I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions. It is important to identify the points of consensus, because we have secured considerable cross-party agreement on the bill and ought to be proud of that. I am also grateful to the members who have resisted what Willie Rennie called “the temptation to add … bells and whistles” to the bill, given the timeframe. That resistance has helped us to complete our scrutiny today, with a full day to spare in advance of the conclusion of this session of Parliament. When I have spoken to stakeholders about the bill in recent weeks, they have repeatedly highlighted how pleased they are to see politicians from across the chamber working together. Such consensus reflects Parliament at its best, with all parties coming together to deliver legislative improvements for local government and, importantly, for our vital tourism sector.

We have spent a considerable amount of time working to identify the right approach to supporting investment in our tourism sector, and it is important to recognise that comparatively small investments in visitor services can be transformational for communities and for visitor experiences, as we have seen with recent investments from the rural tourism infrastructure fund. In Orkney, there was £750,000 for visitor infrastructure in Dounby to help to deliver a visitor hub that serves the needs of both tourists and the local community, reducing pressure on key natural and cultural heritage sites and improving the visitor experience. In the Highlands, £250,000 was awarded to the Glencoe greenway, delivering a new traffic-free active travel route and creating a new path as well as upgrading an existing one.

In Stirling, £230,000 was awarded to the Trossachs scenic viewpoint, delivering the final stage of a visitor management project that includes a high-quality landmark viewpoint at the busy Trossachs pier visitor hub. That is something that I am sure that Evelyn Tweed would recognise. I congratulate her on her session in Parliament. It has been a pleasure working with her, and I know that she is hugely committed to the Stirling area and is keen to see tourism there go from strength to strength because the area has tremendous attractions to offer. I wish her every success in whatever she decides to pursue in future.

It is those types of investment that the visitor levy revenue is intended to support, and having a visitor levy scheme in place will help to ensure that local authorities can fund future projects that will boost visitor services without diverting resources from local communities.

We heard a final speech today from Sarah Boyack. Members may not know that I first met Sarah way back in the 1980s when we were both involved in student politics. It was long ago—a different world and a different time—so it was great to see her in Parliament when she was re-elected. The list of her achievements across a wide range of policy areas is long and impressive, and likewise I wish her every success in the future.

I thank Fergus Ewing for his compliments, but I must very strongly tell him that the SNP Government is firmly pro-business. That is true of the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, the Deputy First Minister, all Cabinet ministers and all members of the party, who absolutely recognise the critical role that business plays in building a strong economy for Scotland, which is the key to a successful future.

I very much agree with Willie Rennie’s comments about the leadership of the tourism industry, which is critical not only because of the revenue and economic activity that the industry generates but because of the opportunities that it presents to communities across the whole country—few sectors can match that geographical reach. It also presents a hugely important front window for Scotland internationally. I have no doubt that it is a key element in our continued success in attracting inward investment across all sectors, given our leadership role in that metric. The tourism sector has a huge role to play in presenting Scotland internationally in the most favourable light.

I recognise the comments from Willie Rennie and many other members across the chamber on medical exemptions. There has been a balance, with many members recognising that it is for local authorities to decide how to apply exemptions and that we should seek to devolve that responsibility as much as possible. However, with that responsibility comes an obligation to recognise many of the issues that members have raised. I give an undertaking that officials will work with VisitScotland to include references to medical exemptions in the guidance that will be produced for councils to support implementation of the bill.

I am delighted to begin the final stage of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill with this debate at stage 3. Although this has been an expedited process, Parliament has applied the same level of rigour and scrutiny as it does to any other major piece of legislation.

Before turning to the substance of what the technical bill will provide, I will offer some thanks. I recognise the constructive approach that has been taken across the chamber in ensuring that the bill is robust and ready for implementation. I thank members who have given their attention to the detail in scrutinising the bill and, in particular, the members of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, all of whom have provided their insight, advice and time to ensure that the bill is able to deliver the improvements that are needed.

