Chamber and committees

Yes.

I am beginning to take personally the amendments that have been accepted.

From the outset of the bill process, I have argued for the development of a national set of exemptions. When the bill was first published, it included a voucher scheme for exemptions although, sadly, there was little or no detail about how such a scheme would work in practice.

I have attempted to work with the minister and the Government on these important amendments. I welcome the fact that the Government has accepted the cases I have previously put forward for exempting children and young people under 18 from the bill, and I welcome the fact that the Government has made progress regarding amendment 8, from my colleague Jeremy Balfour, and my colleague Pam Gosal’s amendment 46, on VAT exemption thresholds.

I have significant concerns that the short-term let legislation that we have seen, which was poorly drafted, has resulted in a postcode lottery, with different councils taking forward different schemes. That is a damaging development.

My amendments 35 and 38, which I drafted in the way that the Government suggested, would provide national exemptions that I think should be part of the bill, including for Scots who are visiting family members in hospitals, hospices or care homes. Many Scots who support the establishment of a visitor levy think that it is for tourists who come to our country, but the reality of the bill is very different. As I have said from the outset, this is not a visitor levy—it is an accommodation tax. In the future, everyone who books accommodation in Scotland will face an additional tax on top of the cost of that booking. That will affect, for example, someone looking to book into a local B and B while work is being done to help their home to achieve net zero—which the Greens say they want to see—or those who have been impacted by flooding, which we have seen across communities in Angus. They will pay a tax to stay in a B and B or a guest house.

My amendment 44 would therefore introduce an exemption for people living in a local authority area where the levy is in place, and amendment 45 would also exempt those whose permanent residence is in Scotland. Given the fact that the ferry fleet is vulnerable to cancellations, which are increasingly seen in many of our island communities, amendment 39 would also provide an exemption to prevent visitors from having to pay the levy again after a ferry cancellation.

Looking at them as a collection of amendments, I believe that having those exemptions in the bill would provide a set of safeguards to protect people in Scotland from having to pay the tax when they stay away from home for reasons that I believe none of us would want to see used to require payment that is meant to relate to tourist activity. I believe that that should be set out in the bill, and I will therefore move the amendments in my name.

This set of amendments seeks to remove camping sites, hostels and caravans from places that are considered to be overnight accommodation in the bill. During the passage of the bill, the argument that a fixed rate would see minimal additional costs to visitors has now been superseded by the percentage rate, which is now included in the bill and which the Government supports. We have therefore seen the £1 or £2 levy becoming a charge of at least up to 10 per cent on all accommodation.

During the cost of living crisis, many people have looked to have a cheaper holiday. Indeed, during the pandemic restrictions, many Scots discovered just how wonderful our country is for holidaying. The bill could add significant costs to family holidays and for families in Scotland who are holidaying at home. For example, I looked online yesterday at a campsite near Fort William, which the Deputy First Minister might know. For a week’s family holiday, for two adults and two children in a large tent pitch, it would cost £224 next week. The tourist levy could add £22 to that cost.

Significant concerns have also been expressed about many hostels and how they are administered. I know that the minister is alive to those issues. For Scots seeking a more affordable holiday, the choice is often to book a campsite, hostel or caravan accommodation. Adding a potential 10 per cent to what is fundamentally a self-catering holiday will directly hit the pockets of Scots who are trying to enjoy an affordable staycation in their own country.

In recent years, the Scottish Government has also promoted the diversification of agribusinesses. For many, that has seen the development of the provision of camping and caravan pitches, even though that is not their main business interest or source of income. That is also important for many of those businesses that provide additional accommodation for agricultural shows or local concerts and art festivals, which might just be one-off events.

There are significant cross-party concerns regarding the on-going issue of wild camping and the damage that it often causes to our natural environments, as well as the limited but often unacceptable cases of antisocial behaviour that we have seen. Above all, for people on a fixed budget, trying to save money and not having to pay an accommodation tax is important and, in booking a campsite or caravan park, that is often what people intend to be able to achieve.

The additional costs that a visitor levy will bring could result in significant behavioural changes and increase the amount of wild camping and overnight parking of caravans in lay-bys and passing places. I do not think that any of us has necessarily understood—the Government certainly has not—the unintended consequences that the bill might have. I therefore believe that the amendments are proportionate, and I hope that members across the Parliament will support them.

I move amendment 22.

I do not know whether I have time.

Amendment 21 and amendment 33 are probing amendments about how and when the levy will be paid and how small businesses that will be tasked with the administration of its collection and recording will best be able to undertake the duties that are outlined in the bill.

It is important that the Government has a consistent approach to the collection of the levy. We need to ensure that visitors do not pay the levy twice and, importantly, that businesses that will now be tasked with becoming tax collectors have the simplest way of recording and receiving the levy payments for which they have to account.

We know that there has been a significant shift towards online booking platforms, and many businesses now operate mixed booking systems and, indeed, mixed check-in models. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will ensure that the Government provides clarification on the collection of the levy and any flexibilities that could be provided for, to be set out in statutory guidance that ministers would develop.

I move amendment 21.

—to address the negative impacts on businesses and on the most vulnerable.

It is important that the cabinet secretary acknowledged how distressing last week’s situation was for families. I spoke to constituents who had young children and who were stuck on the bypass for hours. I, too, pay tribute to our emergency services for the work that they did.

Edinburgh city bypass has been desperate for investment for many years. I have raised the issue throughout my time as a member of this Parliament. Sadly, we are seeing delay after delay to investment—for example, that is the case with the delivery of the new Sheriffhall junction. Will the Scottish Government undertake a full review of the bypass to look at the impact that such incidents are having and ensure that we get on and deliver the investment that Edinburgh needs?

I am not sure that that is 100 per cent the case, to be honest. Sometimes, if people are travelling around the country on their boats, they stay on their boats. I am not sure what evidence Stuart McMillan can present on that.

That sums up the debate on the impact. What the minister has outlined means that, in future, people who go to a national park could find that different parts of that park have different rules on camping, on where they can park their caravan and on whether they will be charged. That is ridiculous.

In addition, as I have outlined, the levy will be an unwanted additional charge on people who are trying to have a more affordable holiday.

I absolutely do. We have reached stage 3 without the Government being able to work with parties across the chamber—and only recently has the Government had to do that. This is not an acceptable situation. There will be more cases of wild camping and of people not going to organised campsites and caravan sites. I do not think that anyone in the chamber necessarily wants that to happen, but that will be the only way for people not to face a charge of up to 10 per cent or more. When people travel around our country, having to realise where they are, which local authority they are in and whether they are being charged will become the norm. That is ridiculous, and ministers should have fixed it before stage 3. I will press amendment 22.

I have listened to what the minister has had to say. This will be in the detail when the bill is operational, but it is important that businesses know how and when they will get that data from the online booking platforms and how they will be able to report it back without facing any penalties. We need more clarification on that, which is why I lodged the amendments.

Having listened to what the minister has said, I am happy enough not to press amendment 21 and I will not move amendment 33.

Amendment 21, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 4—Meaning of overnight accommodation