Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not believe that the expert working group has had specific discussions on that. More broadly, digitisation of public services is a significant area, as we have discussed in many committee meetings. It has also been discussed as part of our broader work and engagement on changes and improvements to the administration and operation of the non-domestic rates system, although that is more of a medium-to-long term piece of work. It is a live matter.

We would have to consider the timelines for when such a system would become operational, and we would need to consider its scope. There is an interesting point to be made about variation between authorities. The bill allows two or more authorities to work together to develop a visitor levy for a particular area. That is of particular interest for our national parks. There are a number of factors to consider.

I am conscious that, should the bill progress through Parliament and be approved in a reasonable timescale, the earliest that a visitor levy would become available or go online would probably be the first half of 2026. There would be a question about whether a new platform would be developed and operational by that point. I will be keen to pick up discussions regarding administration of that from a local authority perspective, in considering amendments ahead of stage 2.

I appreciate the point that has been made by local government colleagues about ensuring maximum flexibility, but we all recognise that we want a system that commands the full confidence of business, through ensuring that operation of the system is as straightforward and streamlined as it can be while allowing local autonomy so that, ultimately, the revenues that are raised can be reinvested in the way that is most impactful and that gets the biggest return on investment for the visitor economy.

That question is absolutely fair and reasonable. In response, I say that there could be a temptation to get into a prescriptive list of what is in or out of scope, which would clearly be counter to the bill’s intention, which is about fiscal empowerment of local government, so that it can determine how the revenue is spent in a way that is consistent with legislation.

I would not want to prejudge what those who are involved in the visitor economy in an area might regard as priorities for their area. I recognise the concern that you express, which is that the legislation could be interpreted too liberally and the revenue could be used in a way that was felt to be not consistent with the bill’s principle of supporting the visitor economy. That is why we have a provision that requires consultation.

If a local authority seeks to introduce a visitor levy, it will have to set out a scheme that is consistent with the objectives. It will have to consult businesses and the community to capture all the various parties and interests. The local authority will have to set out what it believes the impact will be and it will have to report on that. That will ensure transparency and clarity.

Ultimately, such decisions will be taken by elected members who are democratically accountable to their electorates. If there are concerns about the wording, I will be more than happy to have conversations about that.

However, I do not want to get into ministers devising prescriptive lists of what is within and outwith scope. As well as undermining local autonomy and accountability, which are at the heart of the new deal with local government and what the bill seeks to do on fiscal empowerment, that could have unintended consequences. It is not for me to say what the priority is for stakeholders in the visitor economy in one part of the country; I recognise that that can differ.

It is fair to ask the question. If there are concerns about wording, I am more than happy to explore them further in order to ensure that we get the bill right and that it commands confidence.

I imagine that there will be a desire from local authorities that choose to take forward a visitor levy to learn from what other authorities do. That might particularly apply to neighbouring authorities or to those whose visitor economies share particular characteristics.

It is important to note that the reporting structure that we have set out in the legislation is a locally administered power and is for local authorities to determine. The visitor economy in Edinburgh will be different from that in parts of the Highlands. The structure allows for local evaluation of the effectiveness of the visitor levy.

The requirement for transparency—which will include separate accounting, reporting on consultation and a review—will ensure fair and thorough evaluation of how the scheme is operating. That information will be transparent and will be available to all who want to engage with or consult it or who want to use it as the basis for their engagement with a local authority on the visitor levy.

That would be a matter for COSLA and for local government. I am sure that there will be a recognition that we can all learn from each other and that any local authorities that are considering introducing a visitor levy will be keen to understand the experiences of other authorities that may already have introduced one.

It is for Parliament to determine its interests, but I can imagine it responding to the aggregate feedback about how the administrative framework provided for by the legislation is operating and, in the medium to longer term, considering the broader impact on Scotland’s visitor economy. Those will be matters for Parliament to determine. Subject to the legislation passed by Parliament, the Government, as part of the new deal with local government, will continue engaging closely on those matters and other shared priorities.

I am very grateful for the extensive work that the committee has undertaken on this matter and I say with all sincerity that I am very keen to understand the committee’s views in response to some of those questions. My absolute priority is to ensure that we get this right. The levy could be a real force for good for the visitor economy in the parts of Scotland that choose to introduce it. The key to achieving that will be to continue working closely in partnership with local government, business and Parliament.

In meeting our commitment to ensuring that the freeze is fully funded, we will engage constructively with local government to determine what the quantum should be. That process will be on-going and decisions on the broader fiscal settlement will be taken as part of the budget process, with the budget statement being made to the Parliament next month.

We know that the council tax in Scotland is significantly lower than it is in England, for example. The freeze ultimately means that money stays in people’s pockets and they can use it to meet other costs that fall upon them. It is money that they have at their disposal to spend in their local communities in support of local businesses.

We recognise the views that have been expressed on the need to look at longer-term meaningful changes to the council tax system itself, but the freeze will, as I have said and as has been acknowledged, provide certainty in responding to the acute pressure that so many are facing in the cost of living crisis. As for determining the quantum of meeting the freeze, that work will be undertaken through negotiation and engagement with COSLA.

As I have said, we recognise that local authorities have, in previous years, set different rates of council tax, and they will have made their own planning assumptions ahead of the next financial year. That is why the process of negotiation and engagement is very important, because, through that, we will arrive at a quantum that will be fairly representative of what is required to meet the council tax freeze. We are very much committed to working in that space closely and collaboratively to identify an appropriate quantum and, through that, to achieve the outcome of a freeze for all households across Scotland.

I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the negotiations. We are entering the process with a commitment to working and engaging closely and collaboratively to identify that figure. We will have those discussions with our local government colleagues to ensure that we meet the requirement for the freeze to be fully funded.

As you have touched on, a range of planning assumptions will have underpinned decisions by local authorities on where they might want to go with the council tax. We will allow for that opportunity for negotiation and engagement to take place, as that approach will ultimately inform how we arrive at a fair and representative quantum to deliver the council tax freeze.

We are embarking on that process. As I indicated earlier, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister met and engaged with COSLA following the announcement on the council tax freeze.