Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 46 is a probing amendment. It comes from some of the evidence that we took from communities that are part of larger council areas. They are concerned. Businesses that operate in Skye and Arran raised concerns about significant tourism activity on those islands and whether they would secure a fair share of that funding once the local authority that they are part of takes decisions over where that would be distributed. I want to probe ministers on how the money that is raised is reported and what role they would play in where that money is spent. That important principle has not been pursued in the bill.

As with other amendments, I am happy to discuss that further with the minister. When substantial tourism activity takes place in parts of a council area, it is important that businesses in those areas benefit and that any money raised does not just go into the council’s wider pot.

The same principles apply to private caravans as apply to Stuart McMillan’s mooring amendment. Not having a definition of “overnight accommodation” is at the heart of some of the problems with the bill. That is a difficulty. For example, we still need clarification on whether the proposed levy would apply to a privately owned holiday caravan.

I am happy to work with the minister if he is willing to meet me and representatives to discuss a stage 3 amendment, because, for caravan sites, there is still ambiguity in the bill over who would and who would not be charged. As with moorings, it is important that we look in more detail at who will be captured, especially because, as has been outlined, a payment will need to be made at some point, and we need to know what that will look like for various clients on campsites.

There is also a significant concern about behaviour change. Many colleagues have raised the problems with wild camping, and we need to know what the bill might mean for people who do not want to pay a levy and who, therefore, end up not using an established caravan site or campsite.

Thank you. With that in mind, I will not press amendment 26. I hope to take up the minister’s offer to have a conversation on the matter before stage 3.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 18 moved—[Stuart McMillan]—and agreed to.

Could you clarify something? My understanding is that, at the moment, the proposal in the bill is that a charge be made for seven nights of someone’s stay, and your amendment would double that, to 14 nights per calendar month. What guidance would be included in the bill in that regard? Perhaps the minister can also comment on that.

I heard what the minister had to say. As in our committee work on short-term lets, it is concerning that a framework bill leaves interpretation to councils. We know of two legal challenges that the City of Edinburgh Council has faced because of its interpretation of that legislation, and the Government’s approach sets up the legislation to be potentially problematic, with different councils deciding on different percentages. I will therefore test my amendment 27, to see what support there is for it in the committee.

I press amendment 27.

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