Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is clearly a point at which that becomes an issue, but we would not expect it to be an issue at lower levels. This year was a bit specific, if I can put it that way, in how the process worked out. The UK Government consulted on landfill tax and had produced proposals for combining the two rates over a number of years. Under those proposals, the lower rate would have increased substantially over a number of years to eventually match the higher rate.

When the UK Government published its budget, which was quite late on, as you know, it did not go ahead with that proposal; it reversed its decision. Instead, it decided to increase the lower rate by more than 100 per cent from what it had been in the previous year. Clearly, that gave us not very much time to reflect on what the UK Government had initially proposed to do, which is what we thought it would have done in its budget, and on what it decided to do, which was to make what was still a significant increase.

Given the number of moving parts at that stage, we decided that it made sense to see what the levels looked like this year, with a view to making some considerations in relation to the direction of travel of the UK rates when deciding what to do for next year.

It is not that we are not listening to what you are saying, but the way that the UK Government moved on the matter made it difficult for us to make a sensible assessment of the impact of any changes.

If the UK Government had been on the trajectory that it had initially proposed, which was to match the two rates over a short number of years, there would have been significant increases in the UK rate, far in excess of the changes before us. For us to have put our rates up by even more than that would have required serious consideration. The fact of the UK Government being on that trajectory would have meant that the gain in the Scottish context would have been minimal.

The fact that the UK Government changed to a different mechanism at the last minute, which we had not expected, meant that we could potentially have put something on to that rate. We considered whether it was worth doing that but, given that it was going up by more than £4—that the UK Government was implementing a scale of increase of more than 100 per cent—we thought that, on balance, it made sense to wait and see how that settled out before we made any other changes.

Including this. We are obviously keen to get earlier sight of any changes that the UK Government makes in this regard. It will go through quite a tight process in what it is announcing in its budget process—or at least we would expect that. Given the indications that something different was going to happen, we had not anticipated the change to the model that we are now considering in the budget process.

I will be happy to engage with Stephen Kerr to discuss how the concerns that he has raised through his amendments could be considered in guidance.

I undertake to engage with Mr Kerr in advance of stage 3 to see whether there is any way to satisfy his concerns in this area.

I will come on to talk about the substantive point after I have finished my previous point.

Advance notice of revocation gives accommodation providers and local authorities time to adjust their processes to deal with these matters in an orderly way.

Section 12 of the 2024 act already confers powers on a local authority to modify or revoke its visitor levy scheme. Section 13(4) of the 2024 act also provides that, before revoking a scheme, the authority must “publicise the proposed revocation”. Amendment 19 appears to bypass that requirement.

To answer Mr Kerr’s question, I do not think that amendment 19 is required, for two reasons. The first is its severity, if you want to call it that, and the second is that, under existing legislation, local authorities already have the power to make a decision to exit a scheme and to do so in a way that enables all the matters that I mentioned to be dealt with.

On that point, it is important to clarify that section 21 of the 2024 act already provides for three-yearly reviews of the operation of the scheme and that the authority must provide a report of its findings. There is plenty of scope for authorities to review the scheme and come to a conclusion that they do not want to take the scheme forward if that is what they choose to do.

Amendments 20 to 22 would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations to impose national exemptions in relation to visitor levies that would otherwise be payable under visitor levy schemes introduced by local authorities. Local authorities are already able to provide for local exemptions, and the bill seeks to give local authorities flexibility to set levies that best suit the needs of their areas.

Consideration would need to be given to how proposals for national exemptions might work in practice and what impact they might have before all local authorities could be required to apply them. Although ministers would have a duty to consult before imposing any such national exemptions, the amendments would require certain exemptions to be imposed regardless of any consultation.

Amendments 20 to 22 would also remove the flexibility that would otherwise exist to give exemptions via reimbursement. In addition, they would place additional burdens on accommodation providers to check whether any such exemption applied. That would include checking relevant criteria, such as age or ordinary residence, at the time of booking. For example, amendment 20 would require accommodation providers to determine whether the accommodation provided was a single-room bed and breakfast and whether it formed part of the provider’s principal residence.

The 2024 act allows ministers to create national exemptions, and we are happy to consider proposals for such exemptions if there is a clear need for them and if they would not impose undue burdens. In my view, exemptions of the kind sought by amendments 20 to 22 are best left to local authorities. We should allow them to reflect local needs in local schemes. I therefore ask committee members to reject amendments 20 to 22.

Amendment 28 seeks to modify the meaning of overnight accommodation in the 2024 act so that it includes a room or area provided to a visitor for residential purposes in or at

“sites operated by a local authority”.

In the 2024 act, “overnight accommodation” already includes any

“room or area provided to a visitor for residential purposes in or at”

any place at which it

“is offered by the occupier for residential purposes otherwise than as a visitor’s only or usual place of residence.”

It is therefore not clear what amendment 28 would add, as any room or area that is provided to a visitor for residential purposes in or at any such place will be overnight accommodation, provided that it is not to be used as a visitor’s only or usual place of residence and provided that it is not excluded by section 4(3) of the 2024 act.

I therefore ask Tim Eagle not to press amendment 28, and if it is pressed, I ask committee members to reject it.

I will come on to cover the point that the member raises later in my remarks.

Amendment 12 refers to a standard that mixes subjective and objective criteria by referring to the levy worsening the “disadvantage felt”. How any authority would be in a position to judge or measure whether a levy would worsen the “disadvantage felt”, and on what basis that could be assessed, is not clear. The amendment is silent on those matters, which would make it more challenging, if not impossible, to comply with its requirements in practice.

In response to the points that the member raised in his intervention, there are already legal duties to carry out island community impact assessments. Section 13 of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 requires an authority to

“prepare and publicise … an assessment of the impacts of the proposal in the authority’s area,”

and the authority will need to take those impacts into account when deciding whether to proceed with a visitor levy scheme, when deciding on its geographical coverage and in designing different amounts or rates of levy and local exemptions.

For those reasons, I do not support amendment 12.