Scottish Parliament, 28 May 2024

289 contributions from 49 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Mark Bitel, co-clerk of the Central Edinburgh Quaker meeting.

Mark Bitel (Central Edinburgh Quaker Meeting)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, members of the Parliament and members of the public.

A while back, a young person whom I have been supporting to resettle back into the community asked me whether I could help him with a new tenancy agreement that he was seeking. He wanted my help as he had a dispute with his previous landlord. He asked me whether he could use my name as a referee—as a former landlord. Of course I wanted to help him, but he was asking me to say something that was not true. I explained that I would do all that I could to help him, but that I could not make a false statement, as that would conflict with my integrity. He became upset and could not understand what difference to my life that little untruth would make. However, to have told it would have diminished my spirit.

Wikipedia states:

“Integrity is the quality of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.”

Integrity in all things is one of the five fundamental Quaker testimonies, which have been at the heart of the Quaker movement for almost 400 years. Our world is increasingly being undermined by falling standards in honesty and integrity in many spheres of life, including fake news, which is multiplied many times by social media and is undermining trust in our public institutions.

All of that is set against the backdrop of the climate emergency and increasing inequality and polarisation. Many of those in power seem to act with impunity, disregarding evidence and scientific findings. In response, the Quaker truth and integrity group was set up as a national Quaker body in Britain, in 2022, to address a deeply felt concern about the state of truth and integrity in public life. We seek kinder ground: the ground of tolerance, respect and mutual co-operation.

The Quaker “Advices and Queries” asks us:

“If pressure is brought upon you to lower your standard of integrity, are you prepared to resist it? ... Do not let the desire to be sociable, or the fear of seeming peculiar, determine your decisions.”

We are often faced with situations in which we are asked to discern the path of integrity. May wisdom guide our paths.

Business Motions

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13384, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a timetable for consideration of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to consider the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill as follows—

Stage 3 on Thursday 30 May 2024.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Motion agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13389, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Wednesday 29 May 2024—

after

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care

insert

followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6)

delete

5.10 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.40 pm Decision Time

(b) Thursday 30 May 2024—

delete

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice

followed by Scottish Government Debate: A Vision for Health and Social Care in Scotland

and insert

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice

followed by Ministerial Statement: Industrial Relations in the Further Education Sector

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

4.30 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Liam Kerr to speak to and move amendment S6M-13389.1. You have up to five minutes.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I rise to request that, after the early finish this week, on Thursday 30 May, a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport regarding the imposition of a low-emission zone in Aberdeen from 1 June be inserted. I requested such a statement at the Parliamentary Bureau, but it was refused. I lodged a request for a topical question this afternoon, but I was not selected. I lodged a request for a question on the matter at First Minister’s questions on Thursday, but I was not selected.

The amendment is very much the last resort and, indeed, the last opportunity—hence, my request to Parliament today. The issue must be aired, because from this Saturday, a large area of central Aberdeen will be designated as a low-emission zone and non-compliant vehicles entering that area will be subject to a financial penalty.

Many people have argued that the extent and design of the scheme, and the area that it covers, must be rethought, and many suggest that it will discriminate against the likes of people of lesser means, the disabled and the unemployed. Many people suggest that, in the context of bus gates that were introduced in August 2023 having reportedly reduced city-centre footfall by around 0.5 million, businesses and the already struggling Union Street will be further hammered.

Perhaps most crucial, however, is that many people suggest that the data on which Aberdeen City Council based its decisions is years out of date. It fails to recognise that Aberdeen’s air quality has been below strict European standards for years, and it fails to account for the effects of far greater emitters that will not be ameliorated or impacted at all by the LEZ.

The reason why we need a statement on the matter is that Aberdeen City Council’s co-leader suggested that the Aberdeen LEZ is a direct imposition by the Scottish National Party Government and cannot be changed now. Last week, I was called to ask a supplementary question to another member’s portfolio question, and the transport secretary offered a different view. She said that

“flexibilities can be”

made

“depending on individual circumstances”,

and that

“it will be up to council leaders in”

those particular

“areas to decide for themselves what makes sense for their cities.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2024; c 48-49.]

That seems to be, to any observer, like a clear and unequivocal contradiction of the council’s position by the cabinet secretary.

Given the significance of the issue not only to Aberdeen but to many other cities in Scotland, it is imperative that the council be helped to understand that it does have flexibility and can rethink, if the data on emissions and necessity has changed. A statement from the cabinet secretary could clarify where the misunderstandings lie, what data should be used, what variation might be appropriate under the legislation and what the Government’s expectations of the council are in considering the likes of disabled people.

With an early finish on Thursday, MSPs will be in Parliament anyway and will no doubt be eager to hear that statement. Let me be clear: it must happen this week, before the imposition of the LEZ this Saturday.

I therefore ask Parliament to agree to the insertion of a statement on the Aberdeen LEZ by the transport secretary on Thursday at 4.30.

I move amendment S6M-13389.1, to leave out from third “delete” to end and insert:

“followed by Ministerial Statement: LEZ Implementation

after

5.00 pm Decision Time

insert

followed by Members’ Business”.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Jamie Hepburn to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. You have up to five minutes.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Mr Kerr for lodging his amendment. The matter was discussed at the bureau this morning, where there was no agreement to a statement—indeed, it was not particularly pushed for at the bureau.

I indicated at the bureau that I am receptive to the request for a statement; I have no significant concerns per se about there being a statement. However, despite Mr Kerr’s closing remarks, I am unconvinced of and unclear about the urgency or necessity for the statement being made this week.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Surely the minister must concede that, given that the zone will be imposed from Saturday, we have to hear the statement now, before the measures come in. Given that we will have an early finish, I presume that the minister will be comfortable with the statement happening this week.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I return to the point about the scheduling of business. Even Liam Kerr would accept that a statement this week will not change the fact of the coming of the LEZ. There will still be plenty of opportunity—indeed, there has been plenty of opportunity—for members to raise issues around low-emission zones. As he will know, or should know, the commitment to introducing low-emission zones stemmed from a 2017 programme for government commitment. That was seven years ago: there have been seven years in which to raise questions about such matters. The preparations for low-emission zones are very well advanced and have been going on for a number of years through national and local consultations and extensive national awareness-raising advertising campaigns.

Questions, such as on our support for small businesses and the impacts of the low-emission zone, have already been answered, and various questions have been put to ministers in the Parliament. The Scottish Government is providing £5 million for reopening of the low-emission zone support fund for next year. This is the fifth year in a row that the fund has supported low-income households and smaller businesses, with more than £13 million having been paid out since 2019.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take another quick intervention?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On the matter of footfall, the Glasgow LEZ has been in operation since June 2023, and the metrics from Glasgow Chamber of Commerce show that weekend footfall is at 100 per cent of pre-Covid figures, and that nighttime footfall is at 116 per cent of pre-Covid levels.

I will give way once more.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am genuinely grateful to the minister for giving way again, and I understand the point that he is making. The point that I am very clear on is that it appears that the council co-leader has misunderstood what is happening. That is why it is so important that clarity be given to Parliament and the city councils before LEZs go live.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The cabinet secretary cannot be held to account for the misunderstanding or otherwise of the leader of Aberdeen City Council. I do respect—

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the minister give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

One last time—very briefly.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I declare an interest, as I live within the LEZ.

We have a situation here in which we are seeing electioneering. Mr Kerr’s colleague, Councillor Lumsden—I am sorry; I mean Douglas Lumsden MSP, who is a former council co-leader—was ultra-supportive of the LEZ. What has changed in the time between his being co-leader and now?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Just as the cabinet secretary cannot be held to account for the council leader’s comments, I certainly cannot be held to account for Mr Lumsden’s comments.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention? He has to let me speak—I have been mentioned.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Mr Lumsden knows that I am normally very amenable, but I think that I have just a minute and 15 seconds left.

To continue with the point that I was making, I note that there are many means by which MSPs can scrutinise the activities of Government. I appreciate that Mr Kerr sought to raise a topical question and to lodge a question for First Minister’s question time. He will, of course, appreciate that it is not in my gift or that of the bureau to determine whether or not questions are accepted. Any points of concern can be raised during general question time, and they can be raised at transport portfolio questions, for instance, at which the Cabinet Secretary for Transport has already answered a number of questions relating to low-emission zones. Indeed, Mr Kerr made the point that he has had that opportunity.

I remain of the view that the case for a statement this week has not been made and that there is no particularly strong or compelling argument. On the point about there being an early finish on Thursday, the time is indicative, and we still do not know how many stage 3 amendments there will be for us to debate on Thursday, so it might be that we do not finish at the time that has been suggested.

I am more than amenable to facilitating a statement, and I said as much at the bureau. I would commit to dong that, so I urge Mr Kerr not to press his amendment: I will bring a proposal to next week’s meeting of the bureau to schedule such a statement.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment S6M-13389.1, in the name of Liam Kerr, which seeks to amend motion S6M-13389, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to the vote on amendment S6M-13389.1, in the name of Liam Kerr. Members should cast their votes now.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Colleagues should bear with us for a moment.

I am going to rerun the vote. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise; I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Gray. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 29, Against 62, Abstentions 18.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that motion S6M-13389, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Wednesday 29 May 2024—

after

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; NHS Recovery, Health and Social Care

insert

followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 1st Report, 2024 (Session 6)

delete

5.10 pm Decision Time

and insert

5.40 pm Decision Time

(b) Thursday 30 May 2024—

delete

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice

followed by Scottish Government Debate: A Vision for Health and Social Care in Scotland

and insert

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice

followed by Ministerial Statement: Industrial Relations in the Further Education Sector

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill

delete

5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert

4.30 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Topical Question Time

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Over the weekend, several news outlets reported that the Deputy First Minister had committed to a review of the new build heat standard, which bans direct emission heating in new-build homes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

You should put your published question, Ms Hamilton.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am sorry.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on plans to review the new build heat standard. (S6T-02015)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am pleased that the issue has come up as a topical question, as I was due to issue a Government-inspired question later today on the very topic. I have been listening to the concerns raised by communities and will be reviewing the regulations on wood-burning stoves and biomass boilers with the intention to adapt them to address the issues of inflexibility that have been raised. The outcome of the review will ensure resilience to interruptions of electricity and heating supply and respect for rural communities’ culture, traditions and sustainable systems. I want to ensure that climate-friendly alternatives to direct emissions are promoted in appropriate ways across Scotland, with no unintended consequences with regard to fuel poverty and sustainability, particularly in rural communities.

The review will be carried out in short order and it will be collaborative, including communities, businesses and local authorities, to ensure that it reflects all views. I am just as keen to work collaboratively with colleagues in Parliament.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Surprise, surprise—the Scottish National Party has done another screeching U-turn. Over the weekend, we heard from several news outlets that the Deputy First Minister had committed to a review of the new build heat standard, which bans direct emission heating in new-build homes. We heard it on the weekend, and now we hear it here because the minister was forced into it by answering my question.

My party has long demanded that those rules be changed. They are misguided, ill-formed and fail to understand the realities of rural life. Can the minister give us a timetable for when she will undertake the review, now that she has finally given in to Scottish Conservative demands to review the ban on wood burners?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

First, I thank Rachael Hamilton for early sight of her supplementary question. I cannot work out whether she is happy that I am reviewing the regulations or not. I cannot quite make up my mind on that. All I can say to her is that, when I got responsibility for this portfolio, it was obvious to me that issues were being brought up, particularly by rural communities. I am a rural MSP and I will always listen to rural communities. The review will look at previous consultation responses and evidence, at research, and at engagement notes including those that were received after the introduction of the new standard, and I will re-engage with the new build heat standard working group on it.

Ms Hamilton asked for an idea of when the review will happen. The earliest that we can possibly get the results of the review before Parliament will be after recess. That is how long it will take to do that engagement, including with my parliamentary colleagues. I will be able to advise Parliament of the exact timing of that soon.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank Kate Forbes for early sight of the minister’s announcement.

The Scottish stove industry is worth approximately £60 million annually and supports more than 2,000 jobs across Scotland. Last week, the Scottish Conservatives met 40 businesses and industry experts to hear about the impact of the ban. One company noted that, since the ban, it has seen its first month with zero installations. Another company echoed that, stating that, since 1 April 2024, it has had three stove installation inquiries, compared to 20 in the same period in 2023. That equates to around £100,000 in lost revenue, based on previous sales.

As we saw with the highly protected marine areas and the deposit return scheme, the Greens and the SNP find it all too easy to ignore rural businesses and communities. Can the minister confirm whether compensation will be afforded to those businesses that have lost out because of the SNP’s misguided approach?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I said, I always take the impacts on rural communities very seriously. However, I want to address something that Rachael Hamilton and her colleagues have said in public. There is no blanket ban on wood-burning stoves. The regulations are for new builds, and I am doing what a responsible minister and a responsible Government should be doing: looking at potential unintended consequences of what has been introduced.

I should point out to Ms Hamilton that the regulations went through the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, and every member of that committee voted in favour of them, including two Conservative members. No one raised any of the points that she has raised. However, I have been hearing from people in rural Scotland on the issue, including the organisations that have been mentioned, and I am committed to reviewing the regulations.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What consideration is the Scottish Government giving to the necessity in many communities of using solid fuel, which is due to the energy crisis and associated cost of living impacts that the deliberate policies of the Conservative Party have inflicted on our rural areas?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am glad that Emma Roddick has raised the issue of rural fuel poverty. Scotland suffered the highest level of fuel poverty anyway, even before the fuel crisis, so that is a very important point. We recognise that homes in rural communities can face additional challenges in decarbonising their properties, including the higher costs that are associated with that. That is why we provide a rural uplift for energy efficiency measures and clean heating systems as part of our generous funding offer. That is also why, in our recent consultation on proposals for a heat in buildings bill, we acknowledged the value of secondary and back-up heating systems to many existing rural homes. We did not propose that any future regulations prohibiting the use of polluting heat should apply to those secondary and back-up systems.

We will continue to support owners in rural areas to make the transition by ensuring that our approach to decarbonising buildings promotes fairness, feasibility and affordability, and is rural and island proof. However, it is true that many people were using gathered wood to boost the heat in their homes, particularly during the fuel crisis. Emergencies are not just power cuts for people in those situations.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Following the Conservative-led campaign with the industry, and ahead of my members’ business debate tomorrow, I am pleased that a review will be undertaken. However, it is only a review and not a full reversal of the ban, which is what we want. When the Scottish Government finally recognises its mistakes and listens to communities across the area that I represent and across rural Scotland and is forced to drop the proposals, will it commit to undertaking an economic analysis of the financial impact of the disastrous wood-burning stoves ban?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

No one is forcing me to do anything. I came into this post with that responsibility and have been concerned about the inflexibility in the regulations. I am doing exactly what Jamie Halcro Johnston accuses me of not doing: I am listening and reacting to the views of rural Scotland, which have been in my inbox since I took responsibility for this area, and reviewing the regulations.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister consider emergency fuel sources? Under the previous legislation, they were to be temporary and portable. I am sure that she knows that a wood-burning stove cannot be portable—it needs a chimney. Will she also take into consideration woodland crofts, which were created especially to ensure that there is a sustainable fuel source for those homes?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Everything that Rhoda Grant has just said has been in my mind. I am thinking particularly of householders who are building new builds where they want to put in a biomass boiler because they have a sustainable supply of wood for it. That has been brought to my attention, not least through the communication that I have had with Rhoda Grant. I am happy to work with the member to understand some of the reasons why there has been such a backlash from rural communities.

Not that many people are putting wood-burning stoves or biomass boilers into new builds—about 4 per cent of those with new builds have done so over the past 10 years. However, those who are doing so are doing it not thinking that they will be polluting but because they want to use a sustainable fuel and are mitigating some of the impacts of the lack of choice that they have in heating their homes.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The minister is well aware that the new build heat standard did not cover emergency and back-up systems, and that the building standards regime already includes flexibility, such as derogations if new housing developments have to be put in an area where they cannot be connected to the electricity grid and therefore cannot use clean heating systems. Is it not clear from the current situation that all we need is a little bit of lobbying from vested interests and a little bit of misinformation and the SNP will start unravelling even modest measures—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

—that have been put in place for good reasons?

Given that the cabinet secretary, who previously signed off the measure, was unwilling earlier today to commit to a timetable for introducing the heat in buildings bill to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, how much confidence can anyone have that the Scottish Government remains committed to that challenging agenda?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree with one part of what Mr Harvie said, in that there has been a lot of misinformation around the issue. That gives me the opportunity to state again that the regulations were never a ban on wood-burning stoves. That misinformation has been perpetrated particularly people on the Conservative side of the chamber.

It is also true that people in rural and island communities have brought to my attention areas in which they do not want to pollute and want to live sustainably. Part of that might be choosing a wood-burning stove or a biomass boiler for their new build because they have a sustainable supply. I want to listen to those rural communities and those voices. That is what a responsible Government should do, and I am happy to take Mr Harvie’s views on that as well.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We must move on to question 2.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is working to build resilience to flooding, in light of reports that heavy rain and flooding caused drivers to be stranded on the Edinburgh city bypass for hours. (S6T-02009)

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I express my sympathy for those who were impacted by the heavy rain last week and my thanks to those who responded to the events. Extreme weather events are increasing as a result of climate change, which is why improving flood resilience is a priority for the Government.

In response to the severe weather on Thursday and, in particular, the flooding on sections of the Edinburgh bypass, Transport Scotland worked with BEAR Scotland to deploy pumps to clear the carriageway, while Police Scotland carried out welfare checks on people who were stuck in flooding, as well as ensuring that diversions were in place.

In the face of increasing challenges as a result of climate change, the Government is taking a suite of actions to build resilience. Those include providing increased investment in flood risk management, funding the Scottish Flood Forum and supporting the Scottish Environment Protection Agency with its flood forecasting service. In addition, Transport Scotland is planning for and investing in adaptation, including in schemes to improve drainage and realign watercourses.

The Scottish Government is also taking action on strategic planning, including the consultation that I opened last week on our flood resilience strategy and our adaptation strategy, which we will publish this year.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

This is not the first time that there has been flooding on the Edinburgh city bypass. It should be a high priority for flood protections, but the flood resilience strategy consultation neglects our transport network in building new resilience to flooding. What risk assessment has the Scottish Government carried out? What investment will it make to ensure that our roads and railways are not closed and that people’s lives are not disrupted as we increasingly experience disruptive and damaging extreme weather?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I open my response by pointing out that more than a month’s rain fell in a 36-hour period on Thursday and Friday of last week. The Esk at Musselburgh rose to its second-highest level on record, and the Eddleston Water at Peebles reached its highest level on record. Those unusual events are exacerbated by climate impacts.

Mr Choudhury raised the issue of transport planning and the actions that Transport Scotland is taking. In 2023, its strategic framework was published, which looked explicitly at adaptation on Scotland’s transport network. In my opening response, I mentioned some of the practical investments that are being made to build resilience to climate change on our transport network, including in the previous financial year, when £2.5 million was spent on 17 drainage improvement schemes and on one watercourse realignment. That is just one example of how Transport Scotland is investing to adapt our system.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

During the heavy rainfall this week, constituents again raised concerns with me that sewage could be discharged into the Water of Leith. When the Scottish Government ditched its 2030 climate target, I warned that inaction on the climate would result in more heavy rainfall and flooding, and potentially more sewage in our waterways. I requested a meeting to discuss those combined sewage overflows with the cabinet secretary, but I was told that such a meeting would not be useful. Will the cabinet secretary show that the Scottish Government is taking the issue seriously and restore the public’s confidence by meeting me and the campaigners on the issue?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The tenor of that question pertains to water quality as opposed to flooding, but I am happy to answer it and to give an update to Parliament. On the one hand, 87 per cent of Scotland’s entire water environment is assessed by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as having good or high classification. That is up from 82 per cent six years ago.

We are not complacent, however. For example, Scottish Water is committed to installing 1,000 new spill monitors by the end of this year, and its “Improving Urban Waters—Route Map” demonstrates the work that is under way. To give some figures, 230 new spill monitors had been installed at priority locations by the end of 2023 and, by the end of March 2024, more than 800 of the promised 1,000 spill monitors had been installed, so Scottish Water is well on track to deliver that commitment. Detailed solutions are currently being developed to address 104 high-priority unsatisfactory combined sewer overflows.

I hope that that information and the further information that I am happy to provide to the member will give him some reassurance.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

It is important that the cabinet secretary acknowledged how distressing last week’s situation was for families. I spoke to constituents who had young children and who were stuck on the bypass for hours. I, too, pay tribute to our emergency services for the work that they did.

Edinburgh city bypass has been desperate for investment for many years. I have raised the issue throughout my time as a member of this Parliament. Sadly, we are seeing delay after delay to investment—for example, that is the case with the delivery of the new Sheriffhall junction. Will the Scottish Government undertake a full review of the bypass to look at the impact that such incidents are having and ensure that we get on and deliver the investment that Edinburgh needs?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I echo Miles Briggs’s comments about the hard work that our emergency services did last week and the impact that being stuck in traffic and flooding can have on people and families.

On the question of transport infrastructure and the bypass transport infrastructure in particular, I will have to defer to my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, who I am sure will be happy to update Miles Briggs on that issue.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I declare an interest as a regular user of the bypass to get to my constituency, which is what I was doing on Thursday night, when I got stuck on the bypass. Going east to west from Sheriffhall, the first slip road off is to Penicuik, and it took me more than an hour to get there. Has any consideration been given to opening up the central crash barrier temporarily, stopping the west to east traffic and allowing those going in the opposite direction who are stuck to turn around and get off the bypass?

I add that I certainly did not see any police during my time on that road.

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I am very sorry to hear that Christine Grahame was caught up in the events of last week. The question that she poses is not in my portfolio responsibility as it is largely about transport; it is also an operational question about what is best in the circumstances. The question is probably one for experts in Transport Scotland, BEAR Scotland and Police Scotland. I am sure that Fiona Hyslop, who is sitting to my left, has heard Christine Grahame’s question and will be glad to look into those matters for her.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The now frequent occurrence of extreme weather events demonstrates the changing climate in Scotland and the difficulties that our communities face in adapting to it. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Opposition parties must work with the Scottish National Party, as the flood resilience strategy for Scotland develops, to ensure parliamentary consensus on the issue in order to confront our climate challenges?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I do. I mentioned previously that improving flood resilience is Scotland’s largest climate adaptation challenge. Our communities are facing increasing threats of climate change and want to see their parliamentarians working together. I ask all members across the chamber not only to engage with the consultation on the resilience strategy but to encourage their constituents to do likewise. I look forward to working with members from across the chamber on that.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I, too, thank the police and other emergency services, which reacted so quickly last week. Does the cabinet secretary agree that one of the issues is that drains are no longer being cleared and thus there is a blockage in that regard? Will she encourage the City of Edinburgh Council and other local authorities to take a more regular approach to clearing drains so that they are not blocked when there is flooding?

Màiri McAllan (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Again, those are operational matters. I would not propose to circumvent the responsibility of not just the City of Edinburgh Council but BEAR Scotland and Transport Scotland. From my constituency experience, I know that BEAR Scotland has been excellent in responding when drains have required clearing in my area because of flooding or the threat of it. I am sure that those organisations will have heard Mr Balfour’s comments and will consider all that in the light of recent events.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-13356, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 5 minutes

Groups 4 to 6: 2 hours

Groups 7 and 8: 3 hours

Groups 9 and 10: 3 hours 45 minutes.—[Martin Whitfield]

Motion agreed to.

Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with amendments, members should refer to the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 28A—the revised marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 3—Levy to be charged on purchase of overnight accommodation

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 1 is on the payment of the levy. Amendment 21, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendment 33.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Amendment 21 and amendment 33 are probing amendments about how and when the levy will be paid and how small businesses that will be tasked with the administration of its collection and recording will best be able to undertake the duties that are outlined in the bill.

It is important that the Government has a consistent approach to the collection of the levy. We need to ensure that visitors do not pay the levy twice and, importantly, that businesses that will now be tasked with becoming tax collectors have the simplest way of recording and receiving the levy payments for which they have to account.

We know that there has been a significant shift towards online booking platforms, and many businesses now operate mixed booking systems and, indeed, mixed check-in models. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will ensure that the Government provides clarification on the collection of the levy and any flexibilities that could be provided for, to be set out in statutory guidance that ministers would develop.

I move amendment 21.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Given the fact that Miles Briggs states that amendment 21 is a probing amendment, my point is moot. I fully accept his point about ensuring that the providers are at the heart of the bill and, critically, ensuring that we do not drive money into the hands of third parties. However, I am concerned about whether the amendment would get in the way of how business is done, particularly if people use credit cards and other online payment methods, which are a core part of the way that the tourism business works.

We will hear what the minister has to say. I understand the sentiment behind amendment 21 but have concerns about the practicality.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The amendments in this group relate to the arrangements for paying a visitor levy if the local authority chooses to introduce one. Under the bill, the overnight accommodation provider is responsible for collecting and remitting the visitor levy to the relevant authority. However, the liability falls on the accommodation provider, as that is a more practical and sensible approach than it falling on individual visitors, as compliance action against individuals who live in other countries would be impractical and uneconomic to collect.

Miles Briggs’s amendments relate to the practical arrangements for the payment of the levy and, in the Government’s view, make it more difficult for businesses to collect and remit it.

Amendment 21 would require a visitor to pay a visitor levy only at the overnight accommodation. That would severely limit the options that an accommodation provider had to collect a levy, as it would mean that a visitor could pay it only at that overnight accommodation. For example, it would prevent the levy from being collected online when a booking was made if the accommodation was paid for in advance. It is also unclear how it would work for a self-catering property that uses a key box or similar arrangement for check-in.

Amendment 33 would also limit the flexibility that accommodation providers have to make administrative arrangements around a visitor levy. It would remove the ability for an accommodation provider to make an arrangement with a third party to collect a visitor levy. That would, for example, prevent an online travel agent from collecting a visitor levy on behalf of an accommodation provider for the bookings that were made through that platform. Under the bill as drafted, such arrangements can be made if an accommodation provider wants to do that.

The Government wants to give accommodation providers the flexibility to enter into such arrangements if they want to and to enable them to collect and remit a visitor levy in the way that works best for that business. That is why the Government does not support amendment 33.

I very much appreciate the points that Mr Briggs has raised in lodging the amendments and for affording us the opportunity to consider the issues. I assure Mr Briggs that I think that flexibility to ensure the most effective administration is absolutely critical for the success of any visitor levy that a local authority introduces. I also assure Mr Briggs that it is my expectation that those matters will be engaged through the statutory guidance. I am, of course, happy to discuss the matter further with any member, should Parliament pass the bill.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Miles Briggs to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 21.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I have listened to what the minister has had to say. This will be in the detail when the bill is operational, but it is important that businesses know how and when they will get that data from the online booking platforms and how they will be able to be report it back without facing any penalties. We need more clarification on that, which is why I lodged the amendments.

Having listened to what the minister has said, I am happy enough not to press amendment 21 and I will not move amendment 33.

Amendment 21, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 4—Meaning of overnight accommodation

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 2 is on the meaning of overnight accommodation. Amendment 22, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 23 to 25, 1, 2, 26 to 29 and 3. If amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 24, due to a pre-emption.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

This set of amendments seeks to remove camping sites, hostels and caravans from places that are considered to be overnight accommodation in the bill. During the passage of the bill, the argument that a fixed rate would see minimal additional costs to visitors has now been superseded by the percentage rate, which is now included in the bill and which the Government supports. We have therefore seen the £1 or £2 levy becoming a charge of at least up to 10 per cent on all accommodation.

During the cost of living crisis, many people have looked to have a cheaper holiday. Indeed, during the pandemic restrictions, many Scots discovered just how wonderful our country is for holidaying. The bill could add significant costs to family holidays and for families in Scotland who are holidaying at home. For example, I looked online yesterday at a campsite near Fort William, which the Deputy First Minister might know. For a week’s family holiday, for two adults and two children in a large tent pitch, it would cost £224 next week. The tourist levy could add £22 to that cost.

Significant concerns have also been expressed about many hostels and how they are administered. I know that the minister is alive to those issues. For Scots seeking a more affordable holiday, the choice is often to book a campsite, hostel or caravan accommodation. Adding a potential 10 per cent to what is fundamentally a self-catering holiday will directly hit the pockets of Scots who are trying to enjoy an affordable staycation in their own country.

In recent years, the Scottish Government has also promoted the diversification of agribusinesses. For many, that has seen the development of the provision of camping and caravan pitches, even though that is not their main business interest or source of income. That is also important for many of those businesses that provide additional accommodation for agricultural shows or local concerts and art festivals, which might just be one-off events.

There are significant cross-party concerns regarding the on-going issue of wild camping and the damage that it often causes to our natural environments, as well as the limited but often unacceptable cases of antisocial behaviour that we have seen. Above all, for people on a fixed budget, trying to save money and not having to pay an accommodation tax is important and, in booking a campsite or caravan park, that is often what people intend to be able to achieve.

The additional costs that a visitor levy will bring could result in significant behavioural changes and increase the amount of wild camping and overnight parking of caravans in lay-bys and passing places. I do not think that any of us has necessarily understood—the Government certainly has not—the unintended consequences that the bill might have. I therefore believe that the amendments are proportionate, and I hope that members across the Parliament will support them.

I move amendment 22.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The underlying principle of the bill is to empower local authorities to be able to raise revenues to invest in the services and infrastructure on which the tourism sector and local communities rely. The minister has already referred, in relation to earlier amendments, to the importance of flexibility for local authorities to meet local needs and circumstances, recognising that the tourism sector differs in different parts of the country and at different points in the year.

It is important that we do not land local authorities with a poisoned chalice. Fundamental to that is ensuring a degree of fairness, so that the legislation that we apply and the way in which local authorities can use it does not appear to single out one section of the tourism sector while excluding others.

Over recent years, in my Orkney constituency and across the Highlands and Islands, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number of motorhomes making up a part of the tourism sector; that is even more the case with cruise traffic. I am not trying to make an argument about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing—that is for another debate—but what is beyond doubt is the fact that the increased volumes are putting additional pressure on services and infrastructure in Orkney and other parts of the country. If the bill is to command public confidence as well as the confidence of the sector, recognition of that fact is required.

In addition, there is the question of the administrative costs for operating any scheme that a council brings forward. Excluding cruise traffic, motorhomes and other sections of the sector, while including hotels, bed and breakfasts and self-catering, runs the risk of local authority schemes costing more to operate than they are likely to be able to recoup through revenue—I know that that would be the case for Orkney Islands Council.

I understand from the exchanges that I had with the minister at stage 2 that there are complications in trying to incorporate these provisions in the bill, and I thank the minister for his constructive engagement ahead of stages 2 and 3. I understand that there have been on-going discussions with local authorities and that the minister is committed to continuing those discussions to find a way forward in relation to both cruise traffic and motorhomes. Identifying ways of applying the bill in an island setting, where the requirement is to travel into the islands and within the islands by ferry, opens up opportunities that are not available in operating schemes on the Scottish mainland.

I recognise that the process will take some time in order to get the detail right. However, in the choreography of what local authorities are able to do in the introduction of a visitor levy that applies to those businesses that are captured by the bill, allowing local authorities to apply it with a degree of fairness to cruise traffic and other elements of the tourism sector, it is important that the work is taken forward with good speed and that the legislation that is required to introduce it is brought forward in this parliamentary session.

Again, I thank the minister for his engagement on the issue. Despite having rushed to introduce my amendments, which secured them numbers 1 and 2 in the list, I can confirm that, as at stage 2, I do not intend to press them to a vote; rather, I intend to use them as a means to allow the minister to put on the record the Scottish Government’s commitment to take forward the consultation and legislation in due course.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

These amendments all deal with the types of overnight accommodation on which the levy would be payable and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to them. Liam McArthur has explained amendments 1 and 2, which allows me to set out the Government’s position regarding a cruise ship levy and a levy on motorhomes. I am grateful to Mr McArthur for his constructive engagement ahead of stage 3.

The Government is open to introducing a cruise ship levy and to exploring the detailed mechanisms that would be required to operate it. We will therefore engage with local authorities, the cruise ship industry and other stakeholders in the coming months to explore the issue further and to develop more detailed proposals. I thank the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for its work on the matter, which will be a useful starting point for those discussions. I can confirm that we intend to launch a public consultation later this year, so that we can formally hear the views of those who would be affected by such a levy and to further consider the impacts on businesses, local government and others. That will build on the constructive engagement that we have had during the development of the visitor levy, and ministers will be happy to engage with members who have an interest in a proposed cruise ship levy.

Motorhomes are also an important part of the visitor economy and are used by many people to explore the more rural parts of Scotland and our many islands. Recent research by VisitScotland has shown the benefits that motorhomes can bring to the visitor economy. However, I know that they can also place particular pressure on smaller communities, so there is an understandable view that they should be subject to some kind of levy.

The Government is open to discussion with stakeholders about the issue and will consider developing proposals that will work to support the visitor economy. Discussions with councils and land management stakeholders have highlighted significant practical issues with any levy on motorhomes, including potential difficulties with application, administration and compliance, but the Government’s door remains open to discussion of the issue and to any workable proposals that can be brought forward. I note Liam McArthur’s suggestion about the opportunities for the potential application of such a levy in island settings.

I reaffirm the Government’s commitment in these areas and make clear that I am committed to engaging on these matters, as are my ministerial colleagues. I intend to engage during the summer on the issue of a cruise ship levy and to further explore measures regarding motorhomes.

Having outlined that and made those commitments, I ask Liam McArthur not to move amendments 1 and 2.

I turn to Miles Briggs’s amendments 22, 23 and 25, which would remove campsites, hostels and caravan parks from the scope of a visitor levy and would make it impossible for a local authority to include them in its visitor levy scheme.

Where there is a strong consensus between, and among, local government and the tourism sector that a type of accommodation should be removed from the scope of the visitor levy, the Government is open to removing that accommodation type. Members may recall that that happened with boat moorings and berths earlier in the passage of the bill. However, there is no such consensus on the issues of campsites, caravan sites and hostels. Such accommodation is an important part of Scotland’s tourism sector, offering lower-cost accommodation and a different type of experience. The Government’s approach to the visitor levy takes that into account, with the percentage charged for the levy reflecting the generally lower cost of such accommodation.

Such accommodation is much more prevalent in some parts of Scotland than in others and removal would therefore disproportionately affect some local authorities more than others. Clearly, removal would also reduce the level of income that a local authority would receive from the visitor levy, which would, in turn, affect the level of funding available for investment in the visitor economy.

The Government therefore does not support amendments 22, 23 and 25 and I ask Miles Briggs not to press them.

Amendment 24 seeks to include campsites only

“where the provision of camping pitches is the primary income of the business”.

I appreciate where Miles Briggs is coming from with his amendment, but it is not one that the Government can support. Businesses may have a variety of income streams and those may fluctuate over time depending on conditions in the wider economy. How would the exclusion operate given that the amendment is unclear on how “primary income” would be defined and over what timeframe? Again, this amendment would affect some local authorities disproportionately. In the absence of a national consensus, I do not want to remove the flexibility for local authorities to determine accommodation providers for their individual schemes. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 24.

Similarly, Miles Briggs’s amendments 26 and 27 seek to reflect situations where income from caravan and camping pitches is not the main focus of a business. In this case, again, the Government believes that it is best left to local authorities to decide on what is a local tax. In the absence of any consensus between local government and the tourism industry, flexibility would be needed to define what was ancillary and what would happen if that changed over time. The Government therefore does not support amendments 26 and 27.

Amendments 28 and 29 seek to exempt the provision of caravan and camping pitches for a festival or event. I understand the thinking behind the amendments but, in the absence of a consensus, the Government does not support them. There are also problems with the amendments at a practical level. For example, how would they apply to a general-purpose campsite where some of the people who were staying were taking part in a particular event and others are not? I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendments 28 and 29.

My amendment 3 is largely technical and I ask members to support it. It will make the consultation requirements for regulations under section 4 consistent with consultation requirements elsewhere in the bill.

I will make a final point in respect of the points that are raised by many of the amendments in the group. Under the bill, a local authority that seeks to introduce a scheme will be required to consult before it is introduced, and it will be able to exclude certain types of accommodation. In the absence of a national consensus, that decision is best made at a local level. I am very willing to continue the discussion with MSPs from all parties if there are types of accommodation that they believe should be excluded from use of the powers in section 4. At present, however, the Government does not believe that it is right to take that step without a clear consensus among local government and the tourism industry. The bill seeks to introduce a local tax and, as part of empowering local government, to give local authorities the powers and responsibilities to make decisions that are right for their areas.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Given the pressures on coastal and island communities that cruise ships bring, I will speak to Liam McArthur’s amendments in the group. Last year, while we were in government, Scottish Greens secured a commitment from the Scottish Government to introduce a cruise ship levy. Our island and coastal communities deserve a properly considered piece of legislation, and it is good to hear the minister’s assurances that work is on-going in this complex area. The practicalities of a cruise ship levy need to be worked out and we need to find the appropriate legal mechanism. Scottish Greens will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government, communities and stakeholders to deliver a levy that works for ports, harbours, islands and our coastal communities.

Questions have been asked about the approach to motorhomes and the trigger point for those since the bill was introduced. Liam McArthur’s proposal for a trigger point when a motorhome makes a journey to an island would work for islands, but not for the mainland.

I wonder whether the minister has seen the work that has been done recently in Venice, where an app and a QR code have been introduced and visitors are required to pay a daily fee. That approach might be worth considering in on-going work on both of the measures that I have mentioned.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Regarding amendments 23 and 24, I share the concern of constituents and business owners in my region that the implementation of a charge at caravan or holiday parks could displace motorhomes and caravans to lay-bys, farms or people’s gardens. However, as the minister mentioned, local authorities will be able to decide what to cover, and the situation may well be different in different areas of Scotland. Those local authorities will know that better than I do. I look forward to Highland Council’s consultation on that, and I am sure that my constituents who made strong representations to me will be able to do so in that process, too.

In light of that, instead of throwing out motorhomes and camping sites altogether, as the amendments seek to do, we should explore how to catch all non-resident and non-Gypsy Traveller motorhomes that use our roads—often to unsustainable levels, as happens every year on Skye and across the north coast 500 route. Such motorhomes could be charged, either physically or through a licence plate recognition system, at entry points such as the Skye bridge or a point on the north coast 500, or when disembarking from ferries.

Those vehicles damage our roads. They present costs to the local authority without always paying back, either to the council’s budget or to the local economy in any way. Anyone who lives by the north coast 500 route will tell of the personal costs that they have incurred, whether that is in removing rubbish, repairing damage or claiming on their car insurance because of the state that the roads have been left in. Although increasing the number of rangers could help with that, that would also be a cost to the local authority. Money for that has to come from somewhere, and I would much rather that there be a minimal charge on those who use the council’s roads than that my constituents’ council tax bills go up to cover the cost. I hope that the minister will be happy to consider how we can charge those vehicles fairly and effectively without promoting displacement and irresponsible tourism, and I would be very interested in taking part in the summer engagement that he mentioned.

I also have great sympathy with Liam McArthur’s amendment 1. Although I understand why it may not be suitable for the bill, I am glad that he lodged it, as it has allowed the debate, and I am keen to support his and others’ calls for a levy on cruise ships at a suitable opportunity.

Across the Highlands and Islands, cruise ships arrive with more people on board than the populations of the towns that they visit. That is a lot for any local authority to deal with, even if some businesses manage to take advantage of it—while many do not. Whether or not a local person supports those ship visits, it is hard to argue that there is no impact—the impact often costs the public purse, even if it pays into private interests in other ways. I am therefore glad to hear from the minister that the door is open. He can expect me to knock on it soon.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The debate sums up the difficulties and problems that members across parties have with the framework bills that the Government is introducing. Everything is to be detailed another day. The argument that the minister has put forward does not stack up. The Government has agreed to take out from the bill boat moorings and berthings, but it has provided no clarification on whether the visitor levy should be collected from other sources of holiday lets, such as caravans when they are used as static holiday accommodation by the individuals who own them. The bill has no detail.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Miles Briggs was at the meeting of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee at stage 2 at which I proposed an amendment to have boat moorings removed from the bill. I am sure that he will agree that people do not stay on their boats when those are moored.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I am not sure that that is 100 per cent the case, to be honest. Sometimes, if people are travelling around the country on their boats, they stay on their boats. I am not sure what evidence Stuart McMillan can present on that.

That sums up the debate on the impact. What the minister has outlined means that in future, people who go to a national park could find that different parts of that park have different rules on camping, on where they can park their caravan and on whether they will be charged. That is ridiculous.

In addition, as I have outlined, the levy will be an unwanted additional charge on people who are trying to have a more affordable holiday.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I assure Miles Briggs that there has been extensive consultation and engagement, by officials and by me personally, with representatives of the boating and marine tourism sector and with both our national parks. We have ensured that the legislation reflects the need for engagement with national parks.

I also highlight that the chargeable event is the transaction whereby one pays for overnight accommodation. That is where the levy would bite, should a local authority introduce one.

There is flexibility in the legislation that allows local authorities to work together to develop a joint visitor levy scheme. It would be for individual local authorities to decide whether to partner up, but it could be applied in a situation in which local authorities overlap a national park. That would allow for a co-ordinated approach, which would not risk the potential issues that Mr Briggs highlighted.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Businesses and people who are trying to navigate the levy saw the complex nature of the short-term lets legislation, and this bill will be the same, if not worse. All the businesses that have been copying me into their concerned emails to ministers hoped that there would be a more constructive business reset—which was offered to them—but that does not seem to be forthcoming from the Government.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Yes.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am slightly confused because, across the Highlands, caravans use not only caravan parks but local government-approved car parks, where they are allowed to park overnight. It appears that there would be some confusion in that area. In a lot of cases, because legislation was removed, caravans just park in lay-bys, so it appears that some people would be caught by the bill and others—who are perhaps not following the rules as diligently as they should be—would avoid being caught by it. Does the member agree that that seems a mess?

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I absolutely do. We have reached stage 3 without the Government being able to work with parties across the chamber—and only recently has the Government had to do that. This is not an acceptable situation. There will be more cases of wild camping and of people not going to organised campsites and caravan sites. I do not think that anyone in the chamber necessarily wants that to happen, but that will be the only way for people not to face a charge of up to 10 per cent or more. When people travel around our country, having to realise where they are, which local authority they are in and whether they are being charged will become the norm. That is ridiculous, and ministers should have fixed it before stage 3. I will press amendment 22.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend for about five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the division on amendment 22. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect via the app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Robertson. Your vote will be recorded.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you Ms McKelvie. Your vote will be recorded.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Whittle. Your vote will be recorded.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is saying that it did not connect. I, too, would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Lumsden. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 22 disagreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call amendment 23, in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 22. I remind members that, if amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 24 because of pre-emption.

Amendment 23 moved—[Miles Briggs].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now.

The vote is closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My apologies: I am still unable to use my app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am still unable to connect. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Whittle. Your vote will be recorded.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am unable to connect at all to the app. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Golden. Your vote will be recorded.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have the same issue. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Miles Briggs].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now.

The vote is closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Unfortunately, I am still unable to connect to the app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am still unable to connect to the app. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Whittle. Your vote will be recorded.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the voting app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Lennon. Your vote will be recorded.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. My app is failing to reconnect to confirm how I voted, but I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Whitfield. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 83, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 24 disagreed to.

Amendment 25 moved—[Miles Briggs].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. Members should cast their vote now.

The vote is closed.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite valiant attempts by information technology staff to log into the app, I am still unable to do so, unfortunately. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 25 disagreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

At this point, I am going to have a short suspension of five minutes to allow us to investigate the connectivity issues. Thank you for your patience.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We will move swiftly back to where we were. [ Interruption .] Members, I ask for some quiet, please. Amendment 1, in the name of Liam McArthur, has already been debated with amendment 22. I invite Liam McArthur to move or not move the amendment.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I have had a long time to think about it, Presiding Officer, but I am still inclined not to move it.

Amendment 1 not moved.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Amendment 26, in the name of Miles Briggs, has already been debated with amendment 22. I invite Miles Briggs to move or not move the amendment.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

So that we can test our app, I will move it.

Amendment 26 moved—[Miles Briggs].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apparently, my app is still trying to connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Kidd. Your vote will be recorded.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Likewise, I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.

Alex Cole-Hamilton, who is online, has a point of order.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 27, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 26 disagreed to.

Amendments 27 to 29 not moved.

Amendment 3 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Calculation of levy

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 3 is on calculation of the levy. Amendment 30, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendment 31.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Amendments 30 and 31 seek to change the way that a visitor levy is calculated. Together, they will remove from the bill the provision in section 5(1)(b), which extracts any amount paid as commission to a travel booking agent before the amount of visitor levy to be paid on a transaction is calculated. That provision was included in the bill to avoid a visitor levy being applied to an amount that included such commission. However, since stage 2, VisitScotland, the national tourism agency, has expressed concerns that that provision could allow someone to deduct the amount of commission that an accommodation provider is paying to a travel booking agent.

The levels of commission paid can vary considerably depending on individual contracts, and such information is commercially sensitive. Therefore, the Government has explored the issue with business organisations, which are supportive of removing the provision on commission from the bill. Local government also supports the change, which has the added advantage of making the visitor levy calculation even simpler to understand and apply.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The minister’s point about simplicity is important and well made, and it was often made in the lead-up to the bill. Much of the detail will be contained in the statutory guidance. Will the minister elaborate on that? Given the controversies around whether the levy should be a flat fee or a percentage rate, what consideration will the guidance give to the simplicity of the calculation for local authorities that devise levy schemes?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Daniel Johnson makes an important point. As he highlights, a central area of contention was about whether the levy should be a flat fee or a percentage rate. In earlier consideration of the bill, a potential hybrid model was mooted. We have opted for the percentage model as was introduced, recognising that a consensus was not achieved on moving to a flat-rate model.

I absolutely agree on the imperative of ensuring that administration is as straightforward as possible. To achieve that, significant consultation requirements precede the introduction of any visitor levy, as we will touch on in relation to further amendments to the bill. I have lodged other amendments to introduce a visitor levy forum to ensure continuing consultation and engagement with business. Statutory guidance will be provided, and the expert group, which is led by VisitScotland, brings together experts from business and local government to ensure that those issues are addressed.

As I have highlighted, we put the guidance on to a statutory footing at stage 2. In further stage 3 amendments, we will specify matters that will have to be included in that guidance, and we will allow for that list to be amended.

Through collaborative working at a local level where a visitor levy has been implemented and through the requirements relating to the statutory guidance, there are a number of ways in which we can ensure that guidance and support are in place to ensure that the administration of the levy is as effective and straightforward as possible. A key priority for me throughout our work on developing the proposal has been to ensure that there is as much administrative consistency and simplicity as possible for businesses across Scotland that are subject to a visitor levy, while allowing local flexibility to ensure that a visitor levy policy and the revenues raised can respond most appropriately to the assets and needs in order to help to grow, develop and sustain the local visitor economy.

I hope that that provides Daniel Johnson with some reassurance.

We lodged amendments 30 and 31 in response to concerns that were raised by industry. As I suggested, they will lead to a simpler approach, and they have the support of local government and industry. I encourage members to support them.

I move amendment 30.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Amendment 31 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

After section 6

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 4 is on circumstances in which the levy is not to be payable or may be reimbursed. Amendment 32, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 4, 5, 8, 35 to 46, 51, 52 and 68.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I start by thanking the minister for his excellent outreach and engagement on the bill, and I thank the legislation team for bearing with me as I drafted the amendments.

I offer amendment 32 as an alternative to amendment 4, in the minister’s name. Both amendments concern capping the number of nights that the visitor levy would apply to. I offer the amendment as an alternative, but it is worth emphasising that both amendments could be agreed by Parliament and that they are compatible.

I offer amendment 32 as an alternative because the principle of the bill is that we are empowering local government. Therefore, any power that we add to the bill—capping the number of nights in this case—should be a decision that sits with local government. For that reason, the Greens will oppose amendment 4.

We recognise and appreciate the minister’s comments that the Scottish Government would not be inclined to implement a cap as it stands, but we cannot guarantee that of any future Government. It is simply not a power that we think should sit at the national level. It is entirely reasonable to have the power to cap the number of nights, but it should sit at the local level, as there could be significant variation across the country. For example, one area may have a significant infrastructure project that requires some people to stay there for a prolonged period in overnight accommodation, and that requirement would not apply elsewhere. That is exactly the kind of reason why the decision should sit with local authorities, and that is why I offer amendment 32 as an alternative to amendment 4. Again, I emphasise that if both amendments were passed, they would be compatible.

We support amendment 5, in the minister’s name, and Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 8.

Amendments 35 to 46, 51 and 52, in the names of Miles Briggs and Pam Gosal, will not be supported by the Green group. To go back to the principle that the bill is about empowering local government, those amendments go a step too far in creating new national requirements in the bill. Decisions should be made by local authorities, and we talk a lot in the Parliament about empowering local government. The bill does that and I do not want to start rolling back on that by adding more complications and setting more rules at the national level.

I move amendment 32.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I will speak to all the amendments in the group, including my amendments 4, 5 and 68.

As we have just heard, amendment 32 will make it explicit that a local authority can place a cap on the maximum number of nights to which a visitor levy can apply in relation to a period of consecutive nights in one place of overnight accommodation. Our view is that local discretion is already possible under the bill, but the Government is happy to make it explicit, so we will support amendment 32.

On the same issue, amendment 4 would give ministers the power to create a national cap on the maximum number of nights to which a visitor levy could apply. That reflects discussions that I have had in the light of an amendment that was lodged by Daniel Johnson at stage 2. Amendment 4 would create a tool that could be used in the future, if necessary, to set a national cap, after consultation with local government and businesses and with the approval of Parliament.

Amendment 5 is intended to add to the bill the reassurance that, as part of the initial process that it must follow when introducing a scheme, a local authority will be required to make a statement about any potential exemptions to the scheme. The amendment would mean that any proposed exemptions would have to be explicitly highlighted at that early stage.

Miles Briggs’s amendments 35 to 45 and 51 seek to put in place 10 exemptions that would apply in every single visitor levy scheme. I have sympathy for some of the scenarios that Miles Briggs has highlighted, but the sheer volume is a concern. Business has consistently told me that the more exemptions there are to a visitor levy scheme, the more complexity there is and the greater the administrative cost.

There are also exemptions in the list that lack a robust definition or that are irrelevant in many local authorities. To take one example, amendment 42 seeks to exempt those who are

“on work or business travel”.

However, what would happen if a visitor travelled with her family, held one business meeting at the start of the visit and one at the end? Would that be a family holiday or a business trip? Amending the bill in that way would leave so many holes in a visitor levy scheme that it would be easier to say who would pay it.

Amendment 51 supplies some definitions but still leaves other terms, such as “technician”, undefined.

In another example, amendment 39 seeks to create an exemption for those who are stranded due to a ferry cancellation. I appreciate that that might be relevant in some local authorities but, as members will understand, it is of no relevance in others.

The amendments would require every local authority to include the exemptions and set out practical arrangements for their administration whether or not they were relevant to local circumstances. Given that a local authority has the power to create local exemptions, it is not necessary for the amendments to impose exemptions at the national level for every single scheme. An island authority or those with direct ferry links to the islands could already create such exemptions under the bill if they believed that to be necessary.

Although the list of proposed exemptions is long, there might be other circumstances that are relevant to local circumstances that we have not considered. The bill already contains a power in section 10 for ministers to create national exemptions, should there be a need to do so, in addition to local exemptions created by local authorities. I am open to using that power in the future if there is consensus among local government, the Parliament and businesses that a specific exemption at national level is required.

Nevertheless, I believe that a strong case for a national exemption has been made in relation to amendment 8, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and the Government is able to support it. The amendment is specific about the people whom it will cover, clearly identifying those who are in receipt of disability benefits, and it allows local authorities to make the practical arrangements for the exemption. It also reflects existing arrangements. I will, of course, let Mr Balfour set out his amendment in more detail.

Amendment 46, in the name of Pam Gosal, seeks to ensure that a visitor levy scheme

“must specify whether the levy is not payable in relation to ... an annual turnover below the VAT threshold.”

I know that the interaction of VAT and the visitor levy has been a concern of Pam Gosal during the passage of the bill, and I thank her for lodging the amendment.

The Government’s long-standing position is that any local authority thinking about introducing a visitor levy will need to consider the potential VAT implications that it would have for relevant businesses in their area. A local authority could, if it chose, create an exemption from a visitor levy for businesses that are near the VAT threshold. Accordingly, the Government will support amendment 46, which makes it clear that the authority’s decision on that must be clearly stated.

I note that the supplementary amendment 52, which would add a definition of “VAT threshold” to the bill, does not add the correct reference to the current VAT threshold. Therefore, the Government has lodged amendment 68, which references the correct legislative position. I ask Pam Gosal not to move amendment 52, which the Government does not support, and to support amendment 68 instead.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude my remarks there.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I declare an interest in being in receipt of the personal independence payment. I thank the minister for his constructive engagement on the issue.

As most members in the chamber are aware, those with a disability are often the poorest in our society. They have financial restraints due to lack of employment opportunities, perhaps, and costs that relate to the disability. A holiday—a trip away—often has to be planned months in advance, and anything that would prevent those people from being able to take a break should not be allowed to get in their way.

The system that will be introduced will be up to each local authority to decide, but, through amendment 8, we are laying down the principle and the types of benefits that somebody would have to be on to get the exemption.

The good news is that it is a simple system that is already in use, and it would work well for local authorities and those who would have to administer it locally. If, for example, someone went up to the Festival theatre here in Edinburgh, or if they were lucky enough to go to Euro Disney, Legoland, Blackpool or other places where I go on holiday, they would find that the scheme is already working. The Department for Work and Pensions issues an annual letter—as Social Security Scotland will do, in due course—telling someone that they are entitled to a benefit and at what rate that benefit is set. They take that letter to the appropriate venue, show the person there the letter and get the exemption that they offer.

There will be no cost to the taxpayer, because those letters already have to be issued and are in common use. That will also mean that the person who owns the hotel or bed and breakfast will not have to make a judgment about whether someone is disabled, because only those who are in the categories named in the amendment will receive a letter, which they will have to show.

The exemption will apply to all accommodation, which means that those coming to B and Bs, caravan sites and so on will also benefit. I am pleased to know that charities such as Euan’s Guide can provide training for accommodation providers, which again means that there should be no charge for local authorities.

I know that the measure will make a small difference, but it will make a big difference for many disabled people and their families.

I again thank the minister for his engagement and hope that everyone here will support amendment 8.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I am beginning to take personally the amendments that have been accepted.

From the outset of the bill process, I have argued for the development of a national set of exemptions. When the bill was first published, it included a voucher scheme for exemptions although, sadly, there was little or no detail about how such a scheme would work in practice.

I have attempted to work with the minister and the Government on these important amendments. I welcome the fact that the Government has accepted the cases I have previously put forward for exempting children and young people under 18 from the bill, and I welcome the fact that the Government has made progress regarding amendment 8, from my colleague Jeremy Balfour, and my colleague Pam Gosal’s amendment 46, on VAT exemption thresholds.

I have significant concerns that the short-term let legislation that we have seen, which was poorly drafted, has resulted in a postcode lottery, with different councils taking forward different schemes. That is a damaging development.

My amendments 35 and 38, which I drafted in the way that the Government suggested, would provide national exemptions that I think should be part of the bill, including for Scots who are visiting family members in hospitals, hospices or care homes. Many Scots who support the establishment of a visitor levy think that it is for tourists who come to our country, but the reality of the bill is very different. As I have said from the outset, this is not a visitor levy—it is an accommodation tax. In the future, everyone who books accommodation in Scotland will face an additional tax on top of the cost of that booking. That will affect, for example, someone looking to book into a local B and B while work is being done to help their home to achieve net zero—which the Greens say they want to see—or those who have been impacted by flooding, which we have seen across communities in Angus. They will pay a tax to stay in a B and B or a guest house.

My amendment 44 would therefore introduce an exemption for people living in a local authority area where the levy is in place, and amendment 45 would also exempt those whose permanent residence is in Scotland. Given the fact that the ferry fleet is vulnerable to cancellations, which are increasingly seen in many of our island communities, amendment 39 would also provide an exemption to prevent visitors having to pay the levy again after a ferry cancellation.

Looking at them as a collection of amendments, I believe that having those exemptions in the bill would provide a set of safeguards to protect people in Scotland from having to pay the tax when they stay away from home for reasons that I believe none of us would want to see used to require payment that is meant to relate to tourist activity. I believe that that should be set out in the bill, and I will therefore move the amendments in my name.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I place on record my thanks to the clerks of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for their work on our consideration of the bill. I also thank the organisations that have sent briefings to members, because I know how much time and effort those take to write.

At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that sought to exempt from the levy accommodation providers that are operating below the VAT threshold. The minister rejected the amendment on the basis that local authorities could choose to exempt businesses that operate under the VAT threshold if they wished to do so. Today, my amendments 46 and 52 seek to ensure that a visitor levy scheme must specify

“whether the levy is not payable in relation to accommodation which has an annual turnover below the VAT threshold.”

I have made it clear throughout the bill’s passage through Parliament that the levy is the last thing that the tourism sector needs right now. It will add cost and complexity for those who are running on tight margins. The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers put it best in saying that the industry feels that it is

“being shrunk by regulation while also being taxed on top.”

Operating a small business in Scotland is exceptionally costly and the challenge is intensified by business rates, VAT and stringent regulations on short-term lets. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, approximately 2,000 to 3,000 small accommodation providers are not VAT registered. A significant concern for many of those operators is the risk of exceeding the VAT threshold due to the levy. Instead of paying VAT from actual profits, small businesses would, in effect, be paying VAT because of their new role as an unpaid tax collector for councils.

The Scottish Conservatives want to see a workable solution embedded in the bill, which is why I have watered down my previous amendment. Although my amendment 46 falls short of requiring those who operate under the VAT threshold to be exempt, it seeks to introduce an exemption for businesses that have an annual turnover that is below the VAT threshold.

In COSLA’s briefing, its second request is that exemptions be kept local. My amendment does not contradict that, and I hope that it also helps to address my colleague Ross Greer’s concern. My amendment has been supported by the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers and Scottish Land & Estates.

I am happy to not move amendment 52 and to support the minister’s amendment 68. It is good to hear that the minister supports my amendment 46, and I ask members across the chamber to support it, too.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

The amendments would introduce a range of exemptions. We support Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 8 for the reasons that he gave but also because of the detail that he has set out on how the exemption would be evidenced, which is clear and easy for accommodation providers to understand.

We also support the principles of a number of other amendments in the group. We are sympathetic to those who are receiving respite, visiting family in hospital or visiting those in prison. We support many of the individual amendments, but, like the minister, we are concerned about the cumulative impact of all the amendments and about how accommodation providers will obtain proof of exemption. We have a great deal of sympathy for a number of the amendments, but we would like some reassurance as to how they would operate cumulatively and how we would expect accommodation providers to receive evidence of exemption.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

There are amendments in the group that relate to the VAT threshold and the number of nights stayed. Those are both areas on which I lodged amendments at stage 2, and I am very pleased to see the amendments at stage 3.

The point about having a maximum number of nights is important. What is proposed is a transient visitor levy. There comes a point at which a stay is no longer a visit and the person is, to a degree, permanently resident, particularly if they are working here. My view and my concern stem from the nature of the Edinburgh festivals and the fact that many people stay in Edinburgh for quite a prolonged period of time during the summer. They are no longer visitors at that point; they are working and contributing to the local economy. I would have preferred to see a threshold set for that, but I recognise that the bill represents a balance between setting stipulations nationally and providing local discretion. My concern is that local authorities will be incentivised to maximise the number of opportunities that they have for the amount to be levied. Nonetheless, I recognise that balance.

Likewise, I echo Pam Gosal’s comments. A great number of accommodation providers in Scotland are very small and run their businesses from a petty cash tin and an exercise book. It is important not to unduly burden them. Having a provision on a VAT threshold is sensible and proportionate. I therefore support the amendments on the VAT threshold.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 32.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I will be brief. I appreciate the Government’s support for amendment 32, and I recognise Daniel Johnson’s work to advance the argument for a cap on the number of nights for which the levy can be applied. In my opening speech, I outlined why Green Party members believe that the decision on that should sit with local authorities. As Mr Johnson outlined, there are a range of reasons why it would be entirely reasonable for a local authority to set a cap, given particular circumstances in its area, whether that be in Edinburgh during the festival or in the Highlands if, for example, a significant infrastructure project required a large number of people to stay in overnight accommodation for a period. However, we fundamentally believe that such a decision should be taken at a local level, given that we are creating a new local tax.

I was quite taken by the minister’s point about the potential confusion that is created if we create too many exemptions and too many national rules and requirements, particularly when, in some cases, there is not necessarily any clear distinction. The example was given of a family holiday, to either side of which a business meeting or a couple of days of work is tacked on. I have definitely made myself unpopular on family holidays by putting a day of work or a couple of meetings at either end, so I can absolutely see how that would be possible.

Fundamentally, given that we are trying to empower our colleagues in local government to make decisions that suit their areas, we should give them the greatest possible level of discretion, as was outlined in the COSLA briefing.

I press amendment 32.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Section 8—Third party arrangements

Amendment 33 not moved.

Section 10—Exemptions and rebates

Amendment 4 moved—[Tom Arthur].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

The vote is closed.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone did not connect. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Findlay. We will ensure that your vote is recorded.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Johnson. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the vote on amendment 4, in the name of Tom Arthur, is: For 99, Against 12, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Section 12—Prior consultation on scheme

Amendment 5 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 5 is on visitor levy forums. Amendment 6, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 13 to 15.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

During my meetings with accommodation providers and business organisations, I heard genuine concern. Although the bill put in place measures for consultation before a visitor levy scheme is introduced, businesses wanted a means of ensuring that there are also measures once a scheme has been introduced. The Government listened to those views and has therefore lodged the amendments in group 5. Together, the amendments will require the creation of visitor levy forums and put in place suitable measures to ensure that they have the opportunity and information to contribute their views effectively.

Amendment 13 will require a local authority that establishes a visitor levy scheme to set up a visitor levy forum. That will have to be done within six months of the decision to introduce a scheme—that is, during the implementation period for a scheme, which is currently in the bill. Thereafter, the forum will have to meet regularly, at least twice a year, and discuss and advise the local authority on the scheme. The forum’s membership will be drawn from communities, businesses that are engaged in tourism and tourism organisations in the area. Councillors can be part of the forum so that they can directly hear the views of its members, but they cannot be a majority. The exact membership of each forum will therefore reflect the local area.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Although forums are welcome, I seek the minister’s assurance that they will be balanced, that they are for consultation and that decisions will still be made by local elected members who are democratically accountable.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I confirm that the forum is a consultative body but final decisions would be taken by democratically elected local members who are accountable to their electorate. I am happy to provide that reassurance.

Amendments 6 and 14 will require a local authority to consult the forum when it is considering modifying a visitor levy scheme or consulting, under section 17, on how funding is used. Amendments 15 and 16 will require a local authority to provide the forum with the local authority’s annual report on the visitor levy scheme and the more substantial three-yearly review that must be carried out. Together, the amendments give business and communities a robust mechanism for on-going and meaningful engagement on a visitor levy scheme. I ask members to support them.

I move amendment 6.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I welcome the amendments in this group; they are in line with the amendments that I lodged at stage 2.

It is important to put on the record the fact that the Government has said from the outset that the bill is about improving investment in tourism. Significantly, that will be from income from the accommodation sector, which is not necessarily directly linked to the tourism facilities on which the money might end up being spent. Having an opportunity to input into that is important.

What this looks like on the tin when it is implemented will also be key. As an Edinburgh MSP, I have specific concerns that the Government might want to withdraw from spending on our cultural sector and that it might point councils to the levy if they are seeking money to spend on the cultural sector. I hope that that is not the case, but we will see once the policy is in place.

I very much welcome that my amendments on reporting have been accepted by the Government.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank Mr Briggs for his constructive engagement with other members, businesses and business representative organisations in developing his proposal. Again, I encourage all members to support the relevant amendments.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 6 is on visitor levy scheme objectives, coming into force and modifications. Amendment 34, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 7, 9, 47, 48, 10, 49, 50, 11 and 12. I remind members that amendments 47 and 48 are direct alternatives—that is, they can both be moved and decided on, and the text of whichever is the last to be agreed to is what will appear in the bill.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Amendment 34 replicates the language that is used in the workplace parking levy provision in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. It follows the principle for which I argued in relation to group 4: the levy is a local tax, and it should be down to the judgment of a local authority and local elected members, as my colleague Ariane Burgess just mentioned, to decide whether spending is within scope.

Amendment 34 seeks to provide clarity over the authority that local councils have to make these decisions. I believe that, if it is passed and the provision is included in the bill, it will reduce the risk of legal challenge by those who believe that councils have taken decisions that are outwith scope.

Amendments 47 and 48 replicate the comments that COSLA made in its briefing for the debate, under a heading that was something along the lines of “Let councils get on with it”. They reflect the fact that some local authorities have already put a substantial amount of work into developing potential visitor levy schemes—Edinburgh, Highland and Glasgow are the most obvious examples—and the 18-month lead-in time is, therefore, simply too long. Some local authorities have already done months or even years of engagement and development work on the levy.

As the Presiding Officer mentioned, amendments 47 and 48 are alternatives. The Green group’s preference is for an introductory period of six months, rather than 18 months, but we have offered a 12-month alternative as a compromise if Parliament is not inclined to agree to six months but agrees that 18 months is perhaps too long.

Green members oppose amendments 9 and 10 because they delay the point at which that time period, which is currently 18 months, can start to the point of publication of the final version of a local authority’s scheme. We believe that the lead-in time should be able to run in parallel with the development process, so that the countdown can start earlier in the process than the point at which the final version of the scheme is published. Amendment 9 also introduces an 18-month requirement for “significant modification” of a scheme, which we do not believe is necessary.

Amendments 49 and 50 would clarify that local authorities—in particular those that I mentioned, such as Edinburgh, Highland and Glasgow, which have already done the work—can essentially count backwards, whether the period is 18 months or whatever Parliament is about to agree to, to begin that timescale, in order to reflect the work that has already been done. Amendment 49 would specify that the 18-month period can be counted as beginning on the date on which the bill was introduced to Parliament, if local authorities had started doing the work then. Alternatively, amendment 50 would specify that that point would be the date on which the bill is given royal assent and becomes an act, so that the period could start before the secondary legislation that will be required to implement much of the bill is brought forward.

Clearly, local levies will not be able to come in until the secondary legislation is passed by Parliament. The purpose of amendments 49 and 50 is to allow local authorities to—as COSLA expressed—get on with it. Some local authorities are champing at the bit to introduce the schemes, and the revenue from them would be of huge value to the local community, the visitor economy and visitors themselves. We want to see as few barriers as possible in their way, and we want to recognise the work that some local authorities—including, as I mentioned, Edinburgh, Highland and Glasgow—have already done to engage with their local communities and with local businesses, and to ensure that they are in a position to introduce these schemes as soon as possible.

I move amendment 34.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

This is a fairly large group of amendments, many of which are interrelated, so I will cover them in the most logical order that I can.

The objectives and the use of funding that is raised by a visitor levy scheme have been a consistent focus throughout the bill process. The objectives of a visitor levy scheme must relate to developing, supporting or sustaining facilities or services that are substantially for, or used by, people who are visiting an area for leisure or business purposes, or both. Amendment 34 from Ross Greer seeks to make that a subjective test that would effectively be decided by a local authority. Although I respect and appreciate the arguments that Mr Greer makes, in my view, that would cut across the point of having a clear test in the bill, and the Government, therefore, does not support the amendment.

Turning to the issue of modifying a scheme, amendments 9 and 10 reflect the discussions that I have had with stakeholders about when the 18-month implementation period should apply. The Government’s position is that the 18-month implementation period should apply when a visitor levy scheme is introduced or undergoes a significant modification. Amendment 9 clarifies that in the bill, and amendment 10 sets out the changes that would be classed as significant modifications. They include increasing the percentage rate of a levy and expanding the geographical area in which a levy applies.

Amendments 11 and 12 allow ministers to make regulations to change the list of significant modifications in the future. That would be possible only after consultation with local authorities and tourism and business stakeholders, and subject to the approval of Parliament, and that power is there to be used in future if necessary.

Amendment 7 adds a visitor levy scheme’s objectives to the required content of a visitor levy scheme. That means that modifying a scheme’s objectives will require the same consultation as any other modification to a scheme.

Ross Greer has lodged a number of amendments relating to when a visitor levy comes into force. The Government continues to believe that there is a strong case for the 18-month implementation period. Eighteen months provides adequate time for both local authorities and businesses to put in place systems and to train staff to effectively collect and administer a levy. Some 82 per cent of respondents to our public consultation supported a timeframe of at least one financial year following the conclusion of consultation and engagement activities. That was also supported by 16 out of the 18 local authorities that responded to the question. A period of 18 months is the recommended time as suggested by the European Tourism Association.

The Parliament is legislating for all 32 local authorities and is seeking to put in place a robust bill that will be in place for many years to come. With that perspective, I do not believe that it is right to be driven by the current views of any one particular local authority. The Government therefore does not support amendments 47 or 48, which seek to reduce the 18-month period.

Amendments 49 and 50 both seek to redefine the point at which a local authority can make a decision to introduce a visitor levy scheme. In my view, both those amendments contradict the clear, measured process that the bill would put in place. In the case of amendment 49, that could potentially mean a visitor levy being put in place before the end of this year, which would cause substantial concern and problems for accommodation providers and the tourism industry in general. The Government does not support either of those amendments. I can assure Ross Greer, however, that the Government’s intention is to follow the usual timescales in commencing the bill and bringing it into force. We want local government to have the powers, hence our introducing the bill and guiding it through Parliament. I am not prepared, however, to shortcut a thorough process of consultation and implementation, which will make time for all voices to be heard and will allow businesses and local authorities to implement a visitor levy efficiently.

For those reasons, I ask members to support the Government amendments in this group.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

It is undoubtedly true that there are local authorities that are, as Ross Greer put it, champing at the bit: those local authorities that experience the highest volumes of tourism, and which, in turn, experience some of the highest costs. The visitor levy will undoubtedly make a big difference in that regard. It is because of that desire that my colleague Sarah Boyack lodged amendments at stage 2.

However, we need to consider the time that is required by businesses, especially some small businesses, to prepare for the change. As someone who has had to implement changes that have been imposed by Government, particularly VAT changes at till-point systems, I know that doing so is not always easy or straightforward. I do not mean to make a difficult point here, because I am trying to be constructive, but we have had recent experience of controversy being caused when changes to regulations or requirements have been introduced, perhaps without adequate timelines. It is only right that, for such a measure, we take our time and strike a balance between the needs of local authorities and those of local businesses.

The other observation that I would make, as a former retailer—it is not exactly the same thing as running accommodation, but it has its parallels—is that, as much as consideration should be given to the time that is taken, consideration should also be given to the point in the year at which such a levy is introduced by any local authority. We do not want local authorities to introduce a levy at peak season. I argue that it would be folly to introduce one in April, May or June, just as businesses are hitting peak periods. I urge local authorities that are considering such levies to introduce them in low season—in January, February or March. I wonder whether the minister might reflect on those sorts of issues that local authorities might want to consider.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

On that point, it is important that local authorities take into account such issues in order to ensure confidence among businesses and, ultimately, to realise the potential of the visitor levy as a force for good that can generate significant revenues for local visitor economies. The processes of administration and the way in which local government takes forward such proposals must be built on the most solid foundations of consultation and engagement with businesses, in order to bring their lived experience and expertise to bear. We are seeking to capture that through our work on the national guidance, and I reassure Daniel Johnson and the Parliament that such issues relating to implementation and administration will be reflected in that guidance.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I thank the minister for that intervention. The approach that the Government is taking—using statutory guidance as the vehicle and undertaking a consultation with the industry—strikes the balance that I alluded to earlier. In relation to the previous group of amendments, the visitor levy forum will also enable that dialogue to take place at a local level.

We need to strike the right balance. I hear the calls from local authorities, and I understand their needs, but I also have concerns about businesses being given adequate time to prepare to implement a levy, given that they are the ones that will have to administer it.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

As the minister will be aware from our consideration of the bill, I am keen for the City of Edinburgh Council to be able to get on and implement a levy as quickly as possible. As Daniel Johnson mentioned, I lodged probing amendments at stage 2—they were very similar to a couple of those that Ross Greer referenced—in relation to delivering the potential benefits of a visitor levy in a timely manner.

I listened carefully to and have reflected on the discussion at stage 2, as well as the views that we received from the industry. At the end of the day, I want the levy to work. A key part of that involves ensuring that accommodation providers have the time that they need to be ready to introduce the levy from day 1. At the same time, it is key that the benefits of the visitor levy are not delayed for too long.

The City of Edinburgh Council can move more quickly than other local authorities, because it has been working with local stakeholders on a transient visitor levy for years. Some of us have been involved in discussions about the need for a tourist or visitor levy for almost a decade. I know that the local authority has been following the legislative process in the Parliament very closely and that it has already carried out a number of consultations in Edinburgh to get the discussion going on the implementation side of our ambition.

Will the minister commit to working closely with the City of Edinburgh Council to ensure that the work that it needs to do to meet the consultation requirements that are set out in section 12 of the bill is kept to a minimum, as is reasonable, so that lessons can be learned from our experience in Edinburgh and that we can get on with joining cities and localities across Europe in introducing a levy? I would be delighted to take an intervention from the minister.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I am happy to commit to continuing to engage with individual local authorities and COSLA. I recognise the level of ambition in Edinburgh and, indeed, in the Highlands and Glasgow, as Ross Greer referenced. I very much appreciate the desire to just get on with it, as COSLA put it. As I touched on, it is important to remember that we are legislating for all 32 local authorities and for a scheme that will be in force for many years to come. I remain committed to having constructive engagement with the industry and local government to ensure that we move forward with implementation in as efficient and effective a way as possible. In that spirit, my door always remains open if members wish to discuss such matters further.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I will definitely take up that offer. The meetings with the minister and representatives from the council have already been useful.

I will sum up. In some ways, Edinburgh is almost a pilot area, because the work has been going on for so long. It is crucial for our cultural sector and the key services that a tourist visitor levy would enable us to deliver that we are able to get on with it.

I welcome the minister’s constructive comments. I hope that we can get the bill through and get it implemented in a timely manner, and that we do not have to wait for too long. As others have said, there are local authorities that are champing at the bit, and an awful lot of hard work has already been done in preparation. I hope that we can be constructive and get moving on the matter.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I have found the debate on these amendments to be extremely useful. I very much recognise Sarah Boyack’s explanation not just of what Ross Greer talked about in respect of certain local authorities chomping at the bit, but in detailing the preparatory work that has been on-going for some time, not just in the City of Edinburgh Council but in Glasgow City Council and Highland Council.

Daniel Johnson made a valid point about the need to strike a balance. Even in areas where a lot of preparatory work has been undertaken, second-guessing what Parliament might do in terms of any amendments to the legislation, even if it is expected to pass, would be dangerous. In the interests of ensuring successful implementation of the bill not just in the three council areas that have been mentioned but in, potentially, the other 29 authorities around the country, taking additional time is, as Daniel Johnson was right to point out, the best way to move forward. That will be reflected in the way that we address the amendments in the group.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I will press amendment 34.

I very much associate myself with Sarah Boyack’s remarks. I have nothing more to add other than that, to help the clerks, I will not press amendment 48 if amendment 47 falls, and I will not press amendment 49 if amendment 10 is agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone would not connect. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Grahame. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 86, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 disagreed to.

Section 13—Required content of a scheme

Amendment 7 moved—[Tom Arthur]—and agreed to.

Amendment 8 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Miles Briggs].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.