 Rwy'n meddwl i'r next item of business, a'r next item of business is a debate on motion 11871. In the name of Tom Arthur on Visitor Levy Scotland Bill at stage 1, I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons and I call on Tom Arthur to speak to and to move the motion up to 10 minutes please minister. Before I turn to the bill itself, I first want to thank the local government housing and planning committee for the work that they have carried out in examining the bill. I am pleased to see the majority of the committee's support for general principles of the bill and I thank all the committee members for the diligent and thoughtful way they have carried out their work and the useful report that they have produced. I would also like to be on record and record my thanks for all those who have engaged constructively with us to help us improve and refine the bill. That includes members of this Parliament, businesses, local government and others with an interest. I have welcomed the positive way that they have engaged with the Government and I will highlight some of the fruits of that engagement later in my speech. Turning to the content of the bill itself, this bill is an important measure and if passed will give local authorities a significant new power. 21 out of 27 EU countries have already some kind of visitor levy and they are commonplace in other locations throughout the world. I strongly believe that a visitor levy can be a force for good, supporting the visitor economy and bringing benefits to visitors, residents and businesses. The offers council has this opportunity to use the proceeds to invest in their local economy, bringing benefits to residents and visitors alike. I thank the minister for taking the intervention from the work done on the bill. I think that if you talk to businesses it is clear that this is a real test of whether the new deal for businesses has actually got traction and there has been concerns raised as he knows by the likes of STA, FSB and others about admin, burden, complexity, VAT threshold and many other issues. On that point about contributing to local economies, what steps are going to be taken to include local businesses in committees to work with local authorities to make sure that proceeds from the visitor levy are actually spent locally on things that are going to support the tourist economy? I thank Mr MacKee for that intervention. I also put on record my thanks to Mr MacKee when he was in his role as tourism minister for his close work and collaboration and input in that. I recognise very much the calls of the STA and others to look for ways in which we can maximise the input of business in determining the allocation of funds to support the visitor economy. On some of those points I will return to later in my remarks. International good practice, highlighted by the European Tourism Association, tells us that local consultation is crucial to a successful visitor levy. The bill would require a local authority to consult local businesses, communities and tourism organisations. In good local engagement, as Ivan MacKee picks up, it will be really important in making sure that a visitor levy is well designed and that the funds that it raises will be used to best effect. I welcome the fact that the committee's report also emphasises that point. The committee's report raises a number of issues relating to the provisions in the bill. The Scottish Government has provided a written response to those, but I will briefly address some of the main points to SNOW. First, the report has raised the right basis of the charge for the levy. Under the bill, as introduced, a visitor levy will be a percentage rate of the cost of accommodation with the rates set by the local authority. We have chosen this model due to its simplicity and proportionality. It means that any levy will reflect a visitor's ability to pay, adjust automatically as prices change through the seasons. I mean that the visitor levy paid reflects the type of accommodation from five-star hotels to campsite pitches. However, we are aware of the calls from the industry and some local authorities to change the basis of charge to a flat fee. A single flat fee model has its own merit, such as ease of collection, but sacrifices the fairness inherent in a percentage rate. The committee's report has called on the Government to work with stakeholders to agree a way forward. Today, I can confirm that we will engage with both local government and industry partners to consider the issue further, and we will confirm the Government's position before stage 2 takes place. The minister is talking about scope. I wonder if he is considered further the issue of campervans, because there are many who are very concerned that this is a tax on bricks and mortar. We see in many parts of Scotland, quickly, around the north coast—500 on elsewhere—a shift towards the use of campervans who will be exempt, as it currently stands, from paying the tax, particularly if they wild camp, which carries the problems in itself. Is there any way that the legislation might be amended to try to bring campervans within its scope? If Mr Fraser will indulge me, I will not touch on that in my prepared remarks, but beyond that I will be more than happy to engage with the member further following the conclusion of this debate. On the issue of monitoring, the committee's report notes that robust monitoring will be needed to understand the impact of any visitor levy introduced by a local authority. The bill already requires a local authority to report annually on the performance of a visitor levy in relation to its objectives and to formally review a visitor levy scheme every three years. We believe that those local monitoring arrangements are appropriate, reflecting the discretion and nature of the levy and in keeping with the Verity House agreement. However, in light of the committee's report, we will explore before local government partners the potential merits of a co-ordinated approach to monitoring. On the definition of overnight accommodation, I know that there are strong views on the inclusion of moorings and berthings. I have been engaging with the marine industry to understand their concerns further and their perspective. Following this helpful engagement, I can confirm that the Scottish Government accepts the committee's recommendation to remove moorings and berthings from the scope of a visitor levy. I pay tribute to Stuart McMillan MSP, who has convened meetings to enable me to discuss this issue and hear the views of industry. I look forward to working with Mr McMillan and others to address the issue at stage 2 of the bill. Another aspect of the bill that has raised strong views, as Mr Fraser touched on, is the treatment of motorhomes and camper vans. Under the bill, as introduced, a visitor levy can apply to motorhomes staying overnight on a campsite. Motorhomes are other vehicles that stay on other areas such as private land and would not be captured. The Scottish Government has considered carefully whether a levy or charge could be applied to include those activities. Discussions with council and land management stakeholders have highlighted significant issues with a levy on motorhomes, with potential difficulties in application, administration and compliance. I welcome the committee's similar conclusions on that aspect. I also recognise the committee's point that there may be further technological solutions that could allow a levy or charge on motorhomes to be developed in the future, so we will continue to engage with our partners and stakeholders on this issue and will consider any developed proposals that will work to support the visitor economy. I will now turn to the issue of exemptions from paying a visitor levy. Under the bill, as it is currently drafted, the visitor levy will not apply to those who use overnight accommodation as their sole or usual place of residence. That means, for example, that those who are at risk of homelessness and those fleeing from domestic abuse will not have to pay a visitor levy. We recognise that there may be other instances in which a local authority believes that charging a levy would be inappropriate. That is why councils would be given the power to create their own exemptions when designing their levy schemes. I know that the committee has asked the Government to consider whether national exemptions should be created for children and young people, and I am happy to confirm that the Scottish World Government will consider that suggestion further. I will give way to Mr Ewing. I thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I ask the minister, given that we have spent an hour this afternoon debating the horizon computer system, if the visitor levy is going to be dependent on one or up to 32 computer systems and if anyone has worked out how these are to be organised and paid for and how much it is going to cost and what little sum will be left for anyone else? I am happy to assure the member that the Bria takes into account, as it is the financial memorandum as well, the broad cost that this legislation, if enacted, would have and if utilised by local government, clearly it would be a decision for individual local authorities whether or not to proceed with a visitor levy. What we have undertaken is to ask VisitScotland to convene an expert group, bringing expertise from industry and local government together to produce guidance and advice on best practice and implementation. That is partly to assist local authorities in ensuring that they can have the most effective administration and implementation of a visitor levy should they choose to do so. I am, of course, happy to continue having conversations to determine where further harmonisation of administrative approach between local authorities would be appropriate, while still allowing local authorities that policy autonomy to apply a visitor levy is best suited to their particular area. On the leading time required before a local authority can implement its levy, I note the comments from the committee. I appreciate the desire from those councils who have already undertaken work on a visitor levy to use this new power as soon as possible. However, I am keenly aware of the strong support from the hospitality and tourism industry for the 18-month period, as it gives businesses the necessary time to put in place measures to effectively collect the levy. That is an issue of real importance to the tourism industry, and I have listened to their arguments carefully. The Scottish Government therefore considers the 18-month implementation period an appropriate length of time, giving businesses the time it will need to adapt to any visitor levy or local authority introduces. I have also noted the committee's call to consider allowing funds raised by a visitor levy to be invested in services or facilities used by visitors travelling for business purposes. We have listened to local government and others on this point, and we will consider how the provisions of the bill on the use of funds can be best refined at stage 2 to include services or facilities used by those visiting the area for business. Minister, you will need to bring your marks to close, please. Finally, we have recognised calls for a national cap on the levy rate, and we will consider that ahead of stage 2. That is a new power that will enhance local government and can be an opportunity to create opportunities for significant revenue generation for investment in our local tourist economies. It will be a discretionary power should the legislation be passed. I move the motion in my name. I now call on Arion Bridges to speak on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee up to nine minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the local government housing and planning committee in the stage 1 debate on the visitor levy Scotland bill. I begin by thanking all those who took the time to provide evidence to us. We received over 370 responses to our former consultation, with a similar number engaging via our more informal online forum. As part of our scrutiny, the committee visited Orkney and Abymor to listen to the views of local stakeholders, including councils. Parliamentary officials also supported several engagement workshops held in Edinburgh and across Highlands to hear the views of local communities, and I thank all those who contributed towards our scrutiny of the bill. Turning to our stage 1 report itself, it is perhaps worth highlighting that, whilst the full committee signed up to many of the recommendations, there were also a significant number from which Conservative members of the committee dissented. I am sure that they will elucidate their reasons for this later in the debate, and I look forward to hearing their contributions. Given the time available, I intend to focus my comments today on three key themes of consideration for the committee—the appropriateness of a significant degree of local autonomy around whether and how to implement the levy. The issue of whether a percentage rate or flat rate charge would be most appropriate, and the ways in which revenues raised from a levy should best be invested to the benefit of visitors and local communities alike. As members will know, similar levies have been in place throughout Europe and in other parts of the world for some time and appear to have been successful in generating revenues to help to improve the experience of visitors to popular destinations. It was suggested by some stakeholders that the introduction of a levy in Scotland could deter tourists from visiting, but having reflected on the evidence in detail, the committee considered that, on balance, the introduction of a levy at a modest rate would be unlikely to have a significant deterrent effect on visitor numbers given the unique nature of Scotland as a destination and the experiences of other jurisdictions where a levy has been introduced. As an enabling legislation, it is worth noting that local authorities would not be obliged to introduce the levy. Indeed, it appears likely that only relatively small numbers of councils would do so in the first instance. The bill also provides for a high degree of flexibility on how a levy should be implemented should a council choose to do so, something that was broadly supported by local authorities in keeping with the principles set out in the Verity House agreement. However, representatives of the tourism and accommodation sectors generally preferred national consistency with one stakeholder suggesting that parts of the bill amounted to localism for localism's sake. Having considered those opposing perspectives in detail, the committee recognised that there were persuasive arguments in favour of a local approach, as well as for national consistency, but on balance the majority of members of the committee were persuaded that local government should have the flexibility to design an approach best suited to local circumstances. However, remaining mindful of the concerns of many stakeholders, we highlighted the importance of robust monitoring to ensure that negative impacts for businesses and others can be addressed should the need arise. We welcome the Scottish Government's recognition of the benefits that a co-ordinated monitoring approach could bring and its commitment to discussing the matter further with local government. Turning to the rate at which a levy would apply, the bill provides that it would be a percentage of the total accommodation cost to be set out by the local authority. Again, many local authorities welcomed the flexibility that this would bring to councils, although others preferred a flat rate for administrative ease. The tourism and accommodation sectors overwhelmingly favoured a flat rate with the Scottish Tourism Alliance arguing that a percentage model would be overly complex and excessively burdensome for certain types of accommodation providers and visitors. Conversely, we heard compelling arguments around proportionality from other witnesses with the European Tourism Association suggesting that it is very hard to justify someone who is staying in a budget accommodation paying the same amount as someone who is staying in a high-end accommodation as paying. As noted in our report, this was perhaps the most challenging aspect of the bill in terms of what the right approach should be. We recognised that there are strong arguments, both for and against, either a percentage or a flat rate and noted that either approach would inevitably bring its own benefits and challenges. For this reason, we invited the Scottish Government to undertake further work with stakeholders before stage 2 to reach and agree to the solution. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment, as we heard from the Minister just now, to reflect further on that ahead of stage 2. However, I would welcome hearing from the Minister in summing up that further reflection will involve consultation with all the key stakeholders. The third and final theme that I intend to discuss today relates to how any revenues raised through a levy should be invested. The bill provides that any funds raised from a visitor levy should only be used to support the objectives of a visitor levy scheme, which must relate to developing, supporting or sustaining facilities or services that are substantially for or used by persons visiting the scheme area for leisure purposes. Again, it would be for local authorities in consultation with local stakeholders to decide exactly how revenues are spent to support those objectives. The tourism sector broadly welcomed the definition, and the Scottish Tourism Alliance explained that it is only fair that the money raised is reinvested in tourism. Many facilities are used by visitors to an area and local residents alike. The committee supported decisions on spend being taken at a local level and agreed that the definition was broad enough to allow real flexibility in spending priorities following consultation with local stakeholders, while ensuring that investment also corresponds to the priorities of local tourism and accommodation businesses. However, while we generally supported the criteria for investing revenues, we also listened to stakeholders who highlighted the economic importance of business visitors. The Edinburgh Hotels Association told us that business events alone are worth £2 billion to the Scottish economy. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to amending the bill so that funds can be invested in services or facilities used by visitors travelling for business purposes, as well as by those doing so for leisure. I also want to add another note, which I heard just now from the minister around the birthing and mooring position in the bill. I am glad to hear that the minister has taken that on board. Time does not allow me to cover all the areas that the committee considered at stage 1. However, I look forward to the contributions of other members this afternoon and will conclude by noting that the majority of members of the committee supported the general principles of the bill and stand ready to work constructively with the minister at stage 2, should the Parliament approve the bill's general principles today. I thank the clerks of the local government committee for the work that they have put in to consideration of the bill and the many organisations that have provided very helpful briefings ahead of today's debate. We should rightly be proud and celebrate our outstanding tourism sector in Scotland. The visitor-offer tourist businesses across Scotland provide is world-class and the importance to our economy, both local and national, is significant and must not be underestimated or undervalued. Tourism is estimated to be worth £4.5 billion to the Scottish economy and directly supports over 250,000 jobs across the country. Importantly, in some of our most economically vulnerable rural and island communities. For many tourism businesses in rural Scotland, they have not fully recovered from the impact of the pandemic and in recent years have faced a period of significant additional costs to their businesses. It is therefore understandable that in many tourism businesses they are concerned at the impact that the tourism levy bill will have on their business and the wider tourism sector as well, especially those small businesses who under the bill are set to become tax collectors and be responsible and perhaps more important liable for the policy as well. The bill could also lead to smaller businesses being pushed over the vat threshold unless the visitor levy tax is classified as non-taxable income as part of their business, as Ivan McKee has already touched on today. As a small self-catering business stated in the response to the local government and housing committee's report, having experienced the stress and evident ongoing confusion regarding the short-term legislation with all 32 versions of rules and pricing and different interpretations of the law, I am afraid that the same fiasco will be repeated with the visitor levy. I hope that the minister is taking on board the concerns that have been expressed to committee. Deputy Presiding Officer, many witnesses have also stated during the evidence sessions that this is not a tourist tax, it is another accommodation tax. In the time that I have today, I want to outline several areas that I hope the Scottish Government will consider supporting important amendments as we move to stage 2. I note the Scottish Government's response to local government housing and planning committee's stage 1 report. Scottish Government states that they are still considering options around the merits of a flat and percentage rate, and I welcome the comments that we have heard. Industry must be at the heart of the decision, and I hope that the proposals that the STA has put forward as well will be considered by ministers. If the legislation is passed, it is important that we set a national set of exemptions, and those are allowed for. Certain groups are not forced to pay additional charges. The current voucher proposal in the bill is simply not fit for purpose. The bill, as it stands, is weak and does not present a clear framework on how exemptions will operate. The bill therefore needs to have a defined set of national schemes made available. Those, I think, have over the period of time—if I can get some time back, I am happy to take an intervention. The member has spoken about national exemptions. I am happy to have that conversation. Can the member state what his party's position is with the discretion for local exemptions? If we can get the national exemptions right, then those local exemptions will not be needed, but it is making sure that the bill has them on the face of it. That is something over the time that we have had in committee and the limited time that we have today. I think that there has been emerging consensus that the voucher scheme is not going to provide for that, and having them on the face of the bill is important. It would be unfair, I think, to capture some of the most vulnerable people in our society in this bill. People visiting children and family members in hospital or hospices, people visiting family members in prison, business travellers, including actors and stage support staff, people staying in an area for work reasons, for example, people working on renewable and net zero projects. Scottish Conservatives want to see workable solutions embedded in the bill. It is clear that the minister has already acknowledged that, across Europe, exemption schemes are in place and have very much been at the heart of different bits of legislation in different parts of Europe. In almost all schemes, children are exempt, and many also provide a clear list of additional groups exempt from paying those taxes. Residents, for example, who reside in a local authority area, children in school and further education groups and disabled people. I welcome the potential exemption that the minister has pointed towards. In practically every country, the tourism levy operates. Children under 18 are exempt, and in Portugal an exemption is made for people under 23. As the Federation of Small Businesses states in their briefing, there is concern at the potential variation and total lack of detail over how the exemptions will currently be applied and administered by businesses. That is why, at stage 2, Scottish Conservatives will bring forward a number of amendments to try to make sure that the bill has this clarification and provision included. I hope that ministers will engage positively on that important issue. The bill might not come into force until spring 2026, but making sure that those exemption schemes are built into the models and systems needed from the outset must be a real priority. Finally, as with other bills in recent years such as the short-term let's pill, we have seen significant problems and costs faced by local authorities and businesses. The Association of Self-Caterers is right to say that the visitor levy expert group needs to provide the detailed answers and mechanisms for the bill to operate effectively and in a uniformed way in the councils that will decide to take forward at the policy. As things stand, there is a significant vacuum in many areas of the bill, and we must see details developed to provide clarity and help the tourism sector to limit the costs and negative impacts that the bill will have on their businesses. That is why the Scottish Tourism Alliance has called for an urgent and absolute clarity to be put on the face of the bill, and I agree. Our Scottish tourism sector already faces one of the highest tax burdens anywhere in the world. The tourism sector has accepted that this bill will now pass, with SNP Green and Labour MSPs supporting it from the concept, but the devil will be in the detail, and at present that has not been provided for this bill. Parliament is developing a bad reputation for passing poorly drafted legislation, and we cannot allow this to be the case for the visitor levy bill and the measures that will be brought forward and administered, especially for small businesses such as bed and breakfast and guest houses, whom many already operate with no IT system, but we are forced to in this bill. We are opposed to the SNP Green Government's plans to introduce this visitor levy bill. We believe that this can have a real impact, a negative impact on industry, which has suffered, especially during the time of the pandemic. We want to make sure that ministers do all that they can and listen to the concerns raised, and I hope that, genuinely in the sense of consensus, ministers will reach out beyond the party supporting this bill to try to make sure that we put this right. Certainly in committee, I have led many of the conversations around the exemption schemes and want to make sure that we do see that taken forward. Ministers have stated that the purpose of the visitor levy is to generate revenue for local government to support and maintain tourism-related infrastructure, services and amenities, yet we are still not clear how those funds will be ring-fenced to help achieve that. Who will take that decision-making forward and where those monies are then spent? In the coming week, Scottish Conservatives will try to work to limit the damage that this bill may have on our tourism businesses and to improve the bill, to make it fairer and limit the impact that it will have on capturing people—certainly people who are visiting loved ones in hospital, young people and those on education visits and vulnerable families. I hope that across Parliament we can work to make sure that that is taken forward to stage 2 and final stage 3. We welcome today's debate and support the general principles of the visitor levy bill. Given local councils the power to implement visitor levies to help pay for services to support tourism is something that is long overdue. It is something that we have called for in here and in council chambers across the country for the best part of a decade. I want to put on record my thanks to the committee clerks and to all of the organisations that have given evidence so far considering the issues raised by the prospect of this new levy. However, for such a simple idea, a simple concept, the detail quickly becomes complex with many competing arguments being heard. What that debate in complexity has underlined is just how much tourism is key to Scotland's economy. It is right that we all understand that there is a balance that this legislation must achieve between sustainable tourism, promoting economic growth and funding investment in local services. Like a council tax surcharge on second homes or the need for a licence and scheme for short-term lets, there will be far greater rationale for a visitor levy in some parts of the country compared to others. The benefits to Edinburgh or the Highlands are clear, but, as I mentioned in previous debates, all of Scotland is not visited equally. In my region, for example, Lanarkshire has just nine hotels for every 100,000 people while Lothian has 29. Whether a tourist tax is a useful tool for all councils will be for them to determine. As the bill team has indicated, so far only four councils have expressed that interest. However, there are many issues that still need to be addressed at stage 2, making sure that the powers are not overly onerous or impractical for businesses or local authorities is important. On committee, we came to the view that a levy would be unlikely to have a significant deterrent effect on visitors. Throughout our recommendations, we emphasised again and again that robust monitoring and reviews were needed to be sure that powers are used in a transparent and accountable way, addressing the issues and concerns raised on the impact on businesses, visitor numbers and where the funds are inevitably spent. The bill requires funds to be spent on developing, supporting or sustaining facilities for leisure purposes. Such a hypothesis runs counter to the Verity House agreement. COSLA and councils have argued against string-fencing or excessive regulation. However, the tourism sector prefers greater prescription. They say that if their clients and customers are going to face additional charges, investment in the facilities and amenities that they and their residents use should be prioritised. However, what was clear and is a sentiment supported from those benches is that the revenues cannot be used to undermine or further cut budgets. Campaigns for a levy have long identified culture and leisure budgets that need propped up, but the Scottish Government cannot legislate to force councils to plug gaps with the spending from this levy. Aberdeen City and Shard Hotels Association said that it cannot be used to replace core services. The Association of Sort Term ASC made clear that the support of the sector would be lost completely if that happened. The committee took the view that funds should be kept in separate accounts and should be considered as being additional to existing funding streams. When you get past the initial idea of creating a new tax or levy, the complexities start to become obvious. Whether that is a tourist tax or a visitor levy is a concern that was frequently raised in the evidence that the committee heard. Given the extreme financial constraints that our councils are presently operating under, what is given to them in one hand through this levy are in reality likely to take away with the other? Mr Hoy makes my point that re-emphasises the point that it was already making. That cannot be a substitute for a reduction in general revenue grant to local authorities. That cannot be about plugging a gap that already exists. Any revenue that is raised must be about improving the tourism offer. It must be about improving the services that tourists appreciate and visit Scotland for, not for, backdoor backfilling of funding gaps that exist, that the Scottish Government should commit to reversing before we even look at this levy at all, or we will lose the confidence of the sector when it comes to this new levy. In its most simple form, many witnesses have said that the levy is in fact an accommodation levy, the chargeable event being when someone takes entry into overnight accommodation. We have heard variously from the likes of Outer Hebrides tourism, Visit Arran, Argyllian Bute and Highland Council and others, how that definition would not levy daytrippers or those on cruise ships, camper vans or wild camping. One of potentially a number of unintended consequences could be the incentivisation of more daytrippers. That is something that we should keep an eye on. A fundamental area of disagreement that remains is whether the bill should dictate the charging framework for the levy or not, whether it should be a percentage or a flat rate. Glasgow and East Lothian have said that they prefer a flat rate. West Lothian, South Lanarkshire and Edinburgh prefer a percentage of Edinburgh's preference is informed by the need to take account of price fluctuations throughout the season and progressively levy the broad range of accommodations from budget to luxury. FSB Scotland said that its members were also split on the differences and caused a call for a general power for councils rather than defining the levy and the mechanism in primary legislation. A tiered flat rate is also proposed as a progressive but simplified option that could be prescribed in the legislation. The concern about the complexity of implementation and collection was also extensive because the person who is liable for collecting levies and paying the sum to local councils is the accommodation owner. That could be very complex for a very small and micro-business season. The committee agreed that the burden should be kept to a minimum and we look forward to the feedback from that expert group at stage 2. We have proposed a similar levy in previous manifestos and have identified that that could be a key part of the fiscal framework democratic about accountability for local authorities and for those reasons support the principles at stage 1. Thank you, Mr Griffin. I now call Beatrice Wishart, who is joining us remotely. Up to six minutes please, Ms Wishart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This evening, Scottish Liberal Democrats will offer conditional support for this bill at stage 1, but in order for us to be able to vote for the bill at stage 3, we would need to see substantial changes, including making the levy applicable to cruise ship passengers, but more of that later. Scottish Liberal Democrats agree with the principle of allowing councils in areas with high tourism demand the option of introducing a levy in order to invest in local infrastructure and services. Local authorities have their backs against the wall and will need options to protect budgets for key local services. Liberal Democrats believe in empowering people, we believe in empowering communities and as such we believe that local authorities should have the power to introduce such a levy if they so choose. Some local authorities, such as Eddindra, are very keen to be able to make use of those powers as soon as possible. Even in Eddindra however, I know that there are concerns about the omission of cruise ship passengers from the levy. This loophole is problematic for councils across the country. It introduces an inherent unfairness that needs to be addressed before any legislation is in place. The Northern Isles of a growing cruise ship sector, we offer a warm welcome and recognise the contribution to the local economy through bus tours, tourist guides and visiting local attractions. But with alarming speed, the population of some towns can seem to double, especially when several cruise ships visit on the same day. Up to the end of September 2023, almost 124,000 visitors arrived at Lerwick, compared to a little over 58,000 the previous year, a significant bounce back from the pandemic period. Some daytrippers will travel across the island. The impact on infrastructure by visitors, perhaps increasing levels of maintenance or the need for more public toilets, for example, falls to the local authority. There is also increased pressure on health services, whether GP services, pharmacies or hospitals. It is unfair, then, that daytrippers would be exempt from the proposed visitor levy, whilst anyone else staying in accommodation on land would be obliged to pay. A hotel guest in Shetland will pay the levy and is far more likely to remain in the islands for longer, yet have a smaller impact on local services, while at the same time contributing more to the local economy. The unfairness to hotels, self-catering and similar accommodation is therefore clear to see. That is presumably why both Spain and the Netherlands include cruise ship passengers as part of their visitor levy, so if it has been possible to do it there, I wonder why not here. Presiding officer, I hope that the minister will look at extending the levy to cruise ships. While this would make any levy more relevant and potentially applicable in the northern isles, it would also be relevant to Edinburgh, where cruise ships moored at Queensferry and Leith could also contribute to the levy, as things stand, again these would be exempt from the levy. Similarly, the Law Society's briefing flagged the need for greater guidance to clarify the scope of the definitions of chargeable transaction and overnight accommodation, so the inclusion of cruise ships needs much greater thought. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Scottish Land and Estates, SLE, for their briefing ahead of this debate. I certainly echo SLE's praise of the resilience of the tourism industry as it continues to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic, which has effectively brought the industry to a standstill. We need to ensure that the strong and united message sent out as we debate the visitor levy bill is that tourism remains a key part of our economy and cultural offering and that the intention of this policy is not to reduce the number of tourists visiting all parts of Scotland. To ensure administrative burdens on small businesses are not too great, SLE recommend that returns to local authorities should only be twice annually and highlight that a levy based on a fixed monetary sum rather than a percentage would also be beneficial. SLE also point to concerns that smaller accommodation providers could find themselves in a position where the levy forces them to go over the £85,000 VAT registration threshold, creating even greater costs for smaller operators if the levy is classed as income for their business, which of course it would not be. To conclude, Presiding Officer, my party are minded to support this stage of the bill, but we give notice that we will need to see changes, particularly in the closing of that loophole relating to cruise ships, in order for us to be able to vote for it at stage 3. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms Wishart. We will now move to the open debate. Speeches of up to six minutes. I call Willie Coffey to be followed by Pam Gozo. Mr Coffey. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thanks to the convener too, who captured the issues very well on behalf of the committee. Thanks also to our committee Clarke, who steered us through some choppy waters during our consideration of the bill at this stage. The visitor levy proposal has been around for a while and it is part of the new deal that offers councils more powers, more flexibility and the opportunity to raise extra revenue locally in support of their tourism offer. At our committee this morning, the Minister for Local Government indicated that it could raise an additional £35 million for local councils if the power is taken up. Indeed, as the convener said too, a visitor levy is reasonably common across Europe and appears to be a successful tool in helping to improve the visitor experience. We might be a minute and I'll try and come back to you, Daniel. We may, in fact, have paid it unawares ourselves if we have been abroad at any time. Edinburgh, in fact, having been mentioned already, has been asking for the Government for a tourism levy for some years and is actually very keen to get on with it as are others. I'll give way to Daniel Johnson. I'm very grateful. I agree with the member that we very often pay this when we're abroad and on holiday and it's prevalent, but that's also the situation where, in many of those jurisdictions, the VAT is not applied or applied at a different rate. I think that it's important that we're clear about that point of comparisons when we're paying apples with apples. I just wondered if the member would acknowledge that point. Willie Coffey? I definitely acknowledge that. I think that the minister has provided in the responses to the committee and in writing to the committee that there's an open door to discuss many of those issues at stage 2 and beyond. The councils themselves don't need to use the power, of course, but, if they do, they can apply it across their whole council area or to parts of the area that they consider to be appropriate for the levy. It will apply to overnight accommodation and quarterly returns that will be made to the local council as part of the management of that levy. Now, the biggest debating point that's been mentioned already by a few members was whether the levy should be a percentage or a flat rate. It would be fair to say, I think, that we heard some good if opposing arguments in favour of both. Our committee itself didn't come down in favour of one over the other, but I note the Government's response that it considers the percentage rate to have the edge. Given its more progressive nature, it reflects changes in any pricing and helps us to answer the question about whether it's fair that a flat rate for a five-star hotel should be the same as for a B&B. However, the issue isn't settled, and the Government has committed to confirming its position before stage 2, as the minister said in his opening remarks. Keeping things as simple as possible also seemed to be the watchword of everyone who gave evidence. We got into some detailed discussion about whether local flexibility might sometimes contribute to some confusion. For example, everyone agreed that there should be scope for the councils to design their own schemes to fit their area, but there should also be a balance between local discretion and standardisation at a national level. In terms of rate setting, the councils will be able to set a different rate for different areas, but they won't be allowed to set different rates for different types of accommodation. That's in order to try and keep this level of standardisation in place. I hope that that's viewed as a reasonable compromise. One other interesting development during our consideration of the bill was the announcement by the minister that cruise ships would fall within the scope of the bill. Our colleagues from Highland Council reminded us that they have got 325,000 cruise ship visitors every year, and even a small disembarkation charge could make a huge difference in some of their remote communities. I know that the Government is working on this, and it may seek to amend the bill if it can carry out the work and the consultation on time, but as I understand it, it wouldn't delay the bill if that is not possible. The committee also considered whether the Government should include camper vans, motor home users and the delightfully titled wild campers within the scope of the bill. There may be one or two wild campers in the chamber today. Cozla's wise response was that the cost of collecting that would probably far outweigh the advantage of collecting it in the first place. I imagine that that will not ultimately fall within the scope of the bill, but the minister can clarify that. A recurring theme throughout was how the public and how our tourist visitors will be able to see tangible benefits of the levy over the years. The risk, of course, is that any revenue that is accrued as a result of the levy might disappear into broader council service delivery, but the requirement stated in the bill is quite clear that it has to be directed towards tourism and leisure services. That inevitably takes us into local accountability, and I am pleased to see that the Government will consult further with Cozla to develop some evaluation indicators that will enable the public to assess whether the levy is delivering for their communities. I really enjoyed doing this particular piece of work with the committee and hearing the many and varied opinions about how the visitor levy and whether it will work. Time will tell, of course, and I am not sure if East Asia and my own authority will ultimately take up the power, but I look forward to the rest of the debate and the contributions from all members, and in particular my committee colleagues, who contributed a great deal to the production of the report that will help to take this proposal forward, should Parliament agree. As a member of the committee, I would also like to thank the clerks for all the hard work that they have done, but I would also like to thank everyone who has attended the sessions to provide evidence. The contributions of witnesses were hugely valuable in informing my recommendations on the report. My colleague Miles Briggs and I were often in a minority opinion on the committee's report, and in today's debate I intend to set out why. Firstly, I was and still am sceptical about the aims of the visitor levy bill. In truth, it appears to be a consolation prize for local authorities. Local government has suffered from years of underfunding by the Scottish Government, and so, as a concession, the Scottish Government will provide them power to generate additional revenue. Of course, that would not have been necessary if local government had received a fair funding deal in the first place. Over the past two months, I have spoken directly with around 24 local authorities. Although some of them welcome the additional revenue that the levy could raise, the majority of councils see no benefit in imposing a visitor levy and would gain very little revenue by doing so. Yes, the bill will ease pressures from some councils, but instead it dumps pressure on to accommodation providers. Those benches will not stand idly by and watch even more burdens be placed on businesses. When I asked the committee whether the extra cost on business could be justified given the already high cost of doing business in Scotland, Fiona Campbell from the Association of Self-Caterers was quite right when she said, this is the absolute last thing, small accommodation and self-catering sector needs. As was David Weston from the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association when he said, the tax certainly lands heavily on very small businesses such as bed and breakfasts and self-catering accommodation providers because they will have to collect it. Bed and breakfasts will have to invest and spend money to adapt their accounting systems to collect the tax, so that a cost will be incurred in collecting it. I am happy to take the intervention from Ben Macpherson. I thank the member for taking the intervention. The member has moved on somewhat in their arguments, but I wondered if the member would want to acknowledge that while calling for more funding from central government local authorities represented by COSLA, have consistently argued for more tax-raising powers for local authorities and fiscal powers in that regard. If, consistently, as far as I am aware, I welcomed the proposal. Absolutely to the member that, yes, we absolutely welcome more powers to local authorities and that is what the Verity House agreement is about. However, we must make sure that we do not put burdens on our businesses. We must also look at the disparity. I spoke to 24 local authorities. There are some local authorities there that have said, yes, very few that welcome this, but there is a lot that do not. There is a big disparity created straight away with the collection of, basically, visitor levy from one authority to another. We need to make sure that we get the bill right that we take businesses with us, but we also make sure that we have that fair funding settlement for local authorities. Further concerns were raised by Stacey Dingwall from the Federation of Small Businesses, who spoke about how some members are anticipating that they will have to absorb any potential costs because it will be too difficult for them to administer. If members decide to support the general principles of the bill today, I will be bringing forward amendments on stage 2. Amendments that reflect the concerns of businesses. One change that is needed is the introduction of a flat rate levy. A percentage rate levy would be extremely complex to collect and difficult for consumers to understand. After speaking to so many local authorities across Scotland at length, the majority of councils that I have spoken to who intend to induce a levy would be open to introducing as a flat rate. That would help minimise the burden on local businesses. Therefore, we should look at whether it would be less complex and if there would be delivery as a national scheme with a set cap. I do not think that unless I can have time back. There is not any time on hand, but a brief intervention minister might work. Extremely brief. I am grateful to the member for giving way. It is a proposition for a flat rate of a tiered structure, as has been suggested by industry. I thank the minister for that intervention. Yes, there is a lot put forward whether it should be a tiered system or a flat rate, but a flat rate would be much easier for businesses and the collection would be much more easier to bring it in. What you need to understand from businesses, especially people who have websites, is that you imagine putting something on one local authority, a percentage rate, one local authority, a flat rate and how that website for one business is going to collect. I think that we need to see the mechanisms in a lot more detail in that. I would also like to think that it is fair to say that the alternative models were not considered and firmly believe that there would have been a merit exploring models, including the Manchester Accommodation bid, in more detail. That would have allowed businesses to invest collectively and improve their trading environment, a sure fire way to improve tourism offerings by those who know the industry best. However, that would not make up for the funding shortfalls in the local government settlement, so it is hardly surprising that the members on the opposite benches were not attracted to that option. I will be voting against the visitor levy at the decision time today. On top of an already crowded regulated environment, we are shrinking the sector and then taxing it on top of that. All of that is despite how much our tourism industry contributes to the economy. Councils are in need of extra ways of generating income, but this bill is not the right way to achieve that. We cannot allow Scottish businesses to become unpaid tax collectors for local authorities. We do not have any extra time, and I have given the time for the intervention. We do not have any time in hand, and I was generous with the time that you took for the intervention. We now must move on. I call Stephanie Callaghan to be followed by Sarah Boyat. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a new member of the local government housing and planning committee, it really is a pleasure to be contributing to today's stage 1 debate. Scotland, in all its glory, is rightfully recognised as a global tourist gem. It is the home to serene lochs and picturesque glens, not to mention the internationally acclaimed Edinburgh fringe. Some of my most cherished memories are visits to LUS, where we thoroughly enjoy camping and paddle boarding on the Bonnie banks of Loch Lomond. I am sure that there are many here in chamber that share similar experiences, and I suspect that perhaps I am the wild camper that Mr Coffey referred to earlier. Undoubtedly, the tourism sector has weathered significant financial challenges in recent years. It is therefore crucial that we empower local authorities with the necessary tools to grow a tourism sector and preserve Scotland's position as a world-leading destination, and a well-designed visitor levy can support the same. We do not have to look too far to draw inspiration from our European neighbours like Germany and France, and there is also Barcelona, where the tourism policy has been described as world-leading. Scotland is well placed to harness the positive impacts that a similar levy could bring for our visitors, local businesses and residents alike. The bill marks a significant step towards the Scottish Government's ambition of ffiscally empowering local government and strengthening local democracy, in line with the Verity House agreement, as we have heard. However, to guarantee the effectiveness of the raised funds, local government must leverage this opportunity to build strong relationships with communities, local businesses and tourism organisations, ensuring that their voices are at the very heart of decisions and spending priorities to align with local needs, as Ivan McKee mentioned earlier today. As an example of the Scottish Government has already demonstrated a commendable working relationship during this bill's consultation, as noted by the Scottish Tourism Alliance, it praised the high engagement of both the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing, Economy, Fair Work and Energy and the Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance, and particularly the receptiveness to industry requests. To ensure that those strong working relationships continue, I support the committee's recommendation to actively monitor and measure any unfavourable impacts arising from local flexibility, as that proactive approach will support prompt and effective addressing of issues as they emerge. In the bill's current form, councils are empowered to impose a levy in overnight stays as a percentage of accommodation costs. However, concerns raised by UK hospitality highlight potential challenges for businesses, particularly in package deals, where separating accommodation costs may be problematic. There were also concerns about potential manipulation of charge allocation to keep costs low and entice visitors. In response to those concerns, insights from the Scottish Government on addressing potential gaming of the system in challenges in isolating chargeable transactions from packages would be welcome as we progress. Building on that, while the Scottish Government understands a percentage rate to be the most appropriate basis for the visitor levy, stakeholders in their evidence sessions also made strong arguments in favour of a flat rate or a tiered rate. For instance, the flat rate was praised for its simplicity of administration and enforcement, yet the European Tourism Association rightfully highlighted its hard-to-justify charge in the same fee for budget and high-end accommodations. Both approaches have their own benefits and challenges, and I agree with the committee's view that the Scottish Government must engage in further collaboration with the tourism sector, local authorities and key stakeholders to reach an agreed solution. I recently found an inspiring article about grassroots organisations, empowering women to embrace the great outdoors, a sense of adventure that really resonates with me, enduring evidence that our committee dealt into discussions in the visitor types that are covered by the bill and whether that should include wild campers. While my own wild camping experiences—and that is by tent—have been environmentally and socially considered, the Highland Council's concerns about post-lockdown visitor surges, straining local services and rural infrastructure are very valid. I appreciate the reasons for wishing to include wild campers in the legislation. However, tent camping is often a more affordable alternative for family holidays, and implementation might be difficult. Perhaps that is reflected in the fact that other countries do not include wild campers. I appreciate the points made by the minister today. I look into my own area. Lanarkshire might not immediately spring to mind as a top tourist destination, as Mark Griffin pointed out earlier today, but I am a bit more positive, and I think that we have quite a bit to shout about, such as M&D's theme park, or the captivating Hamilton-Mausoleum Museum, surrounded by an extraordinary site of special scientific interest that is teeming with rare flora and fauna, or the new nearby outdoor sports facilities in Strathclyde country park. I am eager to see how local authorities will harness their powers to strategically enhance my area and wider Scotland. Though undoubtedly challenges will arise, the efficacy of the legislation hinges on the empowerment of local authorities to make local decisions that meet local needs. It is imperative, however, as has been said, that those decisions are fuelled by the invaluable perspectives of local business, tourism organisations and our communities. In closing, I agree with the general principles of the visitor levy Scotland bill and urge members to vote in favour at stage 1 today. I very much welcome the bill and want to place my thanks on record to the committee for their stage 1 scrutiny of the bill and to the stakeholders who took part in the process. I also want to thank the minister for his early engagement with me on the bill, including the meeting that I had with him and the leader of Edinburgh council last year. I am particularly pleased to see the bill, as in session 4 of the Parliament I had started working on the issue. I know that our local authorities have been lobbying for this additional power for some years now, so I hope that we will see a power in Scotland that is already extended to localities in cities right across Europe, which would enable our local authorities to get active on the issue if they want to use the powers. That is the key thing. Last year, I visited Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, and I only noticed that there was a visitor levy in place when the bill was being paid. There are lots that can be agreed on across the chamber, but I think that scrutiny at stage 2 would be useful to ensure that the bill works to its maximum advantage. For example, in section 17, I am concerned about the way that some of the wording of the bill is put about the restriction of the use of net proceeds for developing, supporting, sustaining facilities and services that are used by visitors for leisure purposes. I think that that could be problematic, because in Edinburgh, for example, we definitely welcome visitors to our city. It is an absolutely key part of our economy, and we are as a city as well. However, there is sometimes attention between residents and the impact of our successful visitor economy on the numbers of people that we have. For example, residents and visitors often use the same infrastructure and services, and at peak times in the year in Edinburgh, residents often experience challenges with services at full capacity or impacts on street cleansing, for example. Let us have a bit of a debate at stage 2 about the words, leisure purposes, because we do not want unintended consequences for local authorities. Another issue that has been raised today, I think, very effectively by Ariane Burgess, was the evidence by the Edinburgh Hotels Association, who feared that visitors who come to Edinburgh for business and corporate purposes were actually forgotten. It is a huge part of our Scottish economy, and we have a number of superb conference and corporate venues across the city, so it is important that we do not miss out on that significant proportion of our visitor economy. I am thinking about the tension between residents and visitors that we want to address, particularly in Edinburgh, by services, parks, open spaces and street cleansing. They are all services used by both groups, but there is something about making sure that those services are fit for purpose, and you would not necessarily call them leisure pursuits. It is something that we could easily rectify, and I hope that the minister will reflect on that at least today and potentially in the advance of stage 2. Another area of the bill that we could do some additional thinking on would be the work that is being done that was referenced by Mark Griffin and Craig Hoy. We have had severe cuts to local authorities over the last decade, so we should not underestimate the importance of a modest visitor levy enabling local authorities to improve the services that relate to visitors and to strengthen their tourist economy. Potentially, effective guidance from the Government and the advisory group could help local authorities as long as it is not overly prescriptive, because we need local authorities to be able to use the new powers effectively to address local circumstances. For example, the points that were made by Beatrice Wishart and Willie Coffey about cruise ships were very well made points. One of the points that I have already raised with the minister, and it has come up a couple of times today, is about how long it will take to get on with implementing the bill. No-one Edinburgh, our council, has done lots of consultation work and engaged constructively with the business and the tourist community. I noted the comments about the 18-month lead time being excessive by the committee. The minister was pushing back on that today. It is just a plea. Can we get on with this? This bill could make a real difference, and for local authorities who want to use it, it is a real opportunity to support our visit economy but also to support our residents. Let us get on with the bill, and we are keen to see it passing today. I speak in this debate as a member of the local government housing and planning committee and in support of the general principles of the bill to introduce a visitor levy. Visit levy is not a new idea. It is widely used across Europe and other locations across the world. As of 2023, 21 out of 27 EU member states charge occupancy taxis. In some cities and regions use a levy as a way to increase their general reserves, while others ring fence all or part of the revenues to fund specific projects. It is quite reasonable and not uncommon for local authorities to want a small contribution from tourists to help support and sustain visitor economies. Scotland has breathtaking landscapes and a rich cultural heritage, so it is not surprising that our country has become a magnet for tourists worldwide. Tourism is such an important part of our economy and it supports more than 200,000 jobs and brings £4.5 billion each year to the Scottish economy. That is why the members of the committee and I recognise that a visitor levy has to be done right. The committee recognises concerns of local businesses and other stakeholders and overall the introduction of a levy has the potential to bring significant benefits to visitors, the tourist sector and local residents alike. It has the potential to create funds that can be reinvestigd into maintaining tourist attractions, preserving the environment, supporting local businesses and improving public facilities. It also creates a more symbiotic relationship between visitors and the local community. We all have responsibilities when visiting new countries. We respect landmarks, different cultures and environments. That ensures that tourists themselves become active participants in the preservation of Scotland's unique spaces and local communities. Although some are concerned about a levy having a negative effect on visitor numbers, introducing a levy at a modest rate in certain local authorities would not likely have a significant detrimental effect on visitor numbers, given the unique nature of Scotland as a destination in the experiences of other due restrictions where a levy has been introduced. In fact, the levy could bolster the tourism industry with funds reinvestigd back into local facilities and services, helping to attract more visitors. It would be welcomed that any spending benefits locals and visitors in which it provides ambitious strategic and long-term investment. Our committee also believed that decisions on spending should be taken at a local level to allow enough flexibilities in how local authorities prioritise their spending, and that flexibility is a key part of the bill. That is in keeping with the principles set out in the Vettie House agreement. I would ensure that local authorities can decide whether to introduce the levy, and if so implementing it in such a way that works for the local circumstances of the area. The bill plays a key part in the Scottish Government's wider aim to give councils greater financial flexibility and strengthens local democracy. We understood that some have concerns about possible complexities that could arise from that approach, but I and most of the committee members feel that local authorities are really best placed to design an approach that best suits the needs of the local community. Due to Covid-19 increase costs, the past couple of years have been a real challenge for the hospitality industry, and I have every sympathy with them and other businesses. The levy would, of course, not come into effect until early 2026. In the committee we were mindful of those concerns about possible admin burdens, so we welcomed constructive engagement on that. At its core, the committee valued the importance of meaningful consultation with tourism and accommodation sector to create a genuine sense of partnership working, for example through the expert groups that we have got loads to do for stage 2. That would help alleviate the concerns of many in the sector and demonstrate the potential long-term benefits of a levy. It is important that we recognise that a visit or levy is not just simply a tax but an investment into the future of Scotland. Positioning Scotland as a sensible forward-thinking destination that values its cultural heritage, environment and local residents. Those values are appealing to tourists as well as more people become conscious global travellers and take a real interest in the country that they visit. We really should embrace this opportunity as a chance to ensure a vibrant and sustainable future for our country, a Scotland that generations to come will want to visit. The Scottish Greens are pleased to see this bill come to a vote today. We secured a government commitment to introduce a visitor levy during budget negotiations back in 2019. That was not long after the then culture tourism European External Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, took evidence on the principle of what was being referred to as a tourist levy. It was not a new or a novel concept at that point. As others have said, it has been the norm across many of the world's top tourist destinations for a long time. Unfortunately, despite agreement to create the power last session, this bill was one of the many that we were forced to drop when the Covid pandemic hit. The government maintained its commitment to introduce the bill once time allowed, so here we are, delivering another measure to broaden the financial powers of local councils. It has been a long-standing position of the Scottish Greens that councils should have the range of financial powers they need to raise the vast majority of their own revenue, as opposed to the current position where about two-thirds of their budget comes from the Scottish Government's grant. That makes us an anomaly in European terms. We have some of the most centralised and least empowered local government on our continent, but that is gradually changing. The visitor levy will be joined by a cruise ship levy, as announced by Lorna Slater last year. That is a move that will be of particular benefit to our Clyde council in my region, who will not realistically see significant benefits from a visitor levy given the dominance of cruise ships in their local tourist economy. The Scottish Government is also committed to developing a carbon emission land tax, as well as delivering the infrastructure levy that was enabled by the 2019 planning act. This spring, we will see more details of the intended process for reform of the council tax. We have delivered the Bute house agreement commitment to give councils full power over empty property relief. That is a big opportunity not just to raise more revenue but to drive redevelopment. That is on top of the power to double council tax on second homes, which a number of councils have already made clear that they will make full use of from the 1 April. There is the commitment to consult on changes to legislation, which would allow councils to go beyond just doubling, as is already the case in Wales. The workplace parking levy, which City of Edinburgh council is already consulting on making use of. Clearly, there is a need to go much further still in empowering local councils, but the visitor levy power is an important part of a much wider package of empowerment. We are incredibly fortunate that Scotland is such an attractive destination for tourists, whether from abroad, from the rest of the UK or our own residents choosing to explore and enjoy their own country on their holidays. I can see that in my region from Arran, Cumbria and the Ayrshire coast to Loch Lomond. The growth of our film and TV sector in recent years has created an acute boost in tourist numbers in the various locations that have been used for productions such as Outlander and Star Wars. That is great for our economy, especially in fragile rural communities, but it also puts huge pressure on those communities and on public services. Representing lusts on the west shore of Loch Lomond, I am well aware of the negative impact of high tourist numbers on those communities. Rarely does a summer season go by without local and often national headlines about inconsiderate or even dangerous parking, antisocial behaviour and litter. That is from a small minority of visitors, not all of whom we will be staying overnight, but it puts pressure on council services. I am enjoying his speeches. I want to ask him what he sees as the role of local businesses in working with local authorities to make the decisions around the best way to deploy the funds that are raised from the visitor levy to support local economies. I am grateful for that intervention. It is absolutely essential that, as a supporter of participatory budgeting, I would want to see the whole community, including local businesses and business owners, really engage by local councils in how they deploy the funds that are raised for maximum benefit. I will come on to a couple of specific proposals on that later on. I am aware that tourism brings money into local economies, but councils themselves rarely see a direct benefit from that. It is an entirely reasonable principle that the body providing public toilets, bin collections, leisure facilities and all sorts of other services that tourists make use of, is able to recoup those costs. It is only fair that local residents are not left picking up the bill. When the process started in 2019, parliamentary debates about tax and funding were not exactly in a good place, but I think that they were a bit better than they are now. Tax is one of the most critical ways in which we all contribute to building a better society and meeting the needs of everyone in our communities. I am proud that the Greens are honest about that, about the need for a fairer tax system if we want better public services. We have already seen significant changes, raising income tax on the highest earners, raising tax on the purchase of second and holiday homes, doubling council tax on those holiday homes and the range of new local powers, such as the visitor levy, cruise ship levy and infrastructure levy on big developers. Those changes are already delivering £1.5 billion more a year for public services in Scotland, and the visitor levy will add more to that total. By diversifying our tax pace with new leavers, we can empower communities to deliver on their local priorities and have real control over how to shape their economies going forward. It is not enough to say that we will… The member is probably in his last minute, thank you. Going back to my example of the impact of overtourism on LUS, I was interested in the evidence that the committee took on the pretty widespread support for national parks, having a role and ensuring that they benefit from the proceeds of a levy. That is only fair when many of the services that they provide, such as public toilets, would be provided by local councils in any other setting, so I would be keen to see how that can be progressed. Finally, before closing, there are two themes from evidence that have been submitted to the committee that I would like to highlight. The first is the 18-month gap before a scheme convention was introduced and the case was made by councils for shortening that. There is an urgent need to inject more funding into the services that tourists benefit from, so I am not convinced for the rationale for that 18-month timescale. The second is the scope for spending the funds raised in reference to the point that Ivan McKee made in an intervention. Many hospitality businesses in rural communities are struggling to fill vacancies, caused in part by local housing shortages. Although the Scottish Government is addressing that through other measures such as doubling council tax on holiday homes, regulations and short-term lets, there is a strong case for ensuring that councils can use visitor levy revenues to address those local housing needs and resolve those local labour shortages. The bill has been a long time coming. Councils are ready to start developing their own levies, and the committee's report makes a clear and compelling case for proceeding. That is just one of the many measures required, but it is one that the Scottish Greens are proud to support. Thank you, Mr Greer. I call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Craig Hoyt. Up to six minutes, please, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much. First, I want to speak in this debate because we have to agree with the general principles of the visitor levy bill. There are aspects that I believe need to be amended, and I will come on to those points in a bit more detail later. I want to put on record my support for the bill, as it will certainly enable councils to invest in their areas. That is of course only if councils choose to introduce a levy, which can also be applied to certain areas within a council boundary rather than the whole local authority footprint itself. Further, more local authorities can work with neighbouring councils to implement a joint levy, which should help to streamline the administration and make it easier for visitors if there are tourism hotspots that cross local authority boundaries. Also, councils could also decide on when to apply the levy, for example, all year round or just during the summer. That demonstrates to me how the bill seeks to empower local authorities by offering that flexibility to meet the local needs. Let us also not forget that taxes on overnight tourist days are not unheard of, in fact. They are common across Europe and in other locations around the world. It is something that Daniel Johnson touched on in his contribution. That suggests that other nations agree that it is reasonable for regions to want to offer small contributions from tourists to help to support and sustain their visitor economies. I do not believe that such policies have led to our dearth of people visiting those countries. Scotland is an exceptionally popular tourist destination. From conversations that I have had with businesses in the tourism sector, we have seen a surge in visits from North America and also visits from China that are expected to recover to the UK. The UK is now back on the approved list as of July 2023. I am told that those are not particularly cost-conscious markets. While they enjoy visiting the highlands, they tend to be day visits and they do not typically stay in rural accommodation. I make this point as a reminder that the visitor levy bill is not just one means of supporting Scotland's tourism industry. As it is up to each local authority whether it is introduced, the benefits may not be felt equally across the country. That is why, if the bill is passed, and I certainly hope that it is, the engagement of the sector must continue so that we can ensure that the tourism offering across Scotland is able to thrive. At the outset, I mentioned aspects of the proposed legislation, which I believe should be amended. Specifically, I am referring to marinas and moorings being categorised as overnight accommodation and therefore captured by the bill. As the chair of the cross-party group on recreational boating and marine tourism, the issue was brought to my attention shortly after the bill was published. That is because marinas and moorings are not providing accommodation. The boat is in fact the accommodation, assuming that it actually has the capacity to offer accommodation, but crucially, not every single boat does. In that sense, marinas and moorings are more akin to a car park rather than the accommodation. Those are not my words, those are words of people within the sector. Plus, there is the question of who is expected to differentiate between boats that can be used for overnight stays and those that cannot. As many small moorings that are community-led are staffed by volunteers and have honesty boxes rather than an office to actually manage to bear things. Also, many are small in size, but they generally do not generate much revenue. I am grateful to the member for giving way, and I am grateful to him for going into some detail on that point. Another point on the moorings is that, very often, moorings do not have people on the vessels that are moored to them. Therefore, actually determining when it is occupied or not seems like an utter minefield. I wonder if the member would agree with that point. That is why I was engaging with the community wealth minister on that. The first meeting with him last summer, before inviting him along to the cross-party meeting last September to speak with members of the CPG, was a very helpful discussion, but it was clear that further dialogue was required. In November, I hosted a round table with the minister and relevant stakeholders of my constituency to discuss their concerns in more detail. The point that Daniel Johnson just raised is one of the points that came up, certainly at the cross-party group meeting, but also at the round table meeting that we had in my constituency. I want to publicly thank the minister for how well he has been to engage with me, but also the boating sector and the bill. The sector has shared with me the gratitude for how open and keen the minister has been to actually have dialogue with him, too. With that in mind, I look forward to continuing that engagement, as I know that the minister is very much sympathetic to the concerns of the boating sector and has referred to certain consider amendments. I have also raised the issue of extending the legislation to include the cruise sector, as that would be more beneficial to my constituency, something that has been touched upon by Rosgill Rymorrigo, but also Beershire Swisher regarding her constituency earlier. The minister has previously indicated that the bill may not be the vehicle to deliver it, but I would ask him not to rule it out or to consider the additional legislation to actually deliver it. I note that the minister replied to the committee on 12 January, but I will touch on one potential complexity of this. Whether it is a flat rate or a tiered rate, I think that there will be a challenge if there is a tiered rate for the cruise sector, but in terms of a flat rate, I think that the flat rate will actually benefit the cruise sector. I think that there are some areas that need to be considered with regard to the cruise sector, but I also note that the association of Scotland's self-caterers also calls for cruise ships to be included in the bill. With that saying, I will conclude, but I generally want to congratulate the committee for their excellent report. I want to thank the minister for bringing the bill forward and look forward to supporting it and working with him as the bill goes forward. Before I turn to the legislation, I think that there is something particularly galling in this debate to hear SNP and Green members extoling the virtues of flexibility and freedom for councils to raise tax in the same year in which they have unilaterally decreed that councils cannot use their main power—council tax—to fill the funding gap that the Scottish Government has created. I think that, yet again in this chamber, the Government is passing bad laws with what will be damaging consequences, and it is doing so for one reason. That is for councils to be able to make up for the SNP Government's own financial mismanagement. Despite the assurances given to us today that the money will be ring-fenced and that councils will not be allowed to use it to backfill for SNP cuts, we have seen year after year after year that the Scottish Government has mandated councils to do more with less, particularly in relation to, for example, social care or education. That is yet another tax from the Scottish Government, which, as each and every year passes, taxes more and delivers less for our communities. For many businesses, not just those hotels and bed and breakfasts, that will undermine their opportunity to bounce back after the Covid pandemic. As chairman of the cross-party group in Behran pubs, I see the willful damage that the SNP Government is doing to the sector and the jobs that it supports and the economic contribution that it makes each and every day. We must be mindful that laws such as that will have an impact on the overall spend. Despite what the minister and others have said today, there will be tourists who come to Scotland on a fixed budget, and anything that is taken off them in the form of this tax will not be spent, for example, in Scotland's restaurants, cafes, hotels and bars. This year, the Scottish Licent Trade Association warned that 95 per cent of venues are dealing with supplier costs that are rising. 77 per cent said that they were seeing a continued increase in utility charges, and, sadly, 9 per cent said that they were planning to close or are considering either options. For those businesses that are on the edge, that could be what pushes them over. We should never forget that already tourism contributes £4.5 billion to Scotland's economy. It already supports 200,000 jobs—yes, one-fifth of a million jobs—but time and time again, the Scottish Government has sought to tax our tourism and hospitality sectors while costs continue to rise. This year, many of those businesses could be benefiting from rates relief for which the Scottish Government has been recompensed by the UK Government, and it has chosen not to do so. Rather than enabling hospitality and tourism to get—I will take up an intervention. Stuart McMillan. I thank Craig Hoy for taking the interventions. Is Craig Hoy therefore suggesting that we should be taking money away from NHS to go into what he is actually suggesting? No, I am not. I am just saying that we shouldn't be wasting £400 million on two ferries that haven't sailed on £1.5 billion on a national care service that may never actually be launched. That is about priorities. The issue here is that councils will be forced, in many instances, to introduce this charge because of the SNP's austerity agenda, because the Scottish Government is failing to fund our public services and councils properly. The Government should be working in lockstep with the tourist industry to reduce the regulatory burden. However, instead, by having bed and breakfasts, hotels and other operators collecting the tax, the Government is in effect increasing the regulatory burden on them. We should take, for example, the view of the Federation of Small Business Scotland, who have warned that those plans will incur additional costs for already struggling businesses, or the Scottish tourism alliance, who have said that the levy will discourage tourists and displace spending away from restaurants, bars and shops. They have also said that the levy is overly complex and will be excessively burdensome for certain types of providers and visitors. We should be mindful that large operators such as Expedia are concerned that the levy will result in any patchwork of different rates and exemptions. For example, as we have heard today, the SNP is no doubt pleased about the fact that the levy will not apply to camper vans, but, in short, the legislation creates an uneven playing field. I can say one thing that I welcome if we are going to include multiple different providers within the framework in the regulations. It is welcome, and I think that it should be encouraged, that we look at the cruise industry. When people come to this country on a cruise, they are often some of the lowest spenders in the communities that they visit, given that they get both their board and their lodgings on the vessel in which they have arrived. I think that we have to be very mindful, though— I think that we just have to be mindful that the regulation comes on the back of the deposit return scheme. It comes on the back of the regulation of short-term lets. It could push many businesses over the £85,000 vat registration threshold, and that would create costs and administrative burdens for small operators. Ministers must address those substantive concerns, which have also been raised by the Association, as we have heard, of Scotland's self-caterers. The tax will be damaging to the communities that I represent in the south of Scotland, which often struggle to attract cluster numbers of the same magnitude as Edinburgh and the Highlands, but for which those councils may be forced into raising those charges because of their own financial issues. The Scottish Government should listen before it legislates, and, based on our experience very sadly, I do not believe that they will do so in this instance. I rise to support the principles of the bill and indeed welcome it, but I think that we also have to set the legislation in the context in which it has been introduced, which is the decimation of local government in Scotland and the more so than my home city of Glasgow. Glasgow City Council has saw the largest reduction in real-terms revenue funding from the Scottish Government of any local authority over the last decade at £270 per person, as compared to an average of £160 per person across Scotland. That Scottish Government share of the cake that goes to Glasgow City Council is worth 80 per cent of the council's entire income, by far the largest single funding contributor, and it is increasingly ring-fenced for Scottish Government priority areas, thus reducing the financial autonomy of the council. Any measure by which the council can increase its autonomy is therefore welcome and improve its revenue position to be welcomed. The local taxation balance between the council tax and business rates in Glasgow has shifted towards the former and away from the latter in recent years. That is a regressive change, and the cost of council tax has been increased as anticipated to bring in more revenue than business rates than in 2021-22, when it would have been falling even before the pandemic hit. We have overall a tax situation in local government that is obsolete. Council tax, 30 years out of date, regressive when it falls is to burdensome on the poorest residents in our city, while not charging the wealthiest enough. Revenue from business rates has been falling in Glasgow for the last five years, despite the value of commercial property rising and Glasgow having an estimated 18,000 businesses in the city. The tax is clearly ineffective in capturing a portion of growth and the economic value of businesses operating in Glasgow, while simultaneously stymying the use of business premises by fledgling startup entrepreneurial enterprises. That also sits in context, as was mentioned by the member for the Lothians and the Conservatives about the VAT threshold, which artificially constrains business growth. We have to set that in the context of a distress situation. Glasgow City Council has had to make an estimated £327 million in service cuts over the last decade, equivalent to half of the council's education budget. Spending on education and social work now takes up 71 per cent of all expenditure in the council, up from 64 per cent in 2016-17. The council service provision has been increasingly narrowed to two big priority areas. Just this weekend, it came to light. I hear Paul Sweeney's comments on the regressive nature of the council tax. Jenny, I am interested to hear if he has specifics on what Labour would propose to replace the council tax with. I am a long-standing sympathiser with the land value tax, because I believe that it is the most efficient tax yet devised by any economist, and I would be interested in any proposals to advance that in Scotland. I understand that that is a broad cross-party interest among a number of members in this chamber. To turn to the specific proposal before us today, the visitor levy would not come close to plugging the estimated £1.5 billion black hole created in council budgets across Scotland by this Government, but it will mean that councils can raise some funds to, for example, keep museums and visitors' attractions open to keep tourists coming to our towns and cities. We do not want a situation of the tragedy of the commons where we have five star hotels in the midst of public squalor, and that is certainly increasingly the environment in the city of Glasgow, as cleansing department budgets are constrained and the capacity for the city to maintain its public spaces is reduced. Any funding brought back into our city through the visitor levy must go back into the city, specifically to improve those key services for people that live there. I have long called for local authorities to have this power to introduce a visitor levy. For example, the people's palace in Glasgow is in badly need of transformation. One of the city's key attractions needs to be restored and renovated, but Glasgow life has continually had its budget slashed and there has not been any financial headroom to do anything about it in nearly half a decade to repair this a listed Victorian glasshouse and social history museum in Glasgow. A visitor levy would allow Glasgow life some headroom to not only keep the museums and galleries open but to ensure their future. We came in sharp focus during COP26 in Glasgow, when just a rough calculation demonstrated that a £10 per room per night tourist tax would have raised around £1.6 million in Glasgow's 11,000 hotel rooms over the 14 days of COP26 alone. If he had added in the 2,500 registered Airbnb residences in the city, it would have raised another £350,000. That sits in good context because to save £1.5 million this year, Glasgow museums are having to cut 28 per cent of the curating staff, thus constraining the city's capacity to put on exhibitions to attract people into the city. It is having a seriously negative feedback loop on the capacity for Glasgow to maintain its position as a cultural capital. Other cities around Europe do that as a norm. For example, it is specifically targeted at culture. It is called a charging attacks for the promotion and advancement of culture in the city. That is what is on the tourist bill and its hotel bill when it comes to check out. That is a very reasonable position. We could have a flat rate and a percentage rate, as some cities do. I am open minded about that, and I think that there should be flexibility for councils to look at that. Ultimately, tourism is a valuable sector in Scotland's economy. It introduces huge wealth to our cities, but we need to capture more of that wealth with the public good because increasingly we have a situation of increasing share of overall wealth that this country has grown into private interests at the expense of the public realm. As I said in every Glasgow Council tax bill, everyone should pay up for Glasgow, including those who visit our city to experience our calls for attractions. Ben Macpherson, the final speaker in the open debate. I commend the Government and the committee for their work on the bill to date. I am not a committee member, but I have been a long-term supporter of the bill in principle, as constituency MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith and previously minister for public finance and local government, advocating on behalf of local government for progress on the bill. As colleagues have emphasised, Scotland is a top visitor destination, with around £4.5 billion contributed to the economy by tourists and by businesses and individuals who work in the sector. That is something that we should not take for granted, but that statement has a variety of different considerations. One of those is how we make sure that we invest in the attractions, in the experience and in the infrastructure and services that enable that. A transient visitor levy is something that is very normal across the European continent, and that has not been detrimental to visitor numbers in other places. Indeed, 21 out of the 27 EU member states have some form of transient visitor levy in place in cities from Berlin to Amsterdam to Milan and many others. I appreciate that the circumstances of every place are different, but the concept is clearly a normal one. What is particularly important about the legislation that we are considering today and the committee has picked up on this is the requirement within the legislation for local discretion. It is absolutely right that the visitor levy bill will enable councils to invest more in local tourism facilities and services through a levy on overnight stays, but that will be their choice whether to implement the levy. To ensure that local needs are met, it is right that local authorities are given powers and discretion to implement as appropriate. That also applies, and colleagues have made important remarks about this in terms of the flexibility around spend. Section 17, as it is currently drafted, is helpful in the purpose that it gives, but we need to consider the flexibility. For example, I think of Edinburgh where there has been significant development in terms of a consultation that showed back when that was undertaken a number of years ago that 85 per cent of respondents were in favour, and the vast majority of businesses were in favour. However, there is consideration in the City of Edinburgh Council on what both the council and stakeholders would like to see the resource spent on. The festivals are generally in favour of a levy, and businesses, including large and small, are in favour of a levy, but the considerations that need to be spent on are varied. For example, there is infrastructure, such as Leith Theatre in my constituency, and important streets and attractions in the city that lure people from all around the world to come to Edinburgh. I think of Victoria Street, for example, one of the most instagramed streets in the world, and it desperately needs investment in the cobbling of that street in the city centre. I use that as a very small example, but those are the small projects, such as investment in theatres and other more obvious examples of cultural spending that we need to think about in terms of what tourism spend means. I am glad that the Government is going to look at section 17 and make sure that there is that breadth of choice that councils can make when it comes to spending. Rightly, remarks were made earlier about service provision, waste services, for example, in the city of Edinburgh have become under significant pressure during the festival period. It is right that the council is arguing that there should be consideration of whether the fee can be spent on that. Edinburgh has also, as has been stated, argued for a percentage rate. I think that the discussion that we have had today in the consideration that is being undertaken around whether to have a percentage rate, a flat rate or a tiered rate is a really important debate, and I look forward to seeing how developments on that happen at stage 2. In my time remaining, Presiding Officer, I just want to point out one issue in particular that has been raised around boating considerations. We have had discussions about cruise ships, and I share the general philosophy that cruise ships should be considered for a charge if other businesses working in the tourism sector are going to be. I know the complexity involved in that, and I think that the minister is right to take the appropriate time to bring forward any changes, whether that is at stage 2 or in further legislation around that. I look forward to that. On moorings and berthings, as the potential amendments are considered around that issue, there are two very good hotels in my constituency, the Fingal and the Ocean Mist, that are permanently berthed but advertise as hotels. That might be an anomaly that needs to be thought about, and the play-bill ship that is going to be in Leithdox is very welcome over this festival is another example to consider. There is a lot more that I could say, but last I would say that the monitoring reporting is really important, and I think that it is right that the Government takes appropriate time to make sure that that is well set out and that all stakeholders are ready to implement that, should Parliament pass it at stage 3. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There is no doubt the importance of the tourism industry to Scotland. It is both important in and of itself as a generator of revenue, but it also acts as a calling card for a huge range of different activities that we do. People know Scotland, they know what this country has both in terms of its culture and its geography, and that is incredibly important. Therefore, I think that what is at issue here is devising a scheme that is additive to that, that enhances that, that enables investment in those things because tourism is important. Moreover, I think that it actually creates an opportunity, if done right, to create an alignment of interest, because as my colleague Paul Sweeney rightly pointed out, right now we actually do not have a system whereby local authorities see the benefit financially from being a successful tourist destination. If we can create that virtuous link between that activity and the council's ability to both see the upside and invest, then we will create a good policy. However, as Miles Briggs stated, the devil is undoubtedly in the detail. We need that to be both straightforward to implement, providing clarity for both visitors and for operators so that they know what to do, and critically it needs to be deliverable for local authorities. It would be very easy to create a scheme that was cumbersome, complicated and actually got in the way of doing the very thing that we are seeking to promote. Let me run through a number of the key points. I think that Sarah Boyack set out very well why there is a case to this, where you can create an additive and supplementary form of income to invest in the very infrastructure that you need to be a successful tourist city. You only have to look around Edinburgh. Ben Macpherson also pointed out that locations such as Victoria Street are highly important to the city but are desperately in need of investment. What is important is that it is additive and that it is not simply backfilling lost resource from other areas. Therefore, getting that mechanism right ensures that it is both additive and it is also directed by industry and by local community so that it enhances the visitor offer is really highly important. Now, I think that what we need to be clear here is that some sort of cumbersome definition would be entirely wrong because also certainly we would get that incorrect. I think that what we have to do, as Ben Macpherson was highlighting, is making sure that the reporting requirements, the consultation requirements are done in such a way that we create that virtuous cycle. I think that that is a very important point. We also need to take a great deal more consideration about the impact on small business. I think that there has been a little bit of assumption across the chamber that somehow this is something that is easy for businesses to implement. It is a button that you can put on the tail. Now, can I just say, as a former retailer, it is not always that straightforward, even when you think that a policy is beneficial, even when you think that it will benefit you. I point to both the bag levy and the bag charge rather and also the change in VAT that happened in 2008. That was a change that absolutely was very welcome in very challenging circumstances but required me to stay in my shop overnight trying to get my systems updated on 1 December, in the middle of our busiest trading period, and while that was very welcome, it came at almost the worst possible top point in my trading year. Do not think that just because something is beneficial is that consequence or cost. We have to bear in mind particularly that we are dealing with a cohort of businesses, some of whom are very small. They are not businesses that necessarily have complicated IT systems. They have a system where they can change a parameter and start accepting additional levy. They may well be businesses running from a notebook and a petty cash tin. So let us make sure that this is straightforward for them to implement. I think that we should consider whether or not there should be exemption for small businesses because some of these businesses simply will not be worth their while continuing in business if they have to have this additional burden because they will not be charging VAT. It will not be simply like having an extra rate of VAT. Let me just on that note point out that we need to take care of the percentage levy because it is in effect an additional rate of VAT that we are charging. That is how it will operate and that is not without complexity. VAT is not a straightforward levy to collect nor verify. So if that is the route that we are going down, I think that we need to make sure that it is straightforward for councils to implement. I would wonder whether 18 months is sufficient time in order to create a system and a resource to both levy and collect and verify an additional rate of VAT. I would just say that very gently. I think that we should heed calls from the sector when they ask for a simplified framework, so absolutely putting councils in control of the rates that they levy but wondering whether if there is a simplified framework which would at least provide some consistency for implementation and indeed for visitors as they are looking at touring Scotland so that they understand the prices that they are facing rather than potentially facing 32 different ways of their accommodation being priced. I note the time, Presiding Officer, but I will just say this. Is it that this has the capacity to create more funds to enhance our visitor attractions, but there are potential consequences. We have to look at the detail, we have to get this right, so we strengthen the tourist industry, not undermine it. Thank you very much. This has actually been a very interesting and well-informed debate with lots of very good contributions. I think that the debate, if you like, has taken two different parts to it. There has been a debate in principle as to whether the visitor levy is a good thing and a debate around how it might operate in practice with lots of members raising different angles to that. Let me start off looking at the question of the issue in principle, because the minister started off this debate setting out why he believes a visitor levy is the right policy to take. He said, as others have said, that it is common to see it elsewhere. Many other countries in Europe and elsewhere have some form of tourist tax. There is little evidence based on that. It would have a substantial negative impact on the tourist sector or the economy. It would, as a number of other members have said, potentially bring in additional resources to local government who would have the discretion as to whether or not to introduce it. There are also arguments in principle against that. Many of those arguments are set out in the briefing papers that we have all received from business organisations such as the Scottish Tourist Alliance, the Federation of Small Businesses and Scottish Land and the States. It is undeniable that Scotland, while a very attractive tourist destination, is also an expensive tourist destination in international terms. We are high cost. Part of the issue is that we have a level of VAT on hospitality at 20 per cent, which is much higher than many other European countries. There is an argument for reducing the VAT on hospitality. I have heard people in this chamber make that argument before. I am quite sympathetic to that. Although, of course, always vary of calls for uncosted tax cuts, given the danger that that might do. We have to recognise the reality. We would be putting a tourist tax on top of the high rate of VAT that we currently have. There would also be an impact on a business sector in tourism, which is already still suffering and recovering from the impacts of Covid. In their submission, the Scottish Land and the States makes the very important point that this is a risk that is sending a message to operators of tourism and hospitality businesses that they are a problem that needs to be fixed. Hospitality in particular still is suffering. We see almost every day reading in the press that hospitality business is closing due to the pressures on them, due to the business rates, because the 75 per cent rates relief up left goes south of the border has not been passed on in Scotland. There is an issue for hospitality, and the FSB in their submission says that when they surveyed their members, 51 per cent opposed, in principle, the introduction of a visitor levy. Having said all that, I recognise that there is a majority in this chamber for this legislation to pass at stage 1. Where we are with that, we will express our concerns, but we are likely to see this legislation proceed. Let me move on and talk about some of the practical issues that have been identified in the debate. There is quite a lot of discussion around the issue of scope. I raised the intervention earlier with the Minister on the whole issue of campervans. It is a very pertinent issue, because there are many people in rural parts of Scotland, particularly in the highlands parts of the region that I represent, who are concerned about the growth in the campervan trade. Unlike people who stay in bees and guest houses, people in campervans do not make such a significant contribution to the local economy. They will often do a big shop at the start of the week, fill up the cupboards of the nukes and crannies at the supermarket, and therefore they are not spending as much money in local shops and restaurants as people who are tolling around in a car, for example, would staying in other accommodation. If we only tax licensed places where campervans can stay, that is going to incentivise the growth of wild camping by campervans, which already is a scourge in many parts of rural Scotland, particularly the highlands. I would urge the Minister to look at this as closely as he can. There is also an issue—a number of members have made this point—about whether we should capture day trips. Many of Scotland's islands will go, for example, somewhere like Arran on a day trip. They will make use of local facilities. They will come away. They will not stay overnight. There is a big debate around the maritime angle. Beatrice Wishart talked about the impact on Shetland of cruise ships. Stuart McMillan was talking about the maritime sector more generally, and how he is trying to capture that is realistic. That is an issue that needs to be addressed. We need to look at the whole question of exemptions. Miles Briggs spoke about this earlier. Should people who are working on a contract basis pay what is effectively a tourist tax, would parents who have children in hospital and therefore have to stay in a hotel to be near them have to pay that tax, and how could we create a voucher scheme that ensures that those people are exempt? The issues around the administration—should it be a flatmate, should it be a presented, should it be a banding, as is proposed by the Scottish Tourism Alliance, that strikes me as a sensible compromise if we are going to go down that route? Can we really have 32 different systems across Scotland? That will undoubtedly cause confusion. We have already seen—yes, I will—of the member's brief. As we understand that there are very few local authorities who want to go ahead with this, so should we not let them do that, monitor the process and learn the lessons as we go forward? I think that we need to be cautious, and Sarah Boyack will understand this, because we have just had the experience of short-term let licensing. We have 32 different systems across Scotland, and that has created a whole range of anomalies that we are still having to work through. I would be cautious about rushing headlong into this and introducing something that may have unintended consequences. The final point that I want to address is the whole question of how the funds will be spent. Will they be ring-fenced? Will there be a role, as Ivan McKee was saying earlier, for the business community in determining how they are allocated? I think that that would be a very sensible issue to pursue at later stages of this bill. What is tourist-related spending? The provision of public toilets, filling the potholes in the roads, emptying the bins, keeping open the swimming pools? Council should be doing these things already, and that leads me to what is basically one of our major concerns here, because, as both Craig Hoy and Pam Goswell said in their contributions, at a time when council budgets are being increasingly squeezed by decisions taken by this Government, there is a real danger that they will end up trying to backfill their budgets by raising this levy on visitors. While it is all very well, it is great to be giving and empowering councils with these additional powers to raise tax, if you are doing that at the same time as you are cutting their core funding, you are leaving them with a little alternative. There is a lot of detail still to be provided. We have real concerns about some of what is being proposed. We hear a lot from this Government about a new deal for business. I think that we know what business thinks about what is being proposed. Maybe it is time that the Government started listening. Thank you, and I call on Tom Arthur to wind up up to eight minutes, Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking everyone who has participated in what I thought was a very thoughtful and considered debate this afternoon? It is certainly given me plenty of food for thought. Can I reiterate my thanks to the committee and all who gave evidence, and indeed to all who have engaged with me through this process and with my officials? I will try to respond to as many individual points as possible, but I want to begin by just considering what some of the key themes are headline issues. Firstly, I want to be clear about what we envisage this power being used for. That is to generate revenue that can be invested to sustain and to grow our tourism and our visitor economy sector. That is a tool for economic development. Scotland will already provide a world-class tourism offering, and the purpose of that discretionary power is to allow local authorities at their discretion to introduce measures that will allow them to expand and enhance that offering. I appreciate that question, as many other questions we have considered, leads into one of the fundamental tensions, which is that between national consistency and local discretion. In terms of perhaps trying to adopt a maxim or a principle to guide us through it, we would want to be in a position where any levy that is introduced can maximise the application of local knowledge to secure the biggest return on investment while avoiding any unnecessary variation. Through the work that we are undertaking in partnership with Visit Scotland, we are leading this expert group to develop guidance on best practice and implementation. That is one vehicle by which we can explore how we can ensure consistency where that is beneficial and avoid unnecessary variation. We recognise the importance of that local discretion so that each authority can respond to the assets and needs of its particular visitor economy, recognising that what may be a priority for the visitor economy. Edinburgh would be different perhaps from Inverness, just as it would be from Drum the Rocket or Sky. That is an important point. I am keen to have that continued engagement with business, with local government and indeed with members across the chamber on how we can ensure that we can get that balance correct. On another key issue, which is the flat rate versus a tiered rate versus percentage, it has been interesting to hear the reflections. When I was at committee, I had asked the committee to consider that matter. I was very keen to see what view it would settle on in its report. I was hopeful that it might come to a conclusive and decisive decision, and the committee basically said back to you, Minister, because we recognise what is a range of views. Again, I will be keen that there are merits across each of the particular options. What is important is avoiding unnecessary complexity and minimising administrative burden, but also ensuring that we can try to strike that balance. As I think that STA has done through the banding system of simplicity, but while ensuring that there is an element of proportionality, recognising what one of the principal attributes of the percentage rate would be. Again, I am keen to have continued engagement on that and to find as much consensus as we can. On the issues that have been raised of a cruise ship levy, that has been brought up a number of times. I had set out the position previously at committee. There is a working group, a joint working group with Scottish Government and consulate officials looking at developing policy in that area. I would note that it is something that is distinct from the visitor levy with regard to what the chargeable event would be. There is a need to do careful policy development to learn from best practice internationally to recognise what some of the risks can be with a cruise ship levy, such as displacement, to ensure that we design a power that can be used by local authorities to do so. What we have committed to is that that work can be concluded in time for stage 2, when the Government will bring forward amendments to stage 2 of the legislation to introduce a cruise ship levy. However, we do not want to delay this bill. We recognise the points that are articulated by Sarah Boyack and others for the desire for this power to come online as soon as possible. We want to progress the legislation through Parliament. If it is not possible to bring forward an amendment to introduce a cruise ship levy at stage 2, we will look for an alternative vehicle to do so. However, as has been set out, it is a commitment of the Government to bring forward legislation to create that discretionary power for local authorities. Perhaps to turn to some of the points that have been raised by individual members, I recognise that Miles Briggs has been championing the issue of exceptions, both in committee and through parliamentary questions. I am keen to have further discussions in that particular area. I recognise that there may be a range of views. Reflecting on the responses that Mr Briggs made to my intervention, I think that there is a role for local exemptions. However, I recognise one of the concerns that we end up with a number of different exemptions schemes that add unnecessary complexity to business, of course those businesses operating across multiple authorities. I want to explore in detail what the balance would be. We have recognised the points that have been raised with exemptions around children and young people and recognise their other areas. I do not want a system that is overly prescriptive and restricts and unduly restricts the flexibility of local authority. However, I also recognise and may be an argument that those particular exemptions at local authorities would inevitably introduce themselves, so it may be easier just to do it on the face of the bill. So, again, in partnership with local authority and business, we will want to have these detailed discussions. I want to thank Mr Griffin for his remarks and, indeed, Mr Johnson, for welcoming the Labour Party's support of this measure, and also just to reiterate thanks to Sarah Boyack and Councillor Day for their early engagement on the legislation. I reiterate my point that I am happy to continue to engage with them and other members as we go forward. I think that the point that was raised by Mr Griffin has been reiterated by others is that this money should be additive, to use Daniel Johnson's expression that should not be used to backfill. That is very much what I see this power as being able to achieve, is to increase investment into our visitor economies and it is to provide something that is to use language that Murray McNair used as something around strategic investment, something that is long-term. It is not just about a tax, it is about investment in the future of our visitor economy. I think that that is an approach that is really key. Key to delivering on that will be that requirement that I set out in statute to consult. Assurance can be provided for business, not just through the consultation requirements, but the fact that local authorities in the manner in which they have to account for it, the requirement to report annually and, indeed, to review after three years, but, again, recognising the views that have been expressed, I am happy to reflect further and to have further discussions on those provisions to ensure that we have a framework that can not only command the confidence of local authorities to choose to implement it, but can command the confidence of business, because commanding the confidence of business is absolutely key. We want this to be to use the words of the STA, a force for good, something that can grow our tourist economy, grow our visitor economy and be a real... The minister must conclude... Yes, I apologise, I will be more carpet to engage. The minister is in his final minute. Let me just make a very final point. I am very grateful to members from across the chamber, as I said, for their contributions, and I recognise the position of the Conservatives in opposing the general principles. As I set out a number of months ago, I am very happy to engage with members who may oppose the general principles but are actually committed to working to ensure that this is effective as possible. On that basis, for any members who are considering bringing amendments forward, I appreciate that that is their right in discretion, but if they wish to engage with me first to explore what we can do in partnership, my door is very much open in that regard. I will conclude and encourage members to back with general principles of the bill this evening. That concludes the debate on visitor levy Scotland bill at stage 1. It is time to move on to the next item of business. I point to fordor Paul Sweeney. Stand to see your guidance on a point of serious concern relating to the Scottish budget. It was reported that the weekend that an accuracy in the budget presented to the Parliament on 19 December has resulted in £5 million of capital funding being withdrawn from the Clyde Gateway, the urban regeneration company in Glasgow. That is not just a typo, but a serious oversight with consequences. The £5 million of capital funding has caused problems for Clyde Gateway, who have planned their capital projects around that sum. That blunder does not only deal a harsh blow to the local economy in both Glasgow and South Lanarkshire, but it also represents a misleading of Parliament. The figure in the budget documents does not match the reality. How can people have trust in the other numbers in the budget in light of a mistake of this magnitude? I therefore would be grateful if you could advise how the Scottish Government could be compelled to correct this inaccuracy in the budget documents. I would ask that you consