Seòmar agus comataidhean

I hope that amendment 50 will be helpful. Given all the concerns that we have heard and the evidence that we have taken during the bill’s passage, it is important that a review be conducted a year after a scheme comes into force in council areas that decide to move forward with one. The amendment therefore sets out that

“Scottish ministers must, no later than 1 year after”

a scheme comes into place, review its impact. We need to look at the impact of a scheme not only on different sizes of businesses but in respect of behavioural change, which I have addressed in various other amendments. We need to consider the impact of such change not only on the sector but on our economy.

I move amendment 50.

I take on board Mark Griffin’s concern that we might not necessarily have a full picture after a year, but it might be more important that Parliament is able, if we become acutely aware of any negative impacts that the legislation might have on various parts of the tourism sector, to act to remove those impacts from the legislation. It is important that we have live information as soon as possible in the council areas concerned—I think that the City of Edinburgh Council and Highland Council have already said that they are moving forward with schemes—but there will be learning for other council areas, too. I am open to amendments at stage 3 on when reviews would take place, but I think that it is important that we take stock of a scheme’s impact on an area within a year of a council’s bringing it in.

For me, this is the most important set of amendments to the legislation. Throughout the passage of the bill, I have argued that we need to see a stronger set of exemptions put in place. The current voucher scheme is not enough to capture individuals who are staying in accommodation for purposes other than tourism.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has listened to concerns with regard to under-18s being captured and has moved to withdraw them from the scope of the bill. However, as we heard earlier, we need more than just guidance. A list of people who we do not think should pay a tourist levy when they stay in hotels or other accommodation should be set out in the bill.

Amendment 37 includes a list of those who I believe should be exempt, including parents who are staying in a hotel while their children are in hospital, people visiting family members in prison and people who are undertaking work, such as in rural areas or in the renewables sector. The list would also include people who are providing medical support; for example, our national health service has a number of people who work across the country and who are visiting not as tourists but as working professionals.

Amendment 37 is really a probing amendment, because I hope that there will be some consensus on it.

During the work that we have done as a committee, similar concerns have been raised, specifically around the booking system. We are creating a situation in which accommodation providers become tax collectors. Under the voucher scheme, they would need to ask for evidence, so we must look at whether that is provided post or pre-booking. It is important that we consider how that provision of the bill will work. Having exemptions in the bill would make it easier for the systems that will be created to administer the scheme than it would be if we leave it completely open to what seems to be a voucher that is provided post-accommodation to allow individuals to reclaim the tax. The Government has not provided any real clarification on how that will work.

I am also concerned about leaving the matter up to guidance for councils. It would be unacceptable if someone who visits a child in the sick kids hospital in Edinburgh does not pay the levy but someone who visits a person in hospital in Inverness in Highland does. The Government needs to take on board the variation that could take place. I have not heard anyone arguing that such individual cases should not be exempt from the levy.

I hope that amendment 37 gives the committee an opportunity to properly consider not just a voucher scheme but a set of exemptions. In the time before the levy comes into force, the sector can work to ensure that systems are put in place for people to provide the exemptions and that the scheme is not abused.

I move amendment 37.

I welcome the minister’s comments on the issue. I have met many in the sector who have pointed out to me how the bill, as drafted, could complicate matters in this regard. I think that it is important that we have in place the exemptions that are in amendment 37 and that they do not get left to guidance and variation.

I am happy to take up the minister’s offer of a meeting ahead of stage 3. I hope that the bill can be amended. As I said, some of the guidance for exemptions exists, such as for short-term lets, but councils do not necessarily know whether they can use that power. I am concerned that the bill would lead to interpretation council by council across Scotland among those that decide to introduce a visitor levy.

I will not press amendment 37 but will bring back a new amendment at stage 3, I hope.

Amendment 37, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 7 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Amendments 38 and 39 not moved.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

After section 10

Amendment 19 not moved.

Section 11—Scheme to impose levy

Amendments 40 and 41 not moved.

Section 11 agreed to.

Section 12—Prior consultation on scheme

I welcome that. There may be another amendment for stage 3 on who from tourism representative bodies in a wider council area would then be involved in that decision making on expenditure. I am happy to take that on board.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I welcome many of Sarah Boyack’s amendments. However, other council areas, though perhaps not Edinburgh and Highland, which have both long advocated for a tourist levy, are concerned about it being established. We need to take into account the many concerns that have been expressed about the set-up period and the systems that businesses would use. Therefore, we do not support amendments 21 and 25, but we support Sarah Boyack’s other amendments in the group.

I will not be moving amendment 46, convener.

In light of the minister’s comments, I will not move amendment 46.

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 22 not moved.

Section 13 agreed to.

Sections 14 to 16 agreed to.

Section 17—Use of net proceeds of scheme

The Government’s decision to support a percentage rate raises concerns with regard to what that might mean and how it will be interpreted at council level. If the rate is set at 5 per cent—I think that is the rate that the Scottish Government is currently proposing—will that lead to a sliding scale on which different councils can appeal? That might lead, in turn, to different councils deciding to charge different rates, which I think is the concern that has been expressed by two of the key councils for tourism activity—the City of Edinburgh Council and Highland Council. Could the minister clarify that?

I would welcome that further discussion. One of the concerns—across the parties—is the need to review the framework nature of bills; however, the mechanism by which problems might be resolved is not clear.

I return to the short-term lets legislation. By and large we, across parties, do not now believe that home sharing should be included in it. Most council areas are looking to the Government for a solution; however, the Government says that it is for councils themselves to bring forward solutions. Passing a framework bill and having councils decide for themselves creates a complex picture.

I absolutely agree, but interpretation of guidance can differ.

Given what the minister has said, I am happy not to press amendment 50, and to have further conversations.

Amendment 50, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 20 agreed to.

After section 20