I also extend thanks to all the key stakeholders who gave evidence to the committees and who worked with the Scottish Government to help to shape the contents of the bill, the regulations and the updated guidance that will follow.

I acknowledge all those who have previously contributed to the development of Scotland’s visitor levy, including my colleague Tom Arthur, who took through the original bill. Their work has helped to build the foundation that this bill strengthens.

I thank everyone who will help to deliver this legislation in practice, from local authorities that choose to implement a scheme; to accommodation providers who will make returns; to the wider tourism industry with other key roles, such as providing third-party sales of accommodation; and VisitScotland, which will develop the guidance. They will all help to change how we support and invest in our tourism sector in Scotland, to ensure that visitors have a positive experience as they share our culture, landscape and hospitality. Finally, I thank the officials who worked at pace on the bill to ensure that it was delivered in time and very successfully.

On that note, I would like to highlight some of what the strengthened framework in the bill will deliver. A key improvement in the bill is the introduction of an additional basis of charge. Local authorities will now be able to set a levy as a fixed amount or amounts. That new option is in addition to the existing percentage-rate model, giving councils the flexibility to choose the approach that best reflects their local visitor economy, particularly where accommodation prices are more consistent and a fixed amount of the levy might be simpler and more effective.

Respectfully, I do not agree with Fergus Ewing’s comments. It was important that all stakeholders, the business community and local authorities were involved in the process and that there was flexibility to design a bill that meets local circumstances. The bill is very strong on the consultation that local authorities will have to carry out, and I am absolutely sure that local businesses and business representative organisations in any local authority that is considering introducing a visitor levy will engage effectively and thoroughly with the relevant local authority to get a levy that suits local businesses.

The bill also clarifies how the levy will apply when accommodation is sold through booking platforms or tour operators. In those cases, the levy will be calculated on the price at first sale, which gives accommodation providers certainty about the amount due and avoids any confusion when bookings involve third parties. As I mentioned at the start of the debate, this is a technical bill, and one key measure ensures that a levy return for a given period will set out the levy payable for overnight stays that take place within the period in question instead of the date at which the overnight stay was booked.

However, the bill does much more, and I want to highlight a few amendments that have resulted from the rigorous process that the bill went through, the co-development that took place with key stakeholders and, as I mentioned, the input from members across the chamber. At stage 2, we added provisions so that, once regulations are in place, accommodation providers will be able to amend submitted returns to correct errors. I was also pleased at stage 2 to accept an amendment lodged by Tim Eagle, which will require ministers, in carrying out the three-year review of the operation of the act, to assess the impact of visitor levy schemes on businesses, communities and tourism in rural areas.

Last week, during our first stage 3 proceedings, amendments were agreed that mean that the bill will now give local authorities the option to allow accommodation providers to deduct and retain a proportion of the levy to help to meet reasonable administration costs. During those stage 3 proceedings, Stephen Kerr sought an amendment that would require local authority annual reports to include an assessment of the impact of the scheme on visitor numbers, length of visitor stay and the viability of tourism businesses. Although I resisted that amendment for various reasons, I gave the member an assurance that I would ask my officials to work with VisitScotland colleagues to consider how that detail could be brought out in the revised guidance. I am happy to give that assurance again today.

Throughout the process, our aim has been to provide a framework that is proportionate, clear and accessible. We want local authorities to be confident that their schemes reflect local economic assessments and that the language and guidance used will support high levels of understanding, compliance and trust. Therefore, I have also instructed my officials to begin working with VisitScotland to ensure that the statutory guidance is updated and revised to take account of the changes delivered by the bill and for that to be available to support the implementation across Scotland later this year.

I mentioned the importance that the Scottish Government places on engagement with key stakeholders who will deliver visitor levy schemes in practice, and I want to share with the chamber a contribution from Argyll and Bute Council, which responded to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s call for views.

The council’s evidence emphasised the need for decisions to be taken at the right level of government, and at the right time, to support best practice and avoid taking

“a ‘one size fits all’ approach”

that would not reflect the diverse needs of communities in both urban and rural areas.

