Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very true. I am aware of a lot of small initiatives that need tremendous support.

Mark Griffin indicated an interest in asking about net zero. I think that this would be a good time for him to come in, as Iain Gulland has started to talk about that.

You have certainly made a good point about the need to change our materialistic direction of travel. Tackling that will be very challenging for us, especially when everybody is looking at their screens and being told what they need next in their lives to make them brilliant.

Mark Griffin has another question.

I thank Stephanie Callaghan for bringing up that example.

I will bring in Linda Somerville then Iain Gulland, then we will have to wrap up this incredible conversation.

Thanks very much for coming in to talk to us today. The evidence so far has been very interesting.

I would like to understand a bit more about what happens during a day at the track. When you go there, how many races take place?

I hear your passion for what you do, but do you feel satisfied with the dogs under your care, which you clearly love, being exposed to fatalities and injuries?

Thanks for that. You said that there could be 12 races at Newcastle and fewer at Thornton. I will pick up on Elena Whitham’s question and your replies about experiences with the vet. In the course of a race day, how many injuries might you see? Have you ever seen a fatality in a race?

I will speak to Liam McArthur’s amendments 1 and 2. I appreciate that he has recognised that those amendments are not the basis for how such provisions might be framed in law.

Greens strongly support a cruise ship levy and we welcome the minister’s reassurance that that proposal will be fully developed.

We recognise that the number of motorhomes and camper vans—and, in some cases, the way that they park up overnight—can cause problems in rural areas. The Scottish Government should explore and be open to workable solutions. However, simply adding motorhomes to the bill is not workable, for a number of reasons.

First, if cost is a deciding factor in whether a motorhome or camper van user chooses whether to use a designated site, that is already there in the commercial site charge, so any visitor levy based on a percentage of that charge would not make a decisive difference.

The more general issue with any motorhome or camper van charge is how to implement it. Charging at the point of hire will cover only hire vehicles, not those that are driven by their owners. If a van is hired in Paisley, for example, the income would then go to Renfrewshire Council, although that vehicle might travel through Scotland and stop off in other areas, some of which might have a visitor levy while others might not. The use of number-plate recognition has been suggested, but, given the many thousands of places where a motorhome or camper van might stop, how would that be done and at what cost?

The visitor levy is long awaited, but the Greens are concerned about adding elements to it that do not yet have a clear route towards implementation.

I call Miles Briggs to wind up and press or seek to withdraw amendment 50.

The next item on our agenda is consideration of two instruments that are subject to negative procedure. There is no requirement for the committee to make any recommendations on such instruments.

No member has indicated that they wish to comment.

Does the committee agree that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

I see that no other members wish to speak to the amendments in this group, but I will speak to Sarah Boyack’s amendments.

With regard to amendment 21, on “leisure purposes”, Scottish Greens believe that the bill should, as part of its purpose, give councils scope to use the revenue for a range of purposes. One such example, which we strongly support, is housing. There is a significant connection between the visitor economy and the housing sector—for example, in the provision of accommodation for visitors that does not reduce access to housing for residents, and in recognising that the visitor economy itself requires accommodation for the many staff who work within it. The supply of affordable housing is already a foundation of a thriving visitor economy, which is why we strongly welcome the minister’s assurance that investment for housing and regeneration purposes is a legitimate use of revenue.

On amendment 20, which seeks to remove the word “substantially”, I am concerned that it would do the opposite of what is intended in terms of reducing complexity, and that it could narrow the scope of how the revenue could be used.

On amendment 22, on the consultation period, Scottish Greens have pushed for a visitor levy for many years and are proud to be in a Government that is finally making it happen. Although we understand the appetite to reduce the lead time as much as possible, we accept that the choice of 18 months finds a middle way. If the passage of the bill stays to time and councils are ready with their consultation processes, visitor levy schemes could be in operation as soon as spring 2026.

I ask Sarah Boyack to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 20.