Official Report 514KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-21103, in the name of Ivan McKee, on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.
Before we move to the debate, I call Shona Robison to signify Crown consent to the bill.
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of standing orders, I advise the Parliament that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:58
I am delighted to begin the final stage of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill with this debate at stage 3. Although this has been an expedited process, Parliament has applied the same level of rigour and scrutiny as it does to any other major piece of legislation.
Before turning to the substance of what the technical bill will provide, I will offer some thanks. I recognise the constructive approach that has been taken across the chamber in ensuring that the bill is robust and ready for implementation. I thank members who have given their attention to the detail in scrutinising the bill and, in particular, the members of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, all of whom have provided their insight, advice and time to ensure that the bill is able to deliver the improvements that are needed.
I also extend thanks to all the key stakeholders who gave evidence to the committees and who worked with the Scottish Government to help to shape the contents of the bill, the regulations and the updated guidance that will follow.
I acknowledge all those who have previously contributed to the development of Scotland’s visitor levy, including my colleague Tom Arthur, who took through the original bill. Their work has helped to build the foundation that this bill strengthens.
I thank everyone who will help to deliver this legislation in practice, from local authorities that choose to implement a scheme; to accommodation providers who will make returns; to the wider tourism industry with other key roles, such as providing third-party sales of accommodation; and VisitScotland, which will develop the guidance. They will all help to change how we support and invest in our tourism sector in Scotland, to ensure that visitors have a positive experience as they share our culture, landscape and hospitality. Finally, I thank the officials who worked at pace on the bill to ensure that it was delivered in time and very successfully.
On that note, I would like to highlight some of what the strengthened framework in the bill will deliver. A key improvement in the bill is the introduction of an additional basis of charge. Local authorities will now be able to set a levy as a fixed amount or amounts. That new option is in addition to the existing percentage-rate model, giving councils the flexibility to choose the approach that best reflects their local visitor economy, particularly where accommodation prices are more consistent and a fixed amount of the levy might be simpler and more effective.
I congratulate the minister at least for introducing the bill, but would it not have been better, rather than having two options, if there was simply one option—a flat rate? Does the additional option not really amount to a bit of a capitulation to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities, and will it not result in lingering confusion about which charge will be applied?
Respectfully, I do not agree with Fergus Ewing’s comments. It was important that all stakeholders, the business community and local authorities were involved in the process and that there was flexibility to design a bill that meets local circumstances. The bill is very strong on the consultation that local authorities will have to carry out, and I am absolutely sure that local businesses and business representative organisations in any local authority that is considering introducing a visitor levy will engage effectively and thoroughly with the relevant local authority to get a levy that suits local businesses.
The bill also clarifies how the levy will apply when accommodation is sold through booking platforms or tour operators. In those cases, the levy will be calculated on the price at first sale, which gives accommodation providers certainty about the amount due and avoids any confusion when bookings involve third parties. As I mentioned at the start of the debate, this is a technical bill, and one key measure ensures that a levy return for a given period will set out the levy payable for overnight stays that take place within the period in question instead of the date at which the overnight stay was booked.
However, the bill does much more, and I want to highlight a few amendments that have resulted from the rigorous process that the bill went through, the co-development that took place with key stakeholders and, as I mentioned, the input from members across the chamber. At stage 2, we added provisions so that, once regulations are in place, accommodation providers will be able to amend submitted returns to correct errors. I was also pleased at stage 2 to accept an amendment lodged by Tim Eagle, which will require ministers, in carrying out the three-year review of the operation of the act, to assess the impact of visitor levy schemes on businesses, communities and tourism in rural areas.
Last week, during our first stage 3 proceedings, amendments were agreed that mean that the bill will now give local authorities the option to allow accommodation providers to deduct and retain a proportion of the levy to help to meet reasonable administration costs. During those stage 3 proceedings, Stephen Kerr sought an amendment that would require local authority annual reports to include an assessment of the impact of the scheme on visitor numbers, length of visitor stay and the viability of tourism businesses. Although I resisted that amendment for various reasons, I gave the member an assurance that I would ask my officials to work with VisitScotland colleagues to consider how that detail could be brought out in the revised guidance. I am happy to give that assurance again today.
Throughout the process, our aim has been to provide a framework that is proportionate, clear and accessible. We want local authorities to be confident that their schemes reflect local economic assessments and that the language and guidance used will support high levels of understanding, compliance and trust. Therefore, I have also instructed my officials to begin working with VisitScotland to ensure that the statutory guidance is updated and revised to take account of the changes delivered by the bill and for that to be available to support the implementation across Scotland later this year.
I mentioned the importance that the Scottish Government places on engagement with key stakeholders who will deliver visitor levy schemes in practice, and I want to share with the chamber a contribution from Argyll and Bute Council, which responded to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s call for views.