The council said that the visitor levy

“ensures that funds raised locally can be reinvested directly in maintaining and improving visitor infrastructure”

and that

“decisions must be informed by clear and robust economic and destination management data”.

In ensuring that those decisions are right for our local economies, an important step in the process is local consultation to ensure that key stakeholders continue to engage effectively through co-design to meet the local needs that are being assessed.

The bill strengthens Scotland’s visitor levy framework so that, where local authorities choose to introduce a scheme, it is fair and workable and reflects local priorities; supports sustainable tourism; empowers local decision making; and ensures that the benefits of tourism are shared across communities. I commend the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

16:05

As I have said on the record, with the responsibility that we have delegated to councils comes an obligation on them to take the matter very seriously and recognise the points that have been made in the chamber this afternoon. Local authorities should seriously consider how they will approach exemptions from the visitor levy for those who, through no fault of their own, have to travel to other parts of the country for medical treatment.

The bill responds directly to what local authorities and industry have asked for. It provides the clarity, consistency and confidence that they need on how visitor levy schemes will operate. I thank members again for their contributions and commend the motion to Parliament.

I do not know whether that was John Mason’s last contribution in the chamber before he retires, but seeing him render Stephen Kerr momentarily speechless was a sight to behold.

Amendment 28 would require that a local authority’s annual report on a visitor levy scheme include information on how the use of levy proceeds has impacted on visitor numbers, length of stay and the viability of tourism businesses, where such information is available. That is similar to an amendment that Mr Kerr lodged at stage 2. When I met him recently to talk about that and other amendments, we discussed issues around availability and data lag, and the fact that it could be difficult to identify causality of changes. Could a change in length of stay be down to the introduction of the levy or to wider economic factors?

I welcome that Mr Kerr has recognised the issue of data availability in this iteration of his amendment. However, it does not address the key point that I made at stage 2: the amendment is not necessary. Section 13 of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 requires a local authority to prepare and publicise how it intends to measure and report on the achievement of a scheme’s objectives. If relevant, the authority’s annual report on the scheme can already include an assessment of impact on tourist numbers, length of stay and viability of tourism businesses. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment. As I indicated at stage 2, and when I met Mr Kerr, I would be happy to explore whether the statutory guidance provided by VisitScotland for local authorities could be revised to emphasise that detail, where robust data is available.

Amendments 29 and 30 would introduce separate requirements for local authorities to report on the use of net proceeds. Both have similar intent but would apply to different timescales. Amendment 29 would require a first report on the impact of levy funds on tourist numbers, length of stay and viability of tourism businesses be prepared two years after a scheme goes live, and amendment 30 would require that a first report be prepared three years after the scheme goes live. Such a report would then be published annually. The amendments are intended to account for data lag.

Amendments 29 and 30 seek the same information as amendment 28 but in a different way. They would create a new reporting duty for local authorities and require them to report on the specific issues separately from the section 20 annual reports under the 2024 act.

The amendments would allow the two reports to be combined and published together. Imposing different objectives and reporting periods might make that difficult to work with in practice. However, as with amendment 28, that is not necessary—it is simply a new reporting requirement, but duplicating what is already provided for by the 2024 act. I repeat my commitment to seek to address those issues in amended VisitScotland guidance.

Amendment 31 would require a local authority to consider, as part of each three-year review of the operation of a scheme, whether the scheme should be modified or revoked. Mr Kerr raised that issue at stage 2, and I undertook to discuss it with him. We had a constructive discussion on that, and I recognise that there is benefit in a local authority considering whether a scheme should be revoked at that review stage. Therefore, the Government will support amendment 31.

Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 17 to 20 are technical amendments in connection with the bill’s provisions that introduce a new basis for setting the visitor levy and the associated ability for local authorities to switch from one basis to another. The amendments ensure that the provisions that govern the basis and setting of a levy for new schemes will apply in a similar way whenever an existing scheme is modified.

