Seòmar agus comataidhean

I seek clarification on a cruise ship levy. If there is not enough time to insert such a levy into the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill and it is introduced via a different legislative vehicle, will the measures in the bill in relation to timescales and consultation still apply? Will local authorities have to carry out the same work with regard to a potential cruise ship levy that they have to do with the visitor levy?

I am interested to see the Government’s response to the amendments on the VAT threshold. We have heard strong evidence from operators that they operate up to the VAT threshold, because, to recoup the costs of being VAT registered should they go beyond that annual turnover level, they would need to increase their turnover from £85,000 a year to more than £250,000 a year. That is a significant increase in turnover that they would have to achieve to break even due to a levy being imposed on their business. Although the amendments as lodged are good for starting a debate on the issue, I am interested to hear the Government’s response to that particular point about the VAT threshold.

I have a degree of sympathy with the other amendments in the group as well, but it seems that they would increase the administrative burdens on local authorities, and the opportunity to recoup costs for businesses would take away from the sums that businesses, the tourism sector and the culture sector hope to see being invested in local communities to improve the tourism offer. I am concerned about the unintended consequence of hard-raised funds from visitors going to administration schemes rather than being invested in the attractions that they would want to be invested in.

I am looking to hear the Government’s response to the VAT amendments, but I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the remainder of the amendments in the group.

I do not object to the principle of a review—in fact, I think that it is sensible—but the only point that I will make to Miles Briggs is that we might not get any meaningful information from a review only a year after a scheme’s introduction.

Moreover, what if some authorities introduce a scheme but others do not? I know that amendment 50 points directly to a review in areas where a scheme has been in place for a year, but I think that having a review with potentially very few other schemes being in place after the first is introduced might make any learning and data that we get less meaningful than it could be. Given that, perhaps the member could reflect on the length of time before which there should be a review.

I thank Miles Briggs for lodging his amendments and giving us the opportunity to debate the merits of a flat rate versus a percentage charge. As members will be aware, this was one of the more difficult elements of the legislation that we grappled with, and in the end, we did not take a view on the matter, because there were merits on both sides. A flat rate offers ease of collection, while a percentage rate offers fairness in the way that it scales up according to the cost of accommodation.

I point out to Mr Briggs that there is no consensus among local authorities and operators on the matter, so I ask him to withdraw amendment 27 and not to move his other amendments in the group on the basis that we are continuing to have discussions about it. I thank the member for giving us the opportunity to have this discussion again, but I ask him to allow us not to vote on the amendments, as doing so would prejudice the discussions that will, no doubt, carry on to stage 3.

My second question is whether the Government has considered changing a particular element of the existing procedure. When a landlord gives notice of a rent increase and the tenant decides to challenge that, arrears can potentially build up in the gap while either rent service Scotland or the First-tier Tribunal decides which rent should apply. My understanding is that, if the rent increase was found to be appropriate, the tenant would need to pay from the date of first issue rather than from the date of the First-tier Tribunal or rent service Scotland agreeing that the increase was appropriate. As I have said, there is the potential for arrears to build up, so has the Government considered amending the process to ensure that the date from which the rent increase would apply would be the date of the tribunal’s decision?

In advance of that work being completed, does the Government have any concerns about the risk of financial failure of any particular Scottish local authority?

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests as the owner of a private rented property up to July last year.

Good morning, minister. The new process relies on tenants taking the initiative to challenge a potentially unfair rent increase, but we in the committee have heard long-standing concerns about tenants’ ability to challenge landlords, for fear of putting their tenancy in jeopardy. What steps is the Government putting in place to protect tenants through the process and assure them that any such challenge will not put their tenancy in jeopardy?

You set out some of the financial challenges that have resulted in this flexibility being used in England, which are well documented. What assessment has the Government carried out of the financial health of local authorities in Scotland that have used this flexibility and of whether that has put any of them at risk of going down the same road as the English local authorities that you mentioned?

I am an MSP for Central Scotland.

I will wrap two questions into one. The regulations continue only the rent control element and not the evictions element. Will that have an impact on the levels of evictions and homelessness? What are your expectations and ambitions for the housing bill on rent controls? What do you hope to see the Government propose as a long-term approach to those?