so they need to know what the price is up front. If there are issues with display, because of how the percentage is currently calculated, the solution is just to make things as simple as possible and to try to have as little variation as possible. Ultimately, it comes back to the accommodation provider and the consumer, and simplicity will make a scheme easier to administer on the one hand and will provide clarity about what people are paying on the other.
10:45
Thank you for that.
I raised with the previous panel the example of Glasgow City Council and the operational risks and impact of a complex system in relation to pricing, variable lengths of stay and multiple booking platforms, which we have just been discussing. Have you had any contact with local authorities on the contingency modelling that they might or might not have done? Has there been any back-and-forth between the sector and local authorities? I am assuming, again, that that will be really important when it comes to mitigating risks.
Perhaps Marc Crothall or Fiona MacConnacher can take that question—or someone online, perhaps.
I can jump in first, if you want.
We have done as much as we possibly can to engage with local authorities right across the country. We have very much taken a proactive approach to that, because we want local authorities to understand the risks and complexities. We have always said—and will continue to say—that no authority should introduce a levy until a risk assessment has been done on the potential implications for customer footfall and on the variables that come with different types of accommodation. They certainly should not commit to spending money before they have raised it.
We still believe that the flat-fee approach offers the flexibility that local authorities want in terms of being able to project revenues. You have just referred to Glasgow; we feel that the number that it has intimated is clear, and it obviously has plans in that respect. Actually, it is just a simple calculation; if you divide the figure by the number of bed nights, you will end up with the target figure. Having such assurance there is important.
However, risk is a critical issue. It is great to see that certain authorities have commissioned work on that; Argyll and Bute has done so through Ekosgen, and we know that Fife and Dumfries and Galloway are doing the same. Ultimately, where is the tipping point? How much can the authority accommodate? At what price point do you, should you choose to go ahead, set that flat fee?
As you will have seen in our submission—and I am sure that you will hear this from others, too; it has already been raised on a number of occasions, and rightly so—we think that we need to see some fairness and proportionality, to ensure that we are not penalising those offering lower-budget accommodation. In that respect, the only variable would be where you would have a product type sitting in a lower bracket to everyone else.
That was helpful.
In the interests of time, because I know that lots of colleagues want to come in, I will move on. There has been discussion and debate on whether there should be a fixed rate per unit, as opposed to a fixed rate per person. My understanding is that the sector has been quite critical of such an approach and has said that it strongly opposes per-person charging, because it is intrusive, unworkable and likely to generate errors and disputes.
I am keen to hear from our online panel members on this question. I am not sure whether Fiona Campbell, David Weston or Sheila Gilmore wants to come in, but does anyone have anything specific to say on per-unit or per-person charging?
Thanks very much indeed, and apologies if you lose me—I am in Cambodia, so you will need to bear with the connectivity.
It is very difficult, specifically in a self-catering context, to know exactly who is in your premises. If you have a five-bedroom property, you could, potentially, have 10 people staying, and you will not necessarily go and check who is in the accommodation every night. Actually, the proposal is unenforceable, and when something is unenforceable, it becomes incompetent.
If I go and stay in Edinburgh, which I do frequently, I will book a room for two people, but I will just go and stay by myself, or my husband might come and stay with me, too. It becomes very difficult for the accommodation provider to manage that. Moreover, what if you are in a tent on a campsite? How will a provider know how many people are in the tent on day 1, day 2 et cetera? I think a flat rate per unit gives simplicity.
You have given ripe descriptions of how complicated it could turn out to be for those who are having to administer the levy. I do not have any further questions, convener.
I will bring in Mark Griffin who joins us online. David Weston indicated that he wanted to respond to previous questions, so perhaps we can go to him first on this question.
I have a similar question to what I asked the last panel, when I got a unanimous answer. I might get a unanimous answer again in a different way. Do witnesses feel that the legislation should set a maximum amount that can be charged per night?
Does anyone want to answer that?
Yes, I do. I think that we should be capping the charge and setting a boundary, because how long is a piece of string? At the moment, the bill has flexibility to allow for Government scrutiny, so it could always be reviewed. There is a risk if you set an unlimited amount of money; it goes back to consumer concern. If a business owner has conducted their risk analysis and assessments and knows the projections for their investment, they will have a good indication of what the number would be for the levy charge. Among those who have progressed their levy interests so far, that number is not huge. We would need something in place to prevent the number from suddenly becoming without end.
I will do what I did for the last panel, which is to see whether anyone disagrees with Marc Crothall’s response.
We will come back to the committee with some written evidence but, although I agree with the principle, I think that it is worth looking at the technical aspects and whether it is possible. It came up in the discussions on the 2024 act, but issues were raised further down the line with the nightly cap. It is worth checking.
Would that be on the technical aspect of setting a maximum amount?
It would be about setting a maximum cap on a fixed fee.