The council’s evidence emphasised the need for decisions to be taken at the right level of government, and at the right time, to support best practice and avoid taking
“a ‘one size fits all’ approach”
that would not reflect the diverse needs of communities in both urban and rural areas.
The council said that the visitor levy
“ensures that funds raised locally can be reinvested directly in maintaining and improving visitor infrastructure”
and that
“decisions must be informed by clear and robust economic and destination management data”.
In ensuring that those decisions are right for our local economies, an important step in the process is local consultation to ensure that key stakeholders continue to engage effectively through co-design to meet the local needs that are being assessed.
The bill strengthens Scotland’s visitor levy framework so that, where local authorities choose to introduce a scheme, it is fair and workable and reflects local priorities; supports sustainable tourism; empowers local decision making; and ensures that the benefits of tourism are shared across communities. I commend the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call Murdo Fraser to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
16:05
The Scottish Conservatives very much welcome the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which corrects errors and misjudgments arising from the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 that the Parliament passed back in 2024. I thank the minister for his constructive engagement with me and other colleagues on the content of the bill and for all the work that he and civil servants did to get it through so quickly. That just shows what can be done. If the minister is back as a minister after the election, who knows what other matters might be dealt with very quickly if the political will to do so is there?
Although Scottish Conservatives welcome the changes in the bill, there are other changes that we believe could have been made to improve the legislation in this area, which we discussed when we were looking at amendments last week. I am sure that we will want to return to those in the future.
Let us put all that in a bit of context, because the visitor levy continues to be controversial. We have made the point on numerous occasions in the chamber that Scotland is already seen as a high-cost tourist destination. We have VAT on hospitality at 20 per cent, which is the second-highest rate in Europe. If we add a visitor levy on top of that, at anything between 5 per cent and 10 per cent, we push up costs even more. Many Scottish families already find it cheaper to fly overseas for a holiday rather than take a break here, and overseas visitors will be balancing the cost of visiting Scotland in comparison with that of visiting other European destinations. We need to be careful that we do not price ourselves out of the market.
I know that people will argue that in Edinburgh, during the festival, the place is buzzing and it can easily sustain a visitor levy, because demand outstrips supply. However, Edinburgh is not all of Scotland, and many parts of Scotland would love to have even a fraction of the visitors that Edinburgh has.
The key issue, though, is that it is up to every local authority to decide whether or not they want to use the legislation, and they have to go through thorough legislation to do so. Is that not critical?
Sarah Boyack is absolutely right about the practicalities of the legislation. However, the problem—as she will know—is that councils across the country are being squeezed for cash and are trying to find money anywhere they can to make up for the cuts that the Scottish National Party is delivering to them. It is no wonder that they are looking at visitor levies.
For example, last year, in my region, Perth and Kinross Council, with an SNP minority administration, ran a public consultation on the visitor levy. There was overwhelming public opposition to such a levy from across various sectors and classes of respondents, but the SNP minority administration is still thinking of going ahead with a levy—it has not ditched those plans.
To go back to the member’s previous point, other regions in Scotland need to recognise that, in rural communities and local authority areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, officers are promoting the idea of a visitor levy because they want the cash. They are not carrying out unbiased surveys—those surveys are directed at councillors to get them to agree to introduce a visitor levy.
I agree with that point from my friend Mr Carson—he is absolutely right. As he will have done, I have seen surveys that start by asking people, “How would you like to see this money spent in your community?” It is interesting, however, that, in so many consultations, even against that backdrop, people are coming back with a negative response. Even with that biased wording pointing in one direction, people realise that there are downsides to a visitor levy.
The bill that is before us makes a number of significant changes. It allows councils flexibility to introduce a flat fee—or tiered flat fee—visitor levy, rather than a percentage. When the original legislation was before us in 2024, we submitted amendments on having a flat fee, but the SNP and the Greens voted against them and Labour abstained. I am pleased that, following substantial pressure here in the Parliament and from the industry, the Government has finally accepted its error and the legislation will give councils greater flexibility. It is just a pity that the Government did not do that in the first place.
That change has been welcomed by industry representatives. For example, Marc Crothall of the Scottish Tourism Alliance has said that a flat fee
“would be much more transparent and easier to display to the guest”.
Fiona Campbell of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers has said that
“it is regrettable that … challenges were not addressed earlier and that the legislation was not … fit for purpose from the outset.”
The second problem identified, which the bill seeks to correct, is that booking platforms were not able to properly charge the visitor levy for guests staying more than five nights, so businesses had to process manual refunds for those staying for such periods. In October last year, David Weston of the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association said:
“We’re in a ridiculous and unacceptable situation … where hotels and B&Bs are forced to either break the law on the visitor levy or break the laws on price marking and price quoting, because they’re literally in the position where systems can’t do it.”
In May 2025, 78 representatives of the tourism and hospitality industry co-signed a letter to the Scottish Government demanding that such problems be sorted out.
