Chamber and committees

I would be happy to hear from Councillor Hagmann and Mirren Kelly on that issue.

No, I just need to declare an interest that I forgot about earlier. Until 2022, I was a councillor at South Lanarkshire Council.

As a follow-up to that, how big a priority will investment in prevention and early intervention be in your future work with local authorities?

As we all know, such an approach saves us money in the long term, but it should be the outcomes that are being targeted or the targets themselves that set the direction and the focus. How will you ensure that they will be central, as we move forward?

That was helpful. Thank you.

We all understand that, as the Scottish Government is in exactly the same position with regard to energy bills for hospitals and so on.

I am interested in hearing Councillor Hagmann’s response. Does a measure such as the Scottish child payment, which has lifted around 90,000 children out of poverty, have a knock-on effect on councils as well? Does that stop some families looking for additional support from councils?

I thank the panel for coming along this morning.

Perhaps I can start with David Robertson, although I am happy for others to come in. You described the fiscal framework as a prize worth having; indeed, Councillor Hagmann has already touched on the three shared priorities of tackling poverty, transition to net zero and sustainable public services. My initial question is: to what extent does the 2024-25 budget enable local government to progress those shared priorities? That said, I am also quite interested in how you think that might look in future, when we have the fiscal framework. Is it realistic to have complementary policies from national and local government that focus on those priorities and which ensure that you work together on finding the best way of meeting the needs of people and communities?

Minister, you mentioned the autumn statement. Do you feel that COSLA and local government, and perhaps the public more generally, understand the seriousness and depth of the impact that it is actually having?

As I am a newer member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, it is a pleasure for me to contribute to today’s stage 1 debate.

Scotland, in all its glory, is rightfully recognised as a global tourism gem. It is the home to serene lochs and picturesque glens—not to mention the internationally acclaimed Edinburgh fringe festival.

Some of my most cherished memories are of visits to Luss, where we thoroughly enjoyed camping on the bonnie banks of Loch Lomond and paddle boarding. I am sure that many members share similar experiences. I suspect that I am the wild camper that Mr Coffey referred to earlier.

There is no doubt that the tourism sector has weathered significant financial challenges in recent years. It is therefore crucial that we empower local authorities with the necessary tools to grow our tourism sector and preserve Scotland’s position as a world-leading destination. A well-designed visitor levy can support that aim.

We do not have to look very far to draw inspiration from European neighbours, including Germany and France, and Barcelona’s tourism policy has been described as world leading. Scotland is well placed to harness the positive impacts that a similar levy could bring for our visitors, local businesses and residents alike.

The bill marks a significant step towards the Scottish Government’s ambition of fiscally empowering local government and strengthening local democracy, in line with the Verity house agreement. However, to guarantee the effectiveness of the funds that are raised, local government must lever in the opportunity to build strong relationships with communities, local businesses and tourism organisations, and it must ensure that their voices are at the very heart of decisions and spending priorities in order that they align with local needs, as Ivan McKee mentioned.

As an exemplar, the Scottish Government has already demonstrated a commendable working relationship during the consultation on the bill, as has been noted by the Scottish Tourism Alliance, which praised the high level of engagement of the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy and the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance—in particular, their receptiveness to industry requests.

In order to ensure that those strong working relationships continue, I support the committee’s recommendation to actively monitor and measure unfavourable impacts that arise from local flexibility, because that proactive approach will support prompt and effective addressing of issues as they emerge.

In the bill’s current form, councils are empowered to impose a levy on overnight stays as a percentage of accommodation costs. However, concern that has been raised by UKHospitality highlights potential challenges for businesses, particularly in respect of package deals, in which separating accommodation costs might be problematic. Concern was also raised about potential manipulation of charge allocation in order to keep costs low and entice visitors. In response to those concerns, insights from the Scottish Government on addressing potential gaming of the system and challenges in isolating chargeable transactions from packages would be welcome as we progress.

