Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

During the stage 1 evidence sessions, stakeholders and committee members expressed concern about the potential for the same overnight stay to be subject to more than one visitor levy, for example where an authority chose to introduce multiple, but overlapping, visitor levy schemes.

Amendment 9 in my name responds to those concerns. The effect of the amendment will be that only one visitor levy can be applied to a single overnight stay in particular accommodation on a particular night. That removes the risk that the committee identified. I therefore ask committee members to agree to the amendment.

I move amendment 9.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 10—Commencement

Amendment 11 moved—[Ivan McKee]—and agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

As I have said, there is already a mechanism to enable that to happen, through the community impact assessments and through the work that the local authority would need to do by way of consultation, and with the scope that it has to consider different geographical areas in different ways. I am always open to having discussions with members in advance of stage 3, but, for the reasons that I have outlined, I do not think that there is a need to pursue amendment 12.

15:15

I now turn to amendments 23 to 27, in the name of Tim Eagle. I recognise his intention in raising these issues at committee. The amendments all seek to create new national exemptions, focusing on rural and island businesses or residents. Section 14 of the 2024 act permits local authorities to establish local exemptions where those meet the needs of the area. National exemptions should be introduced in a proportionate way to avoid unduly restricting the flexibility of authorities to design schemes that would best suit their local area. For example, a local authority may, if it wishes, design a local scheme that exempts local residents or those who are travelling for business or medical purposes. Local authorities can also introduce different schemes for different areas, and they may exclude rural areas if they wish.

In any event, the amendments all refer to rural areas

“where the population is less than 3,000 people.”

That is unworkable, as the extent of the rural area in question is not defined and cannot be determined. It would be possible to draw any rural area to have fewer than 3,000 people within it.

Amendment 25 would require that the purpose of the trip is not for tourism. That would most likely require the purpose of the booking to be established at the time that it is made. That may not be practicable for accommodation providers, and it would place an additional administrative requirement on them. It may also have implications for third-party transactions, where the final purpose of the trip will not be known at the point when the accommodation is first sold.

Amendment 27 refers to agritourism businesses. It is not clear what is meant here—there is no standard categorisation of agritourism, and the amendment does not provide a definition.

Taken together, those issues mean that amendments 23 to 27 are not workable and, in any event, would unduly restrain the flexibility of local authorities to design appropriate schemes for their areas. That is an important consideration. I therefore ask the member not to move the amendments. If they are moved, I would urge committee members to reject them.

Amendment 30 would add a requirement to the content of the Scottish ministers’ three-year review of the operation of the 2024 act. Section 75 of the act requires that the report must set out an assessment of the impact of a visitor levy scheme on business and communities. The amendment would also require those reports to include an assessment of the scheme’s

“impact … on tourism in rural areas of Scotland”.

I recognise the concern about the potential impact of the visitor levy on rural areas, and I am happy to support the amendment if it is moved, subject to lodging my own amendment at stage 3 to remove the redundant reference to Scotland, as the schemes apply only in areas of Scotland.

Finally, amendment 31 would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations

“to enable a local authority to modify or suspend the operation of a … scheme as it relates to island communities within”

an authority’s area. Section 13 of the act already provides a means by which an authority can modify a visitor levy scheme, including in so far as it relates to island communities, if and when it considers that to be appropriate. Such modifications could include removing island communities from a scheme where islands were part of the wider local authority area. No additional provision is needed to allow for such modification. I therefore ask committee members to reject amendment 31.

Amendment 4 responds to feedback from local government, industry and committee members on the implementation periods that may be applied to visitor levy schemes.

As you may recall, at stage 1, there was consensus on the general principle of reducing implementation periods, but there was no discussion on details as to what those implementation periods should be. I met representatives of industry and local government on 12 February to discuss the issue and seek proposals on what amendments could be made to support quick changes while balancing the need for effective and adequate preparation.

There was consensus on minimum implementation periods for rate or amount increases and for changes between levy bases. Amendment 4 therefore provides that such modifications will require a minimum of six months before they can be brought into effect.

There was less agreement on implementation periods for new schemes. Industry supported the existing 18-month minimum period, while local government considered that the period could be reduced to 12 months. Given those mixed views, I consider that the 18-month minimum period before new schemes can come into force should remain unchanged.

For those reasons, I ask committee members to agree to amendment 4.

I turn to amendment 13, which is in the name of Stephen Kerr. Although I fully recognise the importance of transparency and engagement with business, I do not consider this provision to be necessary or proportionate.

Local authorities are already under statutory duties to consult businesses, communities and other stakeholders before modifying a scheme. They are also expected to consider impacts carefully as part of decision-making processes. The amendment would duplicate those safeguards and impose an additional procedural requirement wherever a proposed increase exceeds the consumer prices index, regardless of the circumstances.

The CPI is not always an appropriate measure of the underlying costs of operating a scheme. In some cases, sector-specific or operational costs may rise more quickly than general inflation. It is therefore important that authorities retain the flexibility to respond to local funding pressures without being subject to an inflexible statutory trigger.

I turn to my amendments 6 and 11. The amendments are intended to avoid unnecessary duplication and delay for local authorities.

Where a local authority has already published and consulted on a draft scheme, the amendment makes it clear that it does not need to reconsult if scheme changes are required solely to reflect amendments made by the bill.

The bill already provides an exception where a scheme has been consulted and reported on, a decision to proceed has been published and the proposed start date of the scheme has been publicised. The amendments simply extend the same approach to schemes that are slightly earlier in the process.

As with the equivalent provision for existing schemes, the associated amendment would commence the new section automatically two months after royal assent. It recognises that councils should not be disadvantaged where they have already undertaken consultation.

Overall, the amendments support a consistent, proportionate approach and help to ensure timely implementation. They do not remove the requirement for local authorities to consult on new schemes. I ask members to reject amendment 13 and to agree to amendments 6 and 11.

I move amendment 4.