We have the bill before us, which is welcome, but there are significant problems with the visitor levy, which we highlighted in our amendments at stages 2 and 3. Councils still have the power to charge it to people travelling within Scotland to stay overnight for medical appointments. As we heard from my colleague Tim Eagle during last week’s discussion on amendments at stage 3, City of Edinburgh Council has granted no exemption for travel from other parts of the country. Indeed, there is no incentive for it to do so, because the charges impact not on Edinburgh residents but on residents from other parts of Scotland, such as the Highlands and Islands. There is nothing that people from the Highlands and Islands or their councils can do about that. We should have had a more generous and extensive national exemption scheme to deal with such unfairness, and we should have considered whether low-cost affordable accommodation, such as in camping and caravan sites, should have been exempted.
The legislation that is likely to be passed today will not be the last word on the visitor levy. I hope that we will see further revisions in the future. In the meantime, I hope that councils will not see the levy as a means of making up for SNP cuts and will consider carefully the negative impact that such levies have on local economies. Every week, hospitality businesses are going to the wall due to rising costs, exacerbated by the current rates revaluation. The visitor levy should not sound the death knell of the Scottish hospitality and tourism sector. Scottish Conservatives will support the bill, but a lot more needs to be done to support our tourism sector.
16:13
Given that, as the minister says, this is a short technical bill, I will keep my remarks relatively brief, in the hope that any brevity on my part will allow more flexibility to members who might be making their final speech in the Parliament.
I thank the organisations and individuals whose evidence has been vital in shaping our understanding of this amended legislation. We will support the bill at stage 3, because we recognise that the legislation seeks to ensure that visitor levies are workable, transparent and responsive to the realities that Scotland’s tourism sector faces.
Today, we are considering whether the changes that the bill makes to the original legislation will improve its operation in practice. We are satisfied that the changes that are set out in the amended legislation will give greater flexibility to councils. The introduction of a flat-rate option reflects that simplicity and predictability are essential for businesses if the levy is to work effectively for them. That recognises the diversity of Scotland’s visitor economy. What works in Edinburgh might not work in the Highlands, for example. We have had a consistent position on the question of exemptions. We feel that decisions should sit with local authorities. A national approach risks undermining the very flexibility that the legislation is intended to provide.
Does Mr Griffin understand the point that I made a moment ago and that Mr Eagle made last week, which is that City of Edinburgh Council has no incentive to grant medical exemptions, because that would not impact its residents? People who travel to Edinburgh to use medical facilities come here from other parts of the country. Does he recognise that there is an inherent unfairness in people from the Highlands and Islands, for example, needing to pay a visitor levy in Edinburgh for something that does not impact Edinburgh residents?
I appreciate that that has an impact on those who travel. However, I have faith that councils will take humane decisions. What we are doing today is devolving power. We are not taking a national approach; we are giving the job to councillors and entrusting them to run schemes that are in keeping with the needs of their authorities. It is about time that the Parliament did that more rather than less.
Throughout the passage of the bill, we have been guided by the principle that councils should be trusted to design schemes that meet their local needs. We should not consider councils to be just administrators of central Government policy; they are elected with their own mandates to design schemes that fit their communities. The improvements in this amending legislation will bring about such increased flexibility, which I support.
I also note that the improvements that the bill will introduce were discussed at stage 2 of the original legislation’s passage. Although it is right that the Government has now acted, we should reflect on how we arrived at the point of needing amending legislation so soon after the original act was agreed to.
It is important that we remain clear about the purpose of the bill, which is to make the visitor levy work better in practice. The levy must not be considered to be a substitute for proper, sustainable funding for local government. For the reasons that I have given, Scottish Labour members will support the bill this evening, but we will do so with the clear expectation that its implementation will be handled with the clarity, engagement and competence that businesses, visitors and communities across Scotland deserve.
16:17
This amendment bill is, at its heart, a technical piece of legislation that will make what we put in place through the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 more workable on the ground. In particular, it will give councils greater flexibility by adding the option of a flat rate alongside the percentage model that is already available.
That matters, because Scotland is not one place. The pressures that are faced in central Edinburgh are not the same as those in Skye or in our smaller towns and rural communities. Local authorities need tools to respond to those differences, not a one-size-fits-all approach.
It is also worth recognising that these changes have come about through positive engagement. The Scottish Government has worked with industry to understand where the original legislation could be improved and how it could operate more effectively in practice. That kind of collaboration and co-design is welcome, because it has strengthened the approach to Scotland’s visitor levies. It was also good to hear positive feedback from stakeholders during stage 1 of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s evidence.
However, it is important to reflect on how we arrived at this point. There were opportunities for a more constructive approach during the passage of the original legislation. Instead, there was outright resistance from some quarters to the principle of a visitor levy altogether. The passage of the original legislation was a missed opportunity, because the pressures that led to the policy have not gone away—if anything, they have intensified. If we had started from a co-design approach in the first instance, perhaps we could have identified issues such as the third-party booking issue during the process of passing the 2024 act.
