Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak to all the amendments in the group, including amendment 6, which is in my name.

As we have heard, amendments 27, 30 to 32 and 45, in the name of Miles Briggs, seek to substitute the word “percentage” for “flat”, to ensure that a flat rate is used in calculating the fee. As recommended in the committee’s stage 1 report, we have explored whether a consensus can be found on the basis of the charge for a visitor levy. We have not identified a consensus on that point within and among businesses, tourism organisations and local authorities. The Government will continue to explore the issue as the bill progresses, but in the absence of a consensus, the Government’s position remains that a percentage charge provides a consistent basis for a visitor levy and would mean that the level of visitor levy that is paid reflects what someone is willing or able to spend on their accommodation. We have heard arguments deployed on the relative merits of both approaches, and I note the points that Mr Briggs raised around the percentage levy and Mr Johnson’s points around some of the challenges around a flat rate, such as the fact that it would not take account of inflation or seasonality, and the administrative concerns related to that that he mentioned.

Although the amendments in the name of Miles Briggs have provided an opportunity to consider and discuss again the basis on which the levy is to be calculated, I do not support them, for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the committee to reject them, should Miles Briggs press them.

Amendments 29 and 51, in the name of Miles Briggs, are designed to remove section 5 in its entirety. Given that section 5 sets out how the visitor levy is to be calculated, agreeing to those amendments would fundamentally undermine the bill, so the Government does not support them.

Amendments 33 to 36 seek to alter ministers’ ability to set out in regulations made under section 9 what accommodation providers in areas with a visitor levy must include in their bills and what they must publish. The amendments would remove key parts of what the regulations might set out, including, for example, a requirement that invoices specify the accommodation portion, or that the accommodation portion of the rate of a levy is published by a liable person. The provisions in section 9 are there to be used, if necessary, to ensure transparency for visitors on the visitor levy that they have been charged and the calculation on which it has been based. As that is an important safeguard for customers, it needs to be kept in the bill, so I ask Miles Briggs not to press or move any of his amendments in this group. If he does, I ask the committee not to support them.

Amendment 28, in the name of Daniel Johnson, seeks to put a cap on the number of nights in one month—in this case, 14 nights—for which a visitor can be charged the visitor levy. As a point of clarification, I note that there is currently no cap in the bill, although local authorities can choose to put one in place, under the provisions of the bill as introduced. I know that a cap on the number of nights is something that both industry and local government have raised, and it is something that some local authorities that wish to introduce a visitor levy have been considering. The Government does not support amendment 28 as it stands, because it raises practical difficulties around how different local authorities would be aware of how many nights of the levy some visitors had already paid; I am thinking, for example, of a 20-night stay across various parts of Scotland. I am also mindful of the need to give local authorities the flexibility to shape a visitor levy in order to meet local circumstances.

However, given the interest that some local authorities and tourism businesses have shown in a cap, I ask Mr Johnson to meet me between stages 2 and 3 of the bill to see whether there is a proposition that can command support from local government and the tourism industry. With that in mind, I ask him not to press amendment 28.

Amendment 6 relates to the Government’s position on the basis of the charge. As I said earlier, in the absence of a strong consensus on the basis of the charge, the Government believes that a percentage charge provides a consistent basis for a visitor levy and means that any visitor levy will be proportional to the amount that someone has chosen to spend on their accommodation. However, in light of industry concerns that there is currently no mechanism in the bill for setting a maximum rate, the Government has lodged an amendment that would give Scottish ministers the power to set a maximum percentage rate for a visitor levy, subject to certain conditions.

If approved, the power could be used only after consultation with local authorities, representatives of businesses that are engaged in tourism, tourism organisations, representatives of communities and any other relevant persons. It would also require Parliament to approve, under the affirmative procedure, any cap before it came into force. The Government feels that that strikes the right balance between local autonomy that allows for local decisions to reflect local circumstances, and the industry’s genuine concern that there is no mechanism for limiting the level at which a visitor levy could be set. The new text that is proposed by amendment 6 would provide a mechanism that could be used, if necessary, after consultation and with parliamentary approval. I therefore conclude my remarks by asking the committee to support amendment 6.

To clarify, there is no Scottish Government proposal. In the supporting documents to the bill, illustrative examples were provided on costs to assist members and the wider public and stakeholders in engaging with the legislation. However, in the bill as introduced, determining the rate is a matter for local authorities.

What we have proposed through amendment 6 is a power for a national cap mechanism, through regulations and the various associated provisions that have I set out. However, in the bill as it stands, it would be for local authorities to determine what the rate should be.

I have no further comments, convener.

Amendment 15 agreed to.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

Section 23—Duty to make returns

Amendment 51 not moved.

