Seòmar agus comataidhean

In light of what the minister has said and his amendment 15, which we will be supporting, I will not move amendment 42. That will enable further conversations to take place ahead of stage 3.

Amendment 42 not moved.

Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.

Amendment 8 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Amendment 26 seeks to remove camping sites and caravan parks from the bill.

During scrutiny of the bill, it has become quite clear that, rather than a visitor levy, it will be more an accommodation tax. We heard important evidence about camping sites and caravan parks often being used by people on fixed budgets who want to have a lower-priced holiday. It is therefore important that they are not included in what will be a percentage scheme, which would add to costs. That is why I decided to lodge amendment 26.

I move amendment 26.

I support all the amendments in the grouping, which goes to the heart of who will be impacted by the bill, which is businesses the length and breadth of Scotland.

Our tourism sector is really diverse across many communities in Scotland. Importantly—Daniel Johnson touched on this—the levy will not just be about hotel chains with an information technology department and a bookings team; it will be about individuals who might run their business out of a diary and who, all of a sudden, are turned into a Government tax collector. We have to be mindful of what that will do to businesses and the consequences that they will face for not being able to report on time or collect what might be a complex levy.

On Pam Gosal’s amendments on VAT, it is important to note that around 20 per cent of unregistered borderline businesses admit to having taken action to remain below the threshold and outside of VAT systems, so it is important that we consider behaviour change in the industry.

My amendment 42 would make provision to ensure that a business impact assessment is undertaken. After the bill is passed, it could provide an opportunity to address concerns around the potential economic impact of the legislation. I hope that the minister and the committee will see that the introduction of such a provision could be useful in scoping the impact of the legislation.

During stage 1, the committee did not take a position on whether it supports a percentage scheme or a flat rate. However, it was clear that all the businesses that gave evidence to the committee, whether in person or through written submissions, would prefer a flat-rate fee. That was partly because of the simplicity of implementation. A flat rate would make returns far easier to introduce, administer, calculate and submit and, perhaps most important, it would be easier to explain to guests. As the committee heard, the use of a percentage system to calculate a visitor levy could also cause confusion because of the complexity of additional services being provided—for example, meals—which would make it harder to calculate the percentage fee.

Given the concerns that have been voiced with regard to the impact on business, Conservative members believe that, if the bill is passed, a flat-rate fee would be the simplest way of implementing a levy.

I move amendment 27.

Good morning, minister and officials. In your opening statement, minister, you said that renters and landlords do not need to know the detail behind this. What modelling has taken place on how many landlords will look to apply the upper limit of 12 per cent and what that would mean for the systems that are currently in place?

I understand. You mentioned the geographical element; in Edinburgh, new properties are coming on to the market with rents that are 25 to 30 per cent higher than they would have been prior to rent control. There is a real disturbance and a potentially dramatic rent increase, as well as a loss of properties, in the capital. What lessons have been learned from that and the lack of data and consultation in relation to future rent controls in the housing bill?

Finally, the Scottish Association of Landlords has accused the Scottish Government of “anti-landlord rhetoric” and of

“harming investment in private rented housing in Scotland”.

Today, it reports estimates of around 22,000 homes being lost from the private rented sector. How would you respond to that?

Good morning, minister and officials.

Not for the first time, we have heard concerns from COSLA and local authorities, which are unhappy about the short period of time that was allocated for consultation on the measure. It was held in December for just four weeks. In the spirit of the Verity house agreement, what consideration has been given to that issue?

I am an MSP for the Lothian region.

I have a question about the elephant in the room. We are all talking about the proposed housing bill but we have legislation that our councils are not following through. The Parliament, the Government and the committee will spend most of the rest of this session of the Parliament considering a housing bill and bringing everything into one piece of legislation. Given the emergency that we are facing, would it not be better to examine what has gone wrong with all the legislation that we have passed in the past 25 years and focus on getting that right for different communities? Is a housing bill—which you will invest all your energies in—the right thing at this point or should we ensure that the legislation that we have performs?