Across Scotland, many of our most cherished places are experiencing the strain of success. From the streets of Edinburgh to the communities in Skye and beyond, increased visitor numbers are putting pressure on local infrastructure. Roads are deteriorating under heavier use, particularly with the rise in car travel and camper vans. Public spaces, facilities and services are being stretched.
At the same time, we should be clear that Scotland remains an incredibly attractive place to visit, which is something to celebrate. Tourism brings jobs, supports local economies and connects people to our landscapes, culture and communities. However, it also brings costs, which are currently borne disproportionately by local communities and local authorities. That is where the visitor levy plays a vital role.
Until now, those offering accommodation—from hotels to short-term lets—have benefited from Scotland’s appeal without there being a direct mechanism to contribute to the upkeep of the very places that attract visitors in the first place. The levy begins to address that imbalance. It is not about deterring visitors; it is about sustaining the places that they come to experience. It allows authorities to reinvest in infrastructure, services and the quality of the visitor experience. By giving councils flexibility in how the levy is structured—whether as a percentage or a flat rate—the bill strengthens their ability to do that in a way that reflects local circumstances.
Ultimately, the bill is about fairness and sustainability. It is about fairness because it is reasonable to ask those who benefit from tourism to contribute to maintaining what makes Scotland special. It is about sustainability because, if we do not invest in our infrastructure and environments now, we risk undermining the very assets on which tourism depends.
The bill is a sensible step forward. It reflects learning and engagement, and it helps to ensure that the visitor levy can work as intended to support communities, protect places and sustain Scotland’s tourism offer for the long term. I look forward to seeing other tourist-type levies in the next session of Parliament, including the cruise ship levy and, potentially, a point-of-entry levy.
On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I am pleased to support the bill.
16:21
I commend Tim Eagle, who is having a gossip with Fergus Ewing at the back of the chamber, for resisting the temptation to add lots of bells and whistles to the bill. He was restrained. That was important because, when the minister came to us, he asked for an expedited process. He asked for our good will, because we knew that the parliamentary timetable was incredibly tight and that adding another bill into that mix could endanger other pieces of legislation.
I commend all the members who took part—the committee members and the various spokespeople—for keeping it tight. Of course, there was a debate about some elements, including the medical exemptions, which I agree with and which I will return to later. We managed to get through the bill at speed, which is what the industry wanted.
The industry has behaved incredibly professionally. Marc Crothall from the Scottish Tourism Alliance, as well as Fiona Campbell from the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, are professional advocates for their sector, and their sector should be proud of what they do for it. They have managed to elevate the sector to an industry that is respected for its economic contribution, as well as for its contribution to good employment.
The sector has been transformed in recent decades. It is now something that we can all be incredibly proud of, with great visitor attractions and high-standard accommodation and restaurants. The sector is a good one, which is due in part to the contribution and advocacy of Marc Crothall and Fiona Campbell.
This is a good bill. It is not just a technical bill—it is more than that. It will improve a piece of legislation that had a flaw: none of us in the chamber had identified the need to give local authorities the flexibility that they required to ensure that the levy, when applied, is easy to implement. We have now given local authorities that flexibility.
However, just because local authorities have flexibility and power does not mean that they have to use it. It is not a compulsory power; they can choose to implement it or not. I urge them to consider carefully the wider economic circumstances that we now face. We are all having to consider that. Of course we would like more money for public services, but we all must consider the damage that can be done to important sectors by constantly ramping up tax—the message that it sends about our belief in the sector and wider sectors in the economy. I urge caution on local authorities in using the power. The economy is struggling, as we have all seen, and any additional cost—particularly in comparison with other parts of the world—can act as a disincentive. Act with caution.
Secondly, if the powers are going to be used, make sure that the money that is accrued from the levy goes into tourism. I have heard scary stories about what some local authorities are planning to use that money for, and it does not sound like tourism to me. We need to ensure that the money is ring fenced for the direct benefit of the tourism sector, because we need to keep the confidence of that sector for the longer term if we are going to grow our relationship with it.
My final point is about the exemption for hospital and medical visits, which has been raised in particular by my colleagues from the Highlands and Islands, where there are long distances that require overnight stays. People making such visits should be given exemptions. Every council that implements the levy should—because they will have the power to do so—give exemptions. I hope that the minister makes it clearer to local authorities that, although they have flexibility and they have the choice, they should provide the medical visit exemption. He should encourage them to do so.
We will support the bill, because it is a good bill that improves the original one and because, although it will give local authorities the power to charge a levy, that does not mean that they have to use it.
We move to the open debate.
16:25
This will be my last speech in Parliament, Deputy Presiding Officer, so I hope that you will indulge me with an extra few words today.
