Chamber and committees

Good morning. I have some follow-up questions specifically on the visitor levy, but I will start off with a slightly broader question.

We have had a very busy summer in Edinburgh. At one point, when we had the confluence of the festival and the weekend Oasis concerts, Edinburgh was the most expensive destination in the world. So, we have a lot of conversations about what people call overtourism. I do not represent Edinburgh; I represent Mid Scotland and Fife—Perth and Kinross, Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Fife. People in my area get very annoyed when they hear the term “overtourism”, because they say, “We need more tourists, not fewer tourists.” The only place in the region that I represent where I ever hear any concerns about visitor numbers being too great is St Andrews, at the height of the summer. Everybody else says, “Give us more visitors.”

I will start with David Hope-Jones, because he represents the south of Scotland, so he will have an interest in this issue. Do you think that there is a danger of our debate on tourism getting skewed by the fact that people look at hotspots such as Edinburgh and Skye and think that everything is tremendous, whereas the rest of the country could do with a lot more visitors?

Good morning, panel. I am not going to repeat all the questions that I asked the first panel, but I have a few specific items I would like to follow up.

I will start with Malcolm Macleod. I was interested in what you had to say about the detailed economic impact assessment that you are now doing in the Highlands, which suggests that that was not part of the original work that you did.

Could you tell us a little bit more about how the assessment is being done? Specifically, given that, as you said, you cover a third of the landmass of Scotland, are you looking at differential impacts in different parts of the Highlands? Would it be possible for Highland Council to look at bringing in a visitor levy only in certain parts of the Highlands as opposed bringing it in everywhere?

For example, you could apply the visitor levy at certain times of the year and not at other times.

Thank you. Perhaps I could put that same point to Paul Lawrence or Elin Williamson from Edinburgh. In one of your previous answers, Paul, you were almost hinting that although Edinburgh was content with a percentage, allowing others to have a flat fee might be the way forward.

Thank you very much.

I have one more question on the same territory. It is for VisitScotland, so it is for either Cat Leaver or Rob Dickson—whoever wants to answer it. It is specifically about economic assessment. In your written submission, you say:

“Before considering a levy, a local authority should examine the profile of their visitors—whether largely domestic or international—and the potential impact of a levy on businesses and visitors within the current economic and competitive travel landscape. Local authorities should also consider the potential impacts of a levy on factors such as price competitiveness and quality, visitor demand, occupancy and seasonality.”

That is a very clear statement of where VisitScotland is.

Given that, would you expect local authorities to be doing an economic assessment of the sort that Malcolm Macleod talked about, which Highland Council is now doing? Before introducing the levy, we would have a full picture, as opposed to the situation that I outlined earlier, where, for example, in Perth and Kinross, the levy is being presented in some quarters as, “This is something that could raise £9 million for the council. It is free money. What is not to like about all this cash coming in?” However, that does not look at the other side of the equation, which is to ask whether, if the levy is introduced, there will be a negative impact on visitor numbers.

I am done. Thank you.

It is interesting that you used the example of the levy in Venice, which has reduced numbers. To put the issue in context, I will give an anecdotal example from Perth and Kinross, which is part of the area that I represent. Perth and Kinross Council has a live consultation on a visitor levy in that area, on which I have had a lot of engagement with local businesses. That has been framed in such a way as to suggest that the levy could raise £9 million for the council to spend on measures that will benefit tourists and benefit the local economy. Framed in that way, it seems great—why would people oppose it?

However, I have not seen any studies—maybe you could enlighten me on whether any such studies have been done—on the negative impact that a visitor levy could have on visitor numbers. Are you aware of whether any work has been done on the economics of that?

That is a whole new can of worms that we could spend the rest of the day on. I will bypass it for the moment.

I have one more question for you—you touched on this in an answer to one of my colleagues. I think that you said that your convener had written to the Scottish Government suggesting that the council should be given the option of a fixed fee rather than a flat rate—sorry, I mean a flat rate rather than a percentage.

I would like to bring in Leon Thompson on the same point, but also move on a little bit too. Marc Crothall shared with the committee some of the correspondence that the STA has had with Ivan McKee and the Scottish Government about the benefits of changing the model of visitor levy from a percentage to a flat fee. Can you explain a little bit about the rationale for that and why that is important?

I heard the other day that apparently you can get married there.