Section 23 agreed to.

After section 23

Amendment 16 moved—[Pam Gosal].

Given the significance of creating a new levy power, it would be appropriate to introduce a cruise ship levy through primary legislation, as we are doing with the visitor levy. Should we be in a position to introduce a cruise ship levy by amending the bill that is before the committee, that would provide a means to do that, but if that is not possible, we will look for another vehicle to do that.

As I highlighted, given the significance of introducing such a new discretionary power for local authorities, that would, on balance, make us lean towards the use of primary legislation, although we would, of course, take the views of Parliament on the matter into account.

If I may, convener—

Although a cruise ship levy is related to some of the policy intent and motivation behind the visitor levy, it is distinct, so we would have to consider that on a case-by-case basis.

What has emerged from the work on the visitor levy and what is reflected in the bill as introduced is the importance of engagement between local authorities, business and communities, and the high regard in which that is held. We would consider proposals in partnership with COSLA and business, and we would be more than happy to engage with other members on the development of proposals for a cruise ship levy, which would, of course, be subject to public consultation. That would help to inform the approach that we would take.

Broadly speaking, we would want to be consistent with the principles and the broad approach with regard to engagement and facilitating engagement that we are taking in relation to the visitor levy. The details of a cruise ship levy would follow from our process of engagement and public consultation. As I said, we would be more than happy to engage directly with elected members, COSLA and individual local authorities that have a particular interest in a cruise ship levy.

I want to mention motorhomes. People who use eligible types of accommodation, such as campsites, will be covered by a visitor levy if a local authority chooses to introduce one. The Scottish Government remains open to engagement and discussion with stakeholders on a wider motorhome levy, and it will consider any developed proposals that will work to support the visitor economy.

Discussions with council and land management stakeholders have highlighted significant issues with a levy on motorhomes, with potential difficulties in application, administration and compliance. You highlighted those difficulties in your remarks, convener. Those difficulties are, however—

I appreciate the point that Sarah Boyack has made. I highlight that the power is a discretionary power for local government to implement after consultation and engagement and the points that I touched on earlier about looking at how we can strengthen the process of engagement ahead of stage 3. It will be for the process of local engagement and consultation with businesses, tourism organisations and community organisations in a particular area to best determine how revenue that is raised through a visitor levy can be best applied to support the visitor economy. That is why I make the point that, if there are concerns that the current drafting of the bill would preclude what would be regarded as use to support the visitor economy in a particular area, I am happy to have discussions about that ahead of stage 3 and to consider how we can refine the wording in partnership with local government and, crucially, the tourism sector.

Amendments 21 and 25, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would remove the words “for leisure purposes” from sections 12 and 17 of the bill so that the objectives of a visitor levy scheme would no longer have to relate to facilities or services that are

“substantially for or used by persons visiting the scheme area for leisure purposes”,

and funding would also no longer be linked to those visiting an area for leisure purposes. I understand Sarah Boyack’s wish to expand the objectives of a visitor levy beyond just those visiting for leisure purposes. However, the Government has responded to that point, and it lodged amendments 9 and 10. As I said earlier, uses such as for housing and regeneration are not precluded if a local authority chooses those. The Government believes that amendments 9 and 10 are a better option on that issue, so I ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendments 21 and 25.

Sarah Boyack’s amendment 23 would alter the permitted use of proceeds by removing section 17(1)(b) from the bill. In contrast to Sarah Boyack’s other amendments, it would mean that a local authority could use the proceeds only for facilitating a visitor levy scheme’s objectives. If those objectives were met, a local authority could not use any money raised in another way that is related to the visitor economy. The amendment would remove a sensible measure and restrict local government in the use of the funding raised by a visitor levy. It would tie the hands of local authorities to only being able to use money raised by a visitor levy in a way that would be unhelpful as circumstances change and new opportunities arose. I note that amendment 23 contradicts the position in Sarah Boyack’s amendments 20 and 24, but I appreciate that she is exploring a variety of approaches to those sections of the bill. For those reasons, the Government does not support amendment 23, and I ask Sarah Boyack not to move it.

The committee’s stage 1 report highlights the

“calls for the Bill to be amended so funds can be invested in services or facilities used by visitors travelling for business purposes as well as by those doing so for leisure.”

In response, the Government considered that issue and lodged amendment 9, which is in my name. Amendment 9 relates to section 12, which sets out the steps that a local authority must take before introducing or modifying a visitor levy scheme. Those steps include preparing a statement of the objectives of a visitor levy scheme. As mentioned, section 12 requires the objectives to

“relate to developing, supporting or sustaining facilities or services which are substantially for or used by persons visiting the scheme area for leisure purposes.”