Thank you; that would be great.
Marc Crothall, my question to you is about the options that would be open to councils that have already approved and announced their schemes. I know that the STA proposed that those councils should be allowed to hold a shorter consultation but, having spoken to witnesses on the previous panel, their contention was not necessarily that the consultation period was the biggest issue; the 18-month implementation window was a bigger concern. What are your views on the options for those councils and the previous witnesses’ comments about that?
We are very conscious that a lot of work and industry consultation has already been done. As an example, I am very aware that our industry colleagues in Aberdeen are looking to take hold of a levy so that they can start to put it to good use. Our belief is that, where local authorities are already in that limbo state, they should not require a lengthy period to flip from a percentage charge to determining a flat fee. Therefore, that would enable everything else to progress accordingly.
From the outset, the legislation indicated that the 18-month requirement is there for a good reason, which is to allow preparation and communication. In Edinburgh, although things have moved on, there are a number of businesses that are not yet on the bus. A lot of communication and hard work still has to be done and we would not want to reduce that. There are also other issues to do with contracting and tour operators, for example. There is a timeframe for consultation and other activity to be effective.
However, those who have already set out their stall for a percentage levy would require just a short period of consultation so that they can suggest that it will not be 5 per cent but will be £4 or £5 instead. That would be acceptable, because we want to get the money into play to enable activity to happen and to improve the quality of the tourism offer.
I will bring in a few people who have indicated that they would like to speak.
I support some of what Marc Crothall and Fiona MacConnacher said about simplicity. It is important to keep things simple, which is why a flat rate is much better than a percentage for accommodation owners.
On the issue of allowing local authorities to change between a percentage and a flat rate, it is important to make that process as easy as possible. If there has been a consultation in principle on a visitor levy, and if the local authority is simply moving from a percentage to a flat rate, the whole process should not have to be restarted. It would be helpful if that could be made as simple as possible.
As my colleagues have said, the percentage has caused many problems. Specifically in the bed-and-breakfast sector, it means that providers have to price breakfast for the first time, deduct that, work out the VL and then add that. If providers sell through a third party, such as an online travel agent, that makes it difficult for the accommodation owner to work out the VL. We have been through all those issues via expert panels and as some of us said to this committee in October 2023, the levy should not be a percentage for that very reason. Allowing a switch to a flat fee is really important.
Convener, one of your first questions today was to ask whether there is a danger of something going wrong with such a change to the law, but I would say that all the danger lies on the other side. The basic legislation caused problems and raised issues and the change would put those right and would be far more likely to end problems than to cause them.
The 18-month implementation period is absolutely critical to ensuring that businesses are ready to implement the visitor levy, however they choose to do so. I do not think that that is up for discussion with this bill. The industry really needs to emphasise that we are keen to support local authorities to flip to charging a flat and fixed amount. If a local authority has already gone through the 12-week consultation, we would be entirely supportive of a shortened consultation of perhaps four weeks about changing the charging model. That is what we are talking about here.
The 18-month implementation period should remain in place. We made clear in our written submission that we have real concerns about sections 14 and 17, because they might allow local authorities to begin the 18-month consultation period but then to transition. Edinburgh is a case in point. The local authority has used section 14 to bring forward the date on which it can begin charging, although Parliament clearly protected against that possibility in the original act. We think there is a real need for a change to section 17 and we would value the committee giving that consideration.
I do not want to go into more detail because we do not have much time, but I am happy to help.
Throughout the process, including during the previous consultation and implementation periods, the industry has been engaging to make clear how long it will take to change our systems. I know that Booking.com engaged with the City of Edinburgh Council and other local authorities. I agree with Fiona Campbell about the need for a four-week consultation if there is to be a change, because most points will have been covered during the original 12-week consultation.
However, Booking.com is able to accommodate a flat-fee model, so if that is chosen, we would be able to build that system a lot faster. Ultimately, we are trying to provide clarity on how long it takes for industry to build in such changes. Throughout this process, industry has been trying to engage and be very realistic on the timelines. This is not a matter of industry kicking the can down the road, trying to prevent the levy from happening. We are just trying to state very clearly what is possible in terms of updating different systems. We can provide more evidence on that with the final legislation.
11:00
Thanks very much. The next theme is additional flexibility through different fixed amounts models. I will bring in Alexander Stewart.
You have all touched on the importance of flexibility and simplicity in the system and the communication about it. Is anything required in the bill to help visitor levies be less confusing? All of you have all touched on the element of confusion. Is there anything that we need to put in the bill to stop that confusion? Are there risks that providing flexibility for local authorities could have the implication of causing confusion for businesses and consumers?
You have to remove the option to have a flat fee per person. We have conducted a series of round-table meetings with sector groups and accommodation providers across the spectrum, from hostelling to large operators. We have also consulted with a number of local authorities. There is a genuine consensus that, as long as that option remains, it will become more of a problem and it just needs to be removed altogether.