Amendment 1 ensures that the power that prevents a new scheme from imposing a mixture of levies that are based on fixed amounts and percentage rates also applies whenever an existing scheme is modified. Amendments 2 and 3 ensure that requirements on setting a fixed amount of levy for a new scheme also apply whenever an existing percentage-based scheme is modified to set the levy on a fixed-amount basis. Amendments 17 to 20 achieve the same effect when a scheme is modified to set the levy on a percentage-rate basis rather than as a fixed amount.

Amendment 24 amends section 7 of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 and allows for a local authority, when both introducing and modifying a scheme, to specify a maximum number of nights of stay to which the levy applies. It also requires a local authority to consult before specifying any such maximum.

Amendments 7, 21 and 22 are consequential on the removal from the bill at stage 2 of the option to set a levy as a fixed amount on a per person, per night basis. Amendment 7 updates a cross-reference in section 26 of the 2024 act relating to returns so that it refers instead to section 6A. Amendment 21 removes the requirement for levy schemes to specify the method by which a fixed amount of levy is to be calculated. That is already covered by new section 6A. Amendment 22 removes a redundant cross-reference to the method specified in a scheme for calculating a levy.

I move amendment 1.

Group 2 contains nine amendments that provide for an explicit power to allow local authorities, if they choose to do so, to permit the accommodation provider to retain a proportion of the visitor levy payable to help to mitigate possible additional administrative costs.

Amendment 4 sets out the main power for local authorities to permit such deductions if they choose to do so. It also provides that the maximum level of deductions should be set as either a fixed amount or a percentage of the levy. The amendment will also allow ministers to make further provision by regulations about deductions by liable persons if such provision is needed in the future.

Amendment 23 provides for a new part 1A to be added to the schedule to the bill. It includes required changes to other provisions of the bill in order to accommodate the ability of local authorities to permit deductions. The changes will ensure that, when deduction is permitted, it is reflected in accommodation providers’ duties to account for and pay the levy, minus the amount that they are permitted to retain. No deduction will be permitted when an authority has, under the legislation, imposed any penalty on the provider in respect of the same return period.

As local authorities will need to set out in their scheme whether they permit deductions and what the maximum permitted amount for them is, amendments 8 and 9 provide that, if an authority has published and consulted on a scheme outline, or has published, consulted on and decided to proceed with a levy scheme, it does not need to consult again on changes to its scheme that are necessary to reflect the new requirements that the bill will introduce.

The other amendments in the group are primarily technical and will make consequential changes, including in relation to commencement.

I move amendment 4.

I agree with Murdo Fraser that it is important to ensure, as we have done throughout this process, that the administrative burden on and costs for businesses are taken into account. I encourage local authorities to act favourably in any conversations that they have with local businesses about administrative costs.

I press amendment 4.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

After section 2

The key point is local flexibility and allowing local authorities the ability to manage the scheme as they see fit. I am sure that councils are perfectly capable of engaging with one another through existing mechanisms when there are issues that affect multiple councils.

Amendment 26 would require local authorities and accommodation providers to establish whether each visitor was using overnight accommodation to attend a medical appointment. That might involve checking appointment evidence, including the sharing of personal information, and it would require new administrative processes, which would create additional burdens on businesses. Although I understand the reasons behind the amendment, I believe that these matters are best addressed through local exemptions instead of by imposing new national exemptions without the benefit of consultation or an assessment of the impact.

As I have already said, the scheme is deliberately designed to give local authorities the ability to tailor it to suit local circumstances.

Amendment 32, in the name of Stephen Kerr, would require local authorities, when reviewing their visitor levy scheme, to assess whether exemptions or reimbursement arrangements should be introduced for single-room bed and breakfasts, accommodation that forms part of a provider’s principal residence or single-occupancy self-catering accommodation. Although I recognise the desire to support small accommodation providers, the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 already gives local authorities such flexibility. Section 21 of the act requires local authorities to review the operation and impact of visitor levy schemes, and they can consider any modification to the scheme, including the introduction of exemptions that are based on local evidence.