Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an excellent question. I appreciate that that is one of the key issues that has emerged from the committee’s deliberations. Certainly, it has been raised consistently with me and my officials in our engagement with accommodation providers. As a starting principle, I hope that we can all agree that there should probably be uniformity—there should be either a flat rate or a percentage fee. Accommodation providers may well look for consistency. If we are going to have a percentage rate, then that is what should be in the bill and should be applicable across all local authorities that are seeking to use the power. Conversely, the same applies to a flat rate.

I recognise that there are strong views in support of both arguments. Clearly, a percentage rate would allow for a more proportionate and progressive approach. It would recognise that, for example, someone who is staying in a suite in a five-star hotel would be subject to a different rate than someone who is staying in budget accommodation. I am conscious that that will be a key concern. However, I also recognise questions that the industry has raised about the compliance and administrative burden that that approach would entail. I appreciate that the options for a flat rate range from a single flat rate to a tiered structure. With a tiered structure, we would potentially start to add in additional complexity, which a flat rate, rather than a percentage rate, would be seeking to remove. I think that it is important to consider the matter in detail.

I am very open to having these discussions. I am keen, on this issue and a number of others, to understand the view that the committee has formed when it publishes its stage 1 report. I am open to looking at amendments to change to a flat rate, but that would require further detailed consideration and engagement with industry. I am also happy to follow up with the committee on the matter ahead of stage 2.

There are strong arguments either way. I recognise that industry has a strong view and that local authorities have a mix of views. As I have said, I want to ensure that we can have a system in which the levy that is applied is fair and progressive and that, equally, is efficient and straightforward to administer, and does not impose undue burdens of compliance, particularly on smaller operators.

There are a number of flexibilities around how a scheme can be developed. For example, there are flexibilities relating to particular areas in the local authority and to the timescales in which the levy applies. Those flexibilities can be applied to address a range of aspects of how a levy should be administered and applied in a local area. There are flexibilities that local authorities could deploy in response to some of those considerations, but it would be for local authorities to take into account the circumstances of businesses that are trading just below the VAT threshold. I recognise that that is a consideration that many businesses, particularly small businesses and microbusinesses, have to take into account.

I reiterate the importance of consultation and engagement and of local authorities being able to set out their understanding of the impact of introducing a levy, and how crucial all that is to ensuring that this sort of thing is taken into account.

We are seeking to achieve a council tax freeze through partnership and engagement with local government, and the proposal is based on a shared recognition of the point that I touched on earlier about its meaningful impact on households across Scotland. The approach that we are taking is one of on-going negotiation and engagement. As I have said, it is through that process of partnership working with local authorities that we will seek to achieve and—I am confident—deliver the council tax freeze.

As I said in response to Mr Briggs, in the spirit of partnership with local government we will follow a process of careful and considered engagement to determine what the quantum will be, and I do not want to pre-empt that. As for the resourcing of this particular quantum, such decisions will be taken as part of the budget process, and the Deputy First Minister will set out the budget to Parliament in a statement next month.

As I have said, we will arrive at a position through the engagement and consideration that we have committed to having with COSLA. For me to seek to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions at committee would not be consistent with the commitment that we have made and intend to fulfil. We will have those discussions and that engagement in a spirit of partnership with local government. Through that process, we will seek to arrive at a quantum that is commensurate with the commitment to fully fund the council tax freeze.

I very much recognise the views and appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by you, Ms Gosal, and by colleagues in local government. We are committed to ensuring that the council tax freeze is delivered in partnership with local government. Engagements are already starting to take place. As I mentioned previously, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have both met COSLA specifically to discuss the matter.

As I touched on in an earlier answer, the Verity house agreement on a new deal with local government is significant and wide ranging. For example, on fiscal matters, early engagement in discussions around the budget is taking place.

There is a shared recognition that the agreement presents a tremendous opportunity to advance our shared agenda and our shared priorities with regard to ensuring that we have sustainable public services, that we tackle net zero and that there is a fair and just transition to a net zero economy.

I recognise the views and concerns that have been expressed. I am confident that there is a shared ambition to deliver on the vision and the priorities set out in the Verity house agreement, and we are certainly committed to taking it forward in that spirit.

The question is interesting because we can see that broadening the definition could involve a tension. Another request is that the definition be narrowed. I am not saying that we have necessarily nailed it and got into the Goldilocks zone, where the definition is perfect, but we have got pretty close to it. I reiterate the commitment to engage further with industry and local government on the wording.

The point about business visitors is important. Given that Scotland has such a strong events sector, we must be cognisant of that.

The requirement is in the bill because the policy intent that has developed over a number of years is that the levy is to generate revenue specifically for the visitor economy, as opposed to being a general revenue-raising tool. If it was to move to be a general revenue-raising tool, we would have to recognise that there is significant variation in the size of the visitor economies in the different parts of Scotland, which means different economic impacts. A visitor levy being applied in such a context would create significantly different and varying revenue-generating opportunities. A general power of that sort would understandably invite questions around equity and fairness and about how it would play into the overall local government funding formula.

That is not what the proposed legislation is about, however; it is about creating a discretionary power for local authorities, which can raise revenue from the visitor economy to support investment in the visitor economy with, I hope, the ambition of increasing the offering and ensuring that we have a sustainable future for our tourism sector by enhancing the world-class offering that we already provide.

As I have stated, I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the discussions and negotiations that we have committed to having with local government. It is through that process that we will arrive at a quantum that will fully fund the council tax freeze. For me to seek to pre-empt that would be to disrespect that process.

That is why we require negotiation.

To understand what planning assumptions local authorities have made is one reason why we have committed to the process of negotiation. Through that, we will arrive at a quantum which meets the commitment to fully fund the council tax freeze. I can appreciate the line of questioning that you are pursuing, Mr Griffin; it is perfectly fair and valid to seek to interrogate me, as a minister, on that. However, having given that commitment to a council tax freeze that is fully funded and delivered in partnership with COSLA, it is important that that process of negotiation and consideration is allowed to take place.