You have the option of a flat fee per transaction, which is the one that we would strongly recommend, for all the reasons that we have said already. We know that Edinburgh is still choosing to pursue the percentage option, and so is Stirling, but we genuinely believe that there is an appetite to flip to a flat-fee approach, as long as doing that does not require the process to start again. That is the biggest concern.
While there are too many options on the table there will still be confusion. I can understand why the flat fee per person option was included, but consultation far and wide across the sector has said that it should just be taken away. Why muddy the water with something that is not practically doable and will cause more problems?
Sheila Gilmore, you indicated you wanted to come in on this point.
Hello—sorry. I was just going to say exactly the same as Marc Crothall. The way to keep simplicity is to remove the per-person option and have just a per-unit of accommodation levy, for all the reasons that Marc Crothall and Fiona Campbell have explained. Keep it simple.
Thanks for that. Sheila, come on in.
Thank you very much. I concur with everything that has been said. I also think that any confusion that arises is caused by a lack of communication. A flat-rate fee is much simpler to communicate to visitors and it is certainly a simpler process for businesses to deal with, as well.
Thank you.
I want to note for the committee that Fiona Campbell and I, along with officials from Scottish Government and VisitScotland, wrote the business guidance that was made available in September last year. Work is on-going to update that guidance according to the draft bill, and then that will be amended again. That guidance will be vital to ensuring that businesses understand what they are dealing with as it will translate the legislation into something that is usable for businesses. That is especially important for small businesses that, unlike those of us who are talking about visitor levies a lot—I am sure that our loved ones are a little bored of us talking about it—do not have that constant engagement on levies. The guidance can enable them to understand what they are doing and what is expected of them. That is critical.
It is great to hear about some co-design going on. Alexander, do you have any other questions?
Most of them have been answered, convener.
Thanks very much. Fiona Campbell, do you want to come in briefly on this? I will then move on to Evelyn Tweed.
I commend the Scottish Government on this particular approach. This is the first time I have seen real partnership policy making, and it is to be applauded. I have been delighted to work with a strong team at the Scottish Government and industry to get to where we are.
What I would also say is that local authorities have come to us now and said, “Right. We have now been given this huge amount of flexibility. What does that mean?” What we want to do and what we have done is have round-table meetings with local authorities and industry to look at what “good” looks like. “Good” does not look like 32 different variations on a theme; “good” looks simple, clear, understood and underpinned by a robust economic impact assessment at all times.
We are looking at fixed amounts here, which is the critical thing. They are not tiered bands, fixed fees, this, that and the next thing.
We have looked at what “good” looks like, and we are happy to continue working with the Scottish Government and local authorities to encourage local authorities to go for the best option, which currently looks affordable and standard, and options for regional variations, urban and rural, can then be added. The idea of perhaps charging residents less—half price or whatever it is—can be entertained. We just need to focus on simplicity, which goes back to what the First Minister said at the Scottish Tourism Alliance conference last year. We need simplicity. Flexibility is a wonderful thing, but it can end up in huge amounts of confusion and challenge.
We are here to help local authorities discuss what “good” might look like for their different areas, because Edinburgh will have a completely different best option to Highland or indeed South Ayrshire, and that is important. Partnership policy making and helping people to understand what that simplicity could look like to make the scheme work for local authorities, guests and operators is critical at this point.
Thank you very much for that, Fiona. I like that you called them guests rather than consumers.
We are going to move on to a new theme, which is clarification of chargeable transactions and third-party operators. I will bring in Evelyn Tweed.
I am going to put the same question to you that I asked Elin Williamson, about Edinburgh and the 5 per cent levy that has already been applied to certain bookings up to 24 July 2026. Will the provisions impact bookings already made through third-party operators?
Of course, they will have a bearing, but we would hope that there will not be cancellations. A lot of the contracting has been done, as it is done by the third-party operators 18 months out and sometimes even longer out than that. Many of the destination management companies have been working closely with the hoteliers in particular. We cannot afford that business to get lost, but that is not to say that those who have booked might not choose to change their mind.
It goes back to the idea of simplicity. We want to be transparent. We want to be a country where it is easy to do business. My chair, Rebecca Brooks, who is also the chair of UKinbound and Abbey UK, has commented on this several times now. Scotland is not seen as the easiest place to do business with at the moment, because of all the other things that are going on, and this is just another layer that makes it a bit more challenging.
They are not going to go. The bookings are made, but we need to make sure that any future bookings become much more appealing, attractive and easy to transact at the point of sale. What this amendment does is protect that commercial sensitivity. We all know what we are doing, and everybody will know what they are doing at the end of the day.