Tourism is a key industry across Scotland. It is amazing to be able to welcome visitors and share our country and all that it has to offer, but high footfall has an impact on infrastructure. We need to ensure that tourism is sustainable. The visitor levy is an excellent opportunity to generate income that will only improve the experience for visitors and local people. The bill offers flexibility to ensure that the levy scheme works for local authorities. I am keen to see how it will be used in my Stirling constituency, which hosts Stirling castle, Loch Lomond and so much more. I ask members to please support the bill at stage 3 today.
My love affair with Stirling began immediately when my family moved to Doune in 2016—the welcoming people, the beautiful scenery and the atmosphere of the Trossachs. It was just stunning.
If someone had told my younger self, growing up in a poor housing estate in Ayr, that one day I would be an MSP during a worldwide pandemic, I would not have believed them. One teacher told me that I would amount to nothing, after asking me where I lived. However, my great-gran, Jane Brazier, who had been through wars, death and hardship, told me that I would make something of myself. I thank you, gran.
I have been blessed in my life to be surrounded by wonderful, supportive people—my mum, dad, Sanny, family and friends who are in the gallery today. I thank my husband, Ahsan, and my children, Emily, Benn, Marcus and Steven. I thank my political mentor, David Shearer, for his unwavering advice and good humour. I thank my party and its members for the opportunity to be here. I also do not forget the great teachers that I had who helped shape my love of life and politics: Mr Mulligan, Mr Johnson and Mr Mochan—Carol’s dad. Mainholm academy no longer exists, but it produced resilient pupils—thank you for believing in me.
After a 25-year housing career, I threw myself into the 2014 independence referendum. I felt alive having conversations about Scottish independence and, to be honest, I still do. That experience led me to be here today. I came into politics to help people, to listen to and see them, and to give them a voice. I strongly believe in equality for all. I know what it feels like to come from poverty, to be homeless and to feel that no one cares for you. I have loved that part of my role, and I would like to thank everyone who has come to me over the years. I hope that I did your cause justice. It has been a privilege to serve you.
I also thank my amazing staff team—Scott, Betty, Joanna, John, Mason and Olivia—and colleagues across the chamber. I say to future MSPs: please defend our right to a Scottish Parliament. We recently celebrated our 25th anniversary, and I very much hope that we will continue to celebrate our Parliament, our right to democracy and, eventually, our independence in the years to come. Thank you.
16:30
I congratulate the minister on having the gumption to do something that does not happen a great deal by introducing the bill with an expedited procedure. I think that it was me who, in speaking to a business motion—from memory, it was on 18 December—suggested that that procedure should be used. That was not because of any brilliance or foresight on my part; it was because Fiona Campbell had, through her research, worked out that an expedited bill appeared to be the appropriate vehicle. I congratulate the minister, because he took that up and he listened. He did the right thing by listening and, by implication, accepting that a mistake had been made. I guess that it could be said that it was made by us all, although I voted against the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill. However, the minister is due congratulations.
I will embarrass the minister now with all this praise in front of his colleagues, but he is known to be pro business, and that is a good thing. Sadly, he is an oasis of common sense amidst a desert of disdain and disinterest. I am afraid to say that that was evident in the passage of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill, but not only then; it was also evident during the passage of the short-term lets legislation and in the business rates fiasco, when it was proven beyond any doubt that the methodology that the Scottish assessors employed for calculating the rateable value of self-catering properties was nuts. That approach was rejected by England, and it was completely nuts. Incidentally, that matter remains unresolved, because the assessors have ignored the criticism. They are completely beyond accountability, as so many quangos are. Anyway, I praise the minister.
This will be my last speech—in this session of Parliament. If I may say so, I very much look forward to having the opportunity to continue to serve in the next session, which will make it seven sessions in a row. I say that seriously, because this session of Parliament has, by any standards, been one in which the tourism sector has not been dealt a fair hand of cards—and that is putting it very mildly. I was the tourism minister on two occasions, from 2011 to 2016 and then from 2020 to 2021. The latter time, I offered to do it—I told the then First Minister that I would—because, frankly, I thought that it would be an easy ride to the election. It is great fun working with people in tourism, because they are so optimistic. However, Covid happened two weeks later and I spent the rest of the time sitting in conference calls from 9 until 6. I never turned down any request for a meeting.
At that time, businesses were on their uppers. Businesses that were worth £10 million could not be sold for £100,000. People were absolutely at the end of their tethers. Some people died—I could name them, but that would not be appropriate. The overhanging debt from that is still being worked out and dealt with. Brexit took their staff away, Covid took their reserves away, and this session of Parliament has sapped their spirit and confidence. That is really dreadful. The minister is not responsible for that, but I am afraid that he is part of a Government that has dealt with tourism in that way.
I hope that there can be a fresh start and a fresh approach in which we value what is, after all, one of the most important industries—if not the most important industry—not just for the Highlands, but for many other parts of Scotland.