To build on that, although the Scottish Government understands that a percentage rate is the most appropriate basis for the visitor levy, in our evidence sessions stakeholders also made strong arguments in favour of a flat rate or a tiered rate. For instance, the flat rate was praised for its simplicity of administration and enforcement, although the European Tourism Association rightfully highlighted that it is hard to justify charging the same fee for budget and high-end accommodations.

Both approaches have their benefits and challenges, and I agree with the committee’s view that the Scottish Government must engage in further collaboration with the tourism sector, local authorities and key stakeholders in order to “reach an agreed solution.”

I recently found an inspiring article about grass-roots organisations empowering women to embrace the great outdoors. That sense of adventure really resonates with me. During evidence taking, our committee delved into discussions on the visitor types that are covered by the bill and whether they should include wild campers. Although my own wild-camping experiences—that is, in a tent—have been environmentally and socially considerate, Highland Council’s concerns about post-lockdown visitor surges straining local services and rural infrastructure are valid.

I appreciate the reasons for wishing to include wild campers in the bill. However, tent camping is often a more affordable alternative for family holidays, and implementation might be difficult. Perhaps that is reflected in the fact that other countries do not include wild campers in such legislation. I appreciate the points that the minister made earlier in the debate on the issue.

As for my area, Lanarkshire might not immediately spring to mind as a top tourist destination, as Mark Griffin pointed out earlier. However, I am a bit more positive, and I think that we have quite a bit to shout about, including M&D’s Scotland’s theme park; the captivating Hamilton mausoleum and museum, which is surrounded by an extraordinary site of special scientific interest that is teeming with rare flora and fauna; and, nearby, the new outdoor wheeled-sports facilities in Strathclyde country park.

I am really eager to see how local authorities harness their powers to strategically enhance my area and Scotland more widely. Although challenges will undoubtedly arise, the efficacy of the legislation hinges on the empowerment of local authorities to make local decisions that meet local needs. However, it is imperative, as has been said, that those decisions are fuelled by the invaluable perspectives of local businesses, tourism organisations and our communities.

I agree with the general principles of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill and urge members to vote in favour of its passing stage 1 today.

School attendance can be a huge challenge for pupils with additional support needs. Flexibility is key, with many young people requiring reduced timetables to best meet their educational needs.

Recently, I heard that some of those pupils have been told that they are not eligible for the education maintenance allowance. That seems unfair. A part-time timetable is a reasonable adjustment to meet an identified support need. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that pupils with additional support needs are encouraged to remain in education without compromising access to critical financial support? Is accurate data on part-time timetables routinely available?

I am pleased to contribute to today’s debate on Scotland’s public sector values.

There is no doubt that Scotland’s public sector is currently navigating one of the most challenging financial climates since devolution. The impact of inflation, the tragic conflict in Ukraine and a severe cost of living crisis have exposed Scotland’s public services to significant economic vulnerabilities, exacerbated by harsh Tory austerity choices and a hard Brexit.

Brexit has been devastating. According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the real gross domestic product of the UK has decreased by a staggering 2 to 3 per cent. In 2023 alone, Scotland experienced a reduction in devolved spending power amounting to around £1.6 billion. That is a substantial consequence of a decision that voters in every local authority area across Scotland rejected.

Despite challenging circumstances, Scotland fights to remain resilient. We have heard many negatives today, but there are some positives. The attainment gap for literacy is closing for our primary school learners, unemployment is at 3.8 per cent and our core A and E facilities have consistently outperformed others in the UK for the past eight years.

I take pride in our Scottish Government’s unwavering commitment to prioritise public services, in stark contrast to the UK Tory Government’s approach of cutting taxes at the expense of public services. The Verity house agreement marks a significant step towards achieving optimal outcomes for our citizens, and it empowers local government to use its wealth of local knowledge to enhance the delivery of our public services. With increased empowerment over local decisions and the introduction of legislation such as the visitor levy and council tax premiums, local authorities will have greater autonomy to generate revenue to meet local needs.