Marc Crothall was able to speak for everybody on that one. We are going to move on to section 6, which says:
“The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make further provision about the operation of Parts 2 and 3”
of the 2024 act. I will bring in Willie Coffey for questions in that area.
Good morning. I will ask the same question that I asked of the previous panel. Have you any views to offer on further changes to the legislation coming through secondary legislation? Can you offer an opinion or some views on the appropriateness or otherwise of that?
I echo some of the points that were made by witnesses in the previous session. It makes sense as long as there is full consultation ahead of time. We are talking about using primary legislation to make amendments when, had the power been put into the original act, we would have been discussing using secondary legislation, which would be far preferable. However, as long as the changes are made with full engagement with the industry, local authorities and so on, they are welcome.
I totally echo that. It is about getting it right by having the flexibility to address something if it is not going well and being able to change it without going through a lengthy process. I had hair when this process started, and I have not got much more to lose. Things will change. We live in a very volatile world and we need to be sure that Scotland can still compete. If that requires some simple intervention and adjustment, that is good.
The relationships that have been established through this process between industry, Government, local authorities and officials are very strong, and there is trust in the evidence base that we can bring forward, as it is certainly far greater and, I think, more respected than it previously was.
I absolutely concur with that. It is critical. Primary legislation has been required to make the changes that are necessary. This is the first time that we have had a visitor levy in Scotland, and it is critical that we get it right. If we need to make more tweaks, this is the opportunity to do that. Certainly, the industry absolutely welcomes the ability for the Scottish Government to intervene.
To go back to a comment from the convener, Marc Crothall does represent us, because the industry now speaks with a completely united voice. You will not find people on this panel or elsewhere saying something different, because we are speaking with one voice.
Thanks very much for that. From what Marc Crothall said, it is great to hear that, although bits were missing from the previous legislation, the relationships have been established, they are strong and the trust is there. I am paraphrasing a bit.
We have a wee bit more time, and I do not want us to miss anything, so I will turn to Marc Crothall as the voice of the group. What is not in the bill that should be there?
What is not in the bill?
You can say that it is perfect as it is.
No—I do not think that anything is ever perfect. We have to continue to have the flexibility to evolve and look at legislation and policy as the industry and the environment change. I have the privilege of co-chairing the tourism and hospitality industry leadership group, which is the strategic body responsible for Scotland’s tourism strategy, “Scotland Outlook 2030”. We are at the halfway point of that strategy: it is a pivotal time. You will all have had—even if you have not read it—our election manifesto document, which sets out the opportunity for the even greater growth of, and economic contribution from, the sector. However, that requires the right policy and the right application of that policy—the best possible policy—to be a world leader in 21st century tourism.
We are very much under the spotlight. I am regularly contacted by colleagues across the UK and further afield about what Scotland is doing on the visitor levy. We are in that spotlight for all the right reasons—and, at times, unfortunately, for the wrong reason—but knowing that we have the flexibility in our relationship to amend and change in the future is one of the biggest wins from this change in legislation.
It goes back to simplification and communication. Our conference is only a couple of weeks away, but that will be a year from when the First Minister said, “Let’s make sure it’s simple.” It has taken a bit of pain to get to that simplification, but partnership working is key. It will be essential that that continues through this process and that we continue to evolve and change and flex where necessary.
Two more folks want to come in.
11:15
To go back to one of our critical points, as an industry, we would prefer removal of the per-person, per-night option, because it is operationally unworkable and there is no point in going into something when you know that it is operationally unworkable.
I also have a point on sections 14 and 17 of the legislation, regarding transitional arrangements versus the 18-month implementation. The levy liability should not arise until the scheme’s formal commencement date following the full 18-month implementation period. We request that section 17 be amended to give businesses certainty, as per the original intention of the parliamentary bill.
Great—thanks.
I have a small point. The discussion has been interesting, and I appreciate the chance to contribute, but I feel that there is a bit of confusion on the exemptions and that a little more clarification is needed, particularly for people who live in rural and island areas, who have to travel for all sorts of reasons and not necessarily for jollies or their holidays. That needs to be taken into account. It is about people travelling to hospital for treatment and having to stay overnight in hotels. You need to take account of all of that. That may seem a small thing, but I can assure you that, from an island perspective, it is not a small thing. We need clarification and guidance given to our local authorities on that.
Thanks very much for that point. It was good to hear in the previous session that the local authorities talk to each other. It would be good to have that guidance and for them to talk to each other. Certainly, people in the likes of Argyll and Bute have to go to Glasgow for hospital appointments, so it would be good to be clear on that and not to have that potential additional cost.
That concludes our questions. Thank you so much for coming this morning to share the important message about simplicity in the legislation. It was great to hear at the beginning that you are very appreciative of the collaboration with the Scottish Government and the work that has been taking place over the past year.
I suspend the meeting to allow for a changeover of witnesses.
11:17
Meeting suspended.
11:33
On resuming—