We now move to closing speeches.
16:34
Before I get to my points about the bill, I will say a few words about some of my colleagues who are speaking in the chamber for the final time. I came to know Evelyn Tweed as a member of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, specifically by observing her determination to ensure fairness in the approach that the Scottish Housing Regulator takes to all forms of social housing, especially community‑led housing. I learned a lot from her approach and the tenacity that she showed in that work.
I will also express gratitude to Sarah Boyack, who has been a consistent and constructive voice for climate action on the Labour benches. Again, I have learned from her approach and hope to bring what I have learned into session 7.
The debate on the bill has been constructive and important. Although this is an amending bill, it speaks to a much bigger question of how we properly resource local government in Scotland. The changes before us today—particularly the addition of a flat rate option—are sensible. They give councils more flexibility to design a visitor levy that works in their area, and they reflect engagement with the industry to make the policy more practical and deliverable.
However, we should see the bill in its wider context. For far too long, local authorities in Scotland have been asked to do more with less, and they have had limited powers to raise revenue locally. That has had real consequences for services, infrastructure and the resilience of our communities. The Scottish Greens have been clear that that needs to change. Through successive budgets and negotiations, we have pushed to expand the fiscal powers that are available to councils. That has included council tax reforms—new bands will be introduced in 2026-27 to make the system fairer and more progressive. We have also supported measures that represent a shift in approach, such as the visitor levy, and we recognise that local areas should be able to generate revenue in ways that reflect local pressures and opportunities. That is exactly what the bill supports.
The reality is that tourism brings both benefits and costs. Although it supports jobs and local economies, it also places demands on roads, waste services, public spaces and local infrastructure. Giving councils the ability to respond to those demands and to reinvest in their communities is not only reasonable but necessary. It is about moving away from a system in which local government is overly dependent on central funding and towards a more balanced, empowered and resilient model. The bill alone does not solve that challenge, but it is part of a broader direction of travel that signals that we trust local authorities and are willing to give them the tools that they need. Importantly, that has been done in a way that reflects what has been learned. The original legislation set the framework; this bill improves it and makes it more flexible, responsive and more likely to succeed in practice.
The bill is not only a technical amendment; it is another step towards a fairer and more sustainable system of local government finance—one in which communities are better supported, local decisions can be made locally, and the success of places, including their success as visitor destinations, helps them to sustain themselves into the future. Once again, I am pleased to support the bill on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
16:38
I hope that it is okay that I borrow a minute from my colleague.
In the run-up to the 2016 election, I worked on a member’s bill to introduce a transient visitor levy. I knew that it would make a difference in Edinburgh by helping to address the challenges and opportunities created by year‑round tourism, which puts pressure on culture, housing and local services. However, democracy kicked in and I did not get elected, so I was absolutely delighted to support the 2024 TVL, because it was urgently needed. However, as Mark Griffin commented, only two years later we are back here supporting another TVL bill to address issues that were not fixed in that bill.
Details matter, and I believe that we urgently need a new Scottish Government that is ready to fix the systemic issues that our country faces. In our national health service, we have overcrowded accident and emergency facilities, inadequate mental health support for children, which will impact their lives, and appalling waiting times for adults. One constituent I have been supporting has been told that it will be a decade before he gets the help that he urgently needs.
It has been a privilege to serve the constituents of Edinburgh Central and then the Lothians. That has included local campaigning on issues such as the Dalry baths and a new eye pavilion, as well as the current campaign to save Marionville fire station. I have been endlessly raising Edinburgh’s housing emergency, and I have been highlighting the systemic underfunding of NHS Lothian.
Referring to what Ariane Burgess said, I have also been campaigning on the need to urgently address our climate and nature emergencies and to create decent jobs and empower local communities at the same time. For me, being in here is about delivering change that will benefit my constituents. That is why I stood to get elected in 1999, for the first session of the Parliament. It was personal. My dad chaired the all-party campaign for a Scottish assembly for a decade in his spare time, and my granny was a Labour activist after the second world war. You can imagine the debates in our family—they never stopped.
If someone had told me that I would get elected in 1999, that I would be involved in the coalition negotiations and that I would then become a member of Donald Dewar’s Cabinet, I really would not have believed it. That taught me that constructive hard work and using the powers of our Parliament could deliver real change. For me, it was about investing in our railways—Airdrie to Bathgate, Larkhall to Milngavie and Stirling to Alloa, and supporting work on the Borders railway—as well as new CalMac ferries, improving island airports and tackling potholes. I had a £30 million fund. That would probably not sort out Edinburgh these days, and that was for the whole country. I introduced twenty’s plenty zones, investment in walking and cycling infrastructure and our first national planning framework. I set a target—which was quite radical at the time—of 20 per cent of electricity consumed coming from renewables.