Amendment 9 would change that requirement in relation to a scheme’s objectives so that it would refer to facilities or services used for leisure or business purposes or both.

Amendment 10, in my name, deals with the same issue at section 17 of the bill. It would place a duty on a local authority in relation to business visitors and the use of proceeds of a scheme.

As we have heard, section 17 requires the proceeds to be used for the scheme’s objectives or for

“facilities and services which are substantially for or used by persons visiting ... for leisure purposes.”

Amendment 10 would amend section 17(1)(b) so that the other purposes refer to facilities or services used for leisure or business purposes or both. That reflects a sensible enlargement of the purposes for which funding raised by a levy could be used, with the support of local government and the tourism industry. I therefore ask the committee to support amendment 10.

I note that Miles Briggs’s amendment 46 would amend the bill so that a local authority setting up a visitor levy scheme would have to specify the manner in which it would decide that

“any net proceeds raised in a specified area”

could

“only be used in that specified area”.

The question of limiting the use of visitor levy-raised funding to the area where it was raised was considered by the committee at stage 1. The committee’s stage 1 report noted that such an approach would

“fail to provide for ambitious, strategic, long-term investment”,

and the Government endorses that point. We want to give local authorities the freedom to make the strategic investments in their visitor economy that the levy can facilitate. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 46 and, if he does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Finally in this group, Sarah Boyack’s amendment 22 would reduce the 18-month implementation period to 12 months. The Government believes that there is a strong case for the 18-month implementation period. Eighteen months provides adequate time for local authorities and businesses to put in place systems and train staff to effectively collect and administer a levy.

In our 2019 public consultation on the levy, 82 per cent of respondents supported a timeframe of at least one financial year following the conclusion of consultation and engagement activities. That was also supported by 16 of the 18 local authorities that responded to the question. Eighteen months is also the timeframe recommended by the European Tourism Association.

The Government therefore does not support amendment 22. I ask Sarah Boyack not to move it and, if she does, I ask the committee not to support it.

Amendments 4 and 7 flow from the helpful scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1 and fulfil a Government commitment to amend the bill in light of the DPLR Committee’s comments.

Amendment 4 would amend the bill so that, before making any affirmative procedure regulations that would change the list of accommodation types in the bill, ministers would be required to consult local authorities and tourism organisations. That is a sensible change, which would mean that the bill would reflect good practice and would ensure that local government and the tourism industry are suitably involved in any potential changes to the list of accommodation types covered by the bill.

Likewise, amendment 7 requires consultation with local authorities and tourism organisations before any affirmative procedure regulations are made to set national exemptions from a visitor levy. That is another change that means that the bill would reflect good practice and it is one that I hope the committee will support.

I turn to Neil Bibby’s amendments, which all address a similar issue. Amendments 40 and 41 adjust the definition of “local tourism strategy” in section 11 of the bill. That is also relevant to amendment 49, which alters section 17 of the bill so that, when using the proceeds of a visitor levy scheme, a local authority would have to have regard to any local culture and tourism strategy that it had created.

Amendments 43, 44, 47 and 48 propose similar changes and would require culture and tourism organisations and businesses, rather than just tourism ones, to be consulted under section 12 when an authority proposes a visitor levy scheme, and under section 17 when it decides how to use the proceeds of a levy.

Scotland has a vibrant cultural sector and visitors enjoy our many cultural offerings, whether those are formal festivals, museums and galleries or someone playing the fiddle in a village pub. I have concerns about the effects of those amendments. Section 12 of the bill already requires a local authority to consult people who are

“likely to be affected by the proposal”

for a visitor levy, and therefore provides a suitable basis for cultural organisations to have their say and to be involved in decisions on any visitor levy.

The use of funding raised by a levy is also an important issue. On that, I note that section 17 of the bill currently requires proceeds to be spent on

“facilities and services which are substantially for or used by”

visitors. Although there will be a strong overlap between cultural spending and the facilities and services that visitors use, those things will not always be the same. I am therefore wary of making any changes to the bill that would take the focus away from spending that is related to visitors.

I value the role of culture in our society and in the tourism economy. However, the bill already has specific provisions in place on funding and the current consultation requirements cover community representatives, businesses engaged in tourism and tourism organisations. The Government would prefer to keep the focus on tourism businesses, organisations and strategies, while still allowing authorities to consult with such others as they consider to be appropriate. Adding a specific reference to culture would, in our view, move too far away from the tourism focus that reflects the industry feedback that we have had. I therefore ask Neil Bibby not to move his amendments and ask the committee not to support them if he does move them.

My amendment 8 amends section 12 of the bill so that a local authority proposing to introduce or modify a visitor levy scheme, where the scheme area will include all or part of a national park, must consult the park authority for that national park. The amendment reflects evidence heard during stage 1 that the bill should ensure that national parks are engaged and should have a status in the bill that reflects both their statutory basis and their important role in the visitor economy. Amendment 8 ensures that the views of a national park authority—alongside those of the current statutory consultees of community representatives, tourism businesses and tourism organisations listed in section 12—would be sought by local authorities at that stage.

My amendments 12 and 13 make similar changes to section 17. The amendments would require a local authority to consult the relevant national park, from time to time, on the use of visitor levy funds, where any visitor levy scheme area overlaps the area of a national park. That reflects both evidence heard during stage 1 and the legal status of national parks. It creates a proportionate duty on a local authority to engage with any relevant national park authority. I ask committee members to support those amendments.

My amendment 14 also relates to national parks and would mean that, in using the net proceeds of a visitor levy scheme, where the scheme area includes all or part of a national park, a local authority must

“have regard to the National Park Plan”.

Such plans have a statutory basis under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Making reference to those plans here ensures that a local authority must take account of them when it uses the net proceeds of a visitor levy scheme.

I move amendment 4.

I thank Neil Bibby for lodging the amendments and giving us an opportunity to discuss the issue. I agree with him whole-heartedly on the vital role that culture plays in all our lives in Scotland and particularly in making Scotland a world-class tourist destination. I appreciate that he will not move his amendments and I would be happy to meet Mr Bibby ahead of stage 3 to discuss his proposals in more detail.

In the definition of tourism organisations, we want to ensure that we encapsulate the broadest range of stakeholders who are impacted by the visitor economy. It is self-evident to us all that the cultural sector would be a key part of that, but I recognise Mr Bibby’s point about providing assurance on that.

Touching on the points that Mr Johnson made with regard to guidance, I note that an amendment in a later group will seek to put the guidance on a statutory footing. VisitScotland, as a convening body, will have the role of working to produce guidance. That can help to address a lot of the concerns. The guidance being on a statutory footing will highlight what best practice would be.

What is crucial, of course, is what happens on the ground. The bill as introduced provides a strong series of mechanisms for engagement ahead of the introduction of the visitor levy, such as the requirements around consultation and the transparency requirements around reporting and review. I recognise, with particular regard to the point that Mr Johnson raised, the asks from industry about how we can strengthen the engagement process. As I touched on when I spoke to an earlier group of amendments, I am actively considering what options we have to enhance the process of consultation, engagement and involvement, and I am very happy to engage with members ahead of stage 3 to explore those options.

We recognise that the levy is a tool that will fiscally empower local government and that locally elected members are democratically accountable to their electors as decision makers. We also recognise the strong desire from business to have involvement that goes beyond consultation prior to the introduction of a visitor levy and that can be sustained throughout the period. We also recognise that the continued involvement of businesses, tourism stakeholders or communities will be a major asset in helping to ensure that a visitor levy can deliver its full potential.

Fundamentally, I agree that the provision should be viewed as an economic development tool that can boost our local visitor economies. It will be at the discretion of local authorities as to whether they introduce it, and that will be done through a process of collaboration. Ahead of stage 3, I am happy to discuss further how we can provide reassurance around the engagement of the cultural sector—there will be opportunities and avenues to do that through guidance—and around more sustained engagement beyond consultation and what that may look like.

In principle, I would want to take an approach that recognises that our island communities are unique and have distinct needs and assets, just as, more broadly, in the structure and organisation of delivery of public services, we provide opportunities for islands to have more bespoke arrangements. That speaks naturally to your point, Mr McArthur. I am therefore more than happy to have exploratory discussions on provisions for a cruise ship levy and a motorhome levy. I caveat that by saying that it is important that what we have in place is robust and that there are no undue burdens around administration and compliance that would, ultimately, undermine the policy intent. In that space, there is an opportunity for further discussion.

On that basis, I will conclude by saying that we have committed to bringing forward a cruise ship levy—I have set out the rationale for that and the underlying approach—and we are open and willing to explore a motorhome levy in more detail.

My final point, for clarity, is that the bill as introduced relates to a taxable event—the purchase of overnight accommodation—that does not easily translate to the very different contexts of booking a cruise ship holiday or hiring a camper van. Levies on those activities are likely to need a different legal framework, involving a different taxable event and different compliance powers. I offer that as a reason for why the Government is unable to support amendments 1 and 2 at this stage, and I ask Liam McArthur not to move them.

I reiterate that, on any aspect of the bill, if there are concerns about definition and about whether the bill will ensure that the policy intent is met, I am more than happy to have a discussion about refining any of the language ahead of stage 3.

I also note that, in the bill as introduced, flexibilities already exist for local government around exemptions and exclusions.