Chamber and committees

Oh, but can it be?

I have to be quiet now.

I will be very quick. My amendment 28 would add to the list of accommodation providers. It would extend the list to include all sites operated by a local authority. Concerns have been raised that a visitor levy will drive people out of regulated spaces such as caravan parks—caravan park operators have been in heavy contact with me—to unregulated spaces such as car parks. Such activity has already taken place in some parts of rural Scotland, which has led to waste and litter being left behind. Amendment 28 would ensure that the levy, if it must go ahead, includes unregulated spaces that are provided for motorhomes.

I move amendment 28.

I seek to withdraw the amendment. I was simply trying to reiterate the point about the struggle that some caravan parks in rural Scotland are facing.

Amendment 28, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

After section 3

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am a small farmer and therefore operate a business in a rural area, albeit that the visitor levy would not apply to me.

I will speak briefly to my amendments 23 to 27, 30 and 31, all of which seek to highlight the concerns that have been raised with me by businesses and constituents across rural and island communities in the Highlands and Islands region about the potential impact of the visitor levy on them.

As all of you will be aware, tourism is an incredibly important part of many rural economies. NatureScot estimates that it contributes more than £4 billion to Scotland’s economy each year, and, in many remote communities, it supports local employment and small family businesses.

However, rural Scotland also faces significant pressures, including depopulation, which has been a big issue for me since becoming an MSP. Housing is limited and there are fewer services, which means that the sustainability of local businesses is incredibly important.

Amendments 23 and 24 focus on the potential impact on rural accommodation providers. Amendment 23 would exempt overnight accommodation in communities with a population of fewer than 3,000 people, recognising that tourism in rural areas is often seasonal and reliant on repeat visitors.

Amendment 24 specifically deals with camping and caravan sites, because operators have been telling me that visitors are already choosing to stay overnight in free council facilities rather than at formal sites. There is concern that applying the levy to those businesses could unintentionally make that situation worse.

Amendments 25 and 26 seek to address the situation of people who stay overnight in rural areas for non-tourism reasons. In many parts of rural Scotland, people must travel significant distances for healthcare, employment or essential services. Ferry cancellations or service disruptions can force people to stay overnight unexpectedly. These two amendments would ensure that people travelling for work, health or other essential purposes are not burdened by a visitor levy simply because of the realities of living in rural Scotland.

Amendment 27 seeks to support economic activity by exempting new accommodation providers in rural areas during their first year of operation, as well as by recognising agritourism businesses that are diversifying to support farm incomes and local economies.

Amendment 30 seeks to include a specific review on the implementation of the scheme in rural areas, to ensure that, after a period has passed, there is no significant impact that affects rural Scotland specifically.

Finally, amendment 31 recognises the unique circumstances that island communities face. It would ensure that island local authorities have clear flexibility to modify or suspend their visitor levy scheme if circumstances require it.

My intention today is primarily to highlight the concerns that so many small rural businesses have raised with me. Many of them are small family-run enterprises, and even small changes in visitor behaviour can have a significant impact on their profitability. I was not looking to push these amendments today; I seek to ensure that the voices in my communities are heard.

My hope is that the minister will consider whether additional flexibility could be or needs to be built into the bill at stage 3 to ensure that rural and island communities are properly protected. If we are serious about supporting rural Scotland—as I believe we all are—we must ensure that policies that are introduced nationally do not unintentionally place additional pressures on the very businesses that sustain our rural communities.

Thank you, convener. Feel free to encroach on anything. Yes, theme 2 turns to short-term and long-term planning.

I am up in Moray, so I was quite close to the big wildfire at Dava and Carrbridge last year, and I went out to see some of the communities afterwards. The two things that I heard from them were, how do we prevent wildfires, and what can we do once they happen? We will come on to the second question in a later theme.

I remember meeting Michael Bruce on his estate to talk about fire, many years ago, when I was working with Scottish Land & Estates. Maybe that was the point at which I appreciated just how bad a worry to communities the issue would become.

We have talked about ignition and fuel load, but what are the short-term and long-term plans?

I also feel that I have to ask about muirburn. Does that play a part in active fire management, these days? Recently, it has been widely discussed in the Parliament.

Staying with Jon Henderson, I might have picked this up completely wrongly, but when I was speaking to people in Carrbridge, some of the gamekeepers told me that there used to be a system whereby equipment on the estate could be used, and was insured by, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Obviously, the estates had equipment that could get over the hills where perhaps a fire truck could not. However, the system changed recently, and now the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not insuring those vehicles, which means that they cannot be used. Is that correct? If so, are you concerned about not having access to that equipment?

This is my final question. I do not want to use the term “silly question”, because it can be quite a serious one, but it needs to be asked. Michael Bruce made a good point. It is more than just an issue for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—it is one for everyone. At the moment, a lot of fires are on open ground. Is there a risk? There presumably will be a risk that, at some point, a wildfire will affect a community—we could see a village come under significant threat of fire. If we do not do enough or take the issue seriously enough in the next few years, is that a credible risk?

I appreciate that. I guess that every complaint has to be taken on its merits, but it would be interesting to know whether the majority of complaints come from, say, local people who might have seen something whilst out walking their dog or whether most of them come from larger groups acting on behalf of a certain group, individuals working for a lobby group or whatever. However, you are not aware of that. When a complaint comes in, you do not look at that or analyse it in that way.

I would agree. We do not live in a simple world, do we?