I delivered legislation to establish our first national parks: Loch Lomond and the Trossachs and the Cairngorms. As a former town planner in Central Regional Council, I was hugely proud of that. My first debate in here was on Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, responding to Jackie Baillie’s members’ business debate. It is an issue that we have both been passionate about for decades.
It is harder to deliver change in opposition, but it is a matter of giving a voice to effective campaigning by constituents, such as on the eye pavilion. It can deliver, even if it takes years to get the result that we need.
I was very proud to amend housing legislation to support constituents who were attempting to make tenement repairs. It is now more straightforward for them to do that. In the next session, the Parliament will have to work out how to address community heat networks and the installing of solar panels, which are urgently needed on our tenements.
In 2009, I successfully amended the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill to include a requirement for all new homes to have whatever renewables were appropriate installed in order to make them more energy efficient. I thank the then Deputy First Minister for that—and members can work out afterwards who that is.
We are now at a point where we need to accelerate action to address our climate and nature emergencies. We urgently need to get our constituents and businesses the support that they require now. Great British Energy and the United Kingdom’s warm homes plan show the way forward, but the 400,000 homes and buildings in Scotland that are currently at risk from flooding do not need warm words; they urgently need action. People are calling out for transformative change—well-paid, decent jobs in every constituency across the country and community, council and co-operatively owned heat networks and power schemes.
It has been an honour to serve in this Parliament and to work with MSPs across the chamber. I have had a great team of staff throughout the years, and I thank them for all their hard work. I also thank all the activists and community members I have worked with and campaigned with. It has been a real privilege.
I call Stephen Kerr to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
16:43
First, I pay tribute to Sarah Boyack, who has just spoken. Her speech contained a long list of the very many initiatives with which she has been associated and that she has pushed as a member of the Parliament. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I wish to pay tribute to her service to our country, as a minister and as a member. I had not had the privilege of watching Sarah Boyack in action close up until I became a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. She has an impressive approach to policy, with her grasp of detail and her interest—indeed, her curiosity—in how things can come together to work for the betterment of the people of Scotland. I pay tribute to her.
Likewise, I am grateful to Evelyn Tweed for her service to the people of Stirling, which is her constituency. She and I have a shared passion for the people of the Stirling area. I am grateful for her service as a councillor on Stirling Council before she became a member of the Parliament. I know that she has always striven to do the very best that she can. She was right to pay tribute to her office, because she and her team have been a powerful source of good information during difficult times for the people of Stirling, particularly when we had dreadful weather last year—I think that it was last year; I cannot remember, as everything just meshes into one after a while. Anyway, her office did a fantastic job of communicating the latest information to the people of Stirling, so I pay tribute to her for her public service.
It has been an interesting debate. When it comes to such affairs, it is usual for there to be some liberal rewriting of history. That was not a dig at Willie Rennie, although I noticed that his obsession with bells and whistles has not been cured since his previous stage 3 speech, when he made repeated reference to them.
I join Willie Rennie in paying tribute to the way in which the bill process has been run. The only problem was when the stage 2 committee proceedings were postponed. For some bizarre reason, there had been a miscalculation of how many days or hours we had to wait until we could have a committee meeting. It was all a bit much: on the evening before, we were told that we would not hold the meeting and everything had to be rearranged at very short notice. However, that was the only hiccup in the whole process, and we have all practised maximum self-restraint in not lodging loads and loads of amendments.
Willie Rennie said that he has heard some scary stories about how the revenues from the levy might be used and how that seems to have very little to do with the sector that will have to collect the revenues. I agree with him, which is why, sadly, I disagree with Mark Griffin—I usually quite like to agree with him—over his resistance to putting in the bill some encouragement for exemptions for people attending hospital or other medical appointments who have to stay overnight in an area because it is absolutely necessary. I am disappointed that he could not see the sense in that. I am glad that other speakers, including Willie Rennie, saw that that would have been a good idea. I hope that the minister, in concluding the debate, will do exactly what has been suggested to him and will give strong encouragement to all our local authorities to create an exemption for those who are visiting an area because they have to be there to fulfil a medical appointment.
I am sorry to inject a note of controversy in what has otherwise been a most agreeable debate, but Ariane Burgess was not quite right when she said that some of us had made a mistake in opposing the very existence of a visitor levy. It is in the DNA of the Scottish Conservatives that we will never jump up and down with enthusiasm for new taxes of any description. It is clearly on the label of our party and in what we stand for that we are against that sort of thing; in the spirit of “Father Ted”, we would say, “Down with this sort of thing.” We want to reduce taxes and to have simpler taxes, fewer taxes and more effective taxes, so I do not agree with Ariane Burgess that we were wrong to take that approach.
The Conservatives and other members, including Fergus Ewing, who is sat at the back of the chamber, made the case that the bill that became the 2024 act was flawed. Fergus Ewing was right to encourage ministers to listen. Some of the best examples of good law making that we can possibly see are where the minister who is leading the process is open to listening to what members and, more widely, stakeholders are saying.
I thank the minister, Ivan McKee, who has brought some remedy to what was a flawed piece of legislation. He has brought post-legislative scrutiny to a new level of competence by introducing the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill in the way that we all encouraged him to. I congratulate him on that, and I appreciate the fact that Fergus Ewing is right when he says that the minister has a pro-business leaning.
I can see that I am out of time, so will conclude by saying that, although I do not resile from any of the amendments that I lodged, I was grateful that Mr McKee accepted one of them. The ultimate test of the visitor levy will be how it works in practice and I hope that we will be open to further review in future, because I am sure that there will be many opportunities for a positive critique.
I call the minister, Ivan McKee, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government.
16:50
I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions. It is important to identify the points of consensus, because we have secured considerable cross-party agreement on the bill and ought to be proud of that. I am also grateful to the members who have resisted what Willie Rennie called “the temptation to add … bells and whistles” to the bill, given the timeframe. That resistance has helped us to complete our scrutiny today, with a full day to spare in advance of the conclusion of this session of Parliament. When I have spoken to stakeholders about the bill in recent weeks, they have repeatedly highlighted how pleased they are to see politicians from across the chamber working together. Such consensus reflects Parliament at its best, with all parties coming together to deliver legislative improvements for local government and, importantly, for our vital tourism sector.
We have spent a considerable amount of time working to identify the right approach to supporting investment in our tourism sector, and it is important to recognise that comparatively small investments in visitor services can be transformational for communities and for visitor experiences, as we have seen with recent investments from the rural tourism infrastructure fund. In Orkney, there was £750,000 for visitor infrastructure in Dounby to help to deliver a visitor hub that serves the needs of both tourists and the local community, reducing pressure on key natural and cultural heritage sites and improving the visitor experience. In the Highlands, £250,000 was awarded to the Glencoe greenway, delivering a new traffic-free active travel route and creating a new path as well as upgrading an existing one. In Stirling, £230,000 was awarded to the Trossachs scenic viewpoint, delivering the final stage of a visitor management project that includes a high-quality landmark viewpoint at the busy Trossachs pier visitor hub. That is something that I am sure that Evelyn Tweed would recognise. I congratulate her on her session in Parliament. It has been a pleasure working with her, and I know that she is hugely committed to the Stirling area and is keen to see tourism there go from strength to strength because the area has tremendous attractions to offer. I wish her every success in whatever she decides to pursue in future.
It is those types of investment that the visitor levy revenue is intended to support, and having a visitor levy scheme in place will help to ensure that local authorities can fund future projects that will boost visitor services without diverting resources from local communities.
We heard a final speech today from Sarah Boyack. Members may not know that I first met Sarah way back in the 1980s when we were both involved in student politics. It was long ago—a different world and a different time—so it was great to see her in Parliament when she was re-elected. The list of her achievements across a wide range of policy areas is long and impressive, and likewise I wish her every success in the future.
I thank Fergus Ewing for his compliments, but I must very strongly tell him that the SNP Government is firmly pro business. That is true of the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, the Deputy First Minister, all Cabinet ministers and all members of the party, who absolutely recognise the critical role that business plays in building a strong economy for Scotland, which is the key to a successful future.
I very much agree with Willie Rennie’s comments about the leadership of the tourism industry, which is critical not only because of the revenue and economic activity that the industry generates but because of the opportunities that it presents to communities across the whole country—few sectors can match that geographical reach. It also presents a hugely important front window for Scotland internationally. I have no doubt that it is a key element in our continued success in attracting inward investment across all sectors, given our leadership role in that metric. The tourism sector has a huge role to play in presenting Scotland internationally in the most favourable light.
I recognise the comments from Willie Rennie and many other members across the chamber on medical exemptions. There has been a balance, with many members recognising that it is for local authorities to decide how to apply exemptions and that we should seek to devolve that responsibility as much as possible. However, with that responsibility comes an obligation to recognise many of the issues that members have raised. I give an undertaking that officials will work with VisitScotland to include references to medical exemptions in the guidance that will be produced for councils to support implementation of the bill.
I urge the minister to be just a little bit clearer and more direct to local authorities. We need to have medical exemptions across the board. I know that it is up to local authorities, but can he just give them a little bit more so that they fully understand the importance of that?
As I have said on the record, with the responsibility that we have delegated to councils comes an obligation on them to take the matter very seriously and recognise the points that have been made in the chamber this afternoon. Local authorities should seriously consider how they will approach exemptions from the visitor levy for those who, through no fault of their own, have to travel to other parts of the country for medical treatment.
The bill responds directly to what local authorities and industry have asked for. It provides the clarity, consistency and confidence that they need on how visitor levy schemes will operate. I thank members again for their contributions and commend the motion to Parliament.
That concludes the debate on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.