Chamber and committees

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.

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.

The 2026 non-domestic rates revaluation is causing considerable concern across several sectors, particularly hospitality and retail. I am wondering what the cabinet secretary’s initial response is. Even this morning, MSPs have heard from the Scottish hospitality group, which has sent a briefing paper outlining and detailing its concerns about the impact that non-domestic rates will have on the sector.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. There is a lot to unpack there. I will get on to rates relief in a second.

The issue with the revaluation is that not all sectors are assessed in the same way. That has resulted, unfortunately, in hospitality businesses being penalised with extraordinary increases in rateable values. Some of the figures are eye-watering: between 500 and 800 per cent, or more. Would the cabinet secretary reflect on that?

Surely, when you are going through revaluation, the consultation has to be done across the board with the full sector. The scenario now is that you are saying that things will even out in a few years’ time, but some of those businesses do not have a few years for things to even out. What is your direct response to hospitality businesses that have not been fully considered when it comes to non-domestic rates?

I understand that well. The issue is that businesses will be looking at where it is best for them to set up—where they will get the best bang for their buck—to be viable and sustainable and to grow. Through the non-domestic rates revaluation, potentially, particularly in some parts of the sector, the story will be of bad news rather than the sustainability and fluidity that is needed in that sector. That is my point, not from the numbers context, which is understandable, but in terms of what businesses see and how they are comparing between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I would be interested to hear estimates of how much businesses’ NDR bills will increase next year after revaluation and new reliefs. I know that I have touched on that, cabinet secretary, but I ask just in case you have any further comment on how much, on average, hospitality, retail, and leisure businesses will have to pay. It will be good to have a comparison between the three of them.

That would be helpful. Thank you.

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.

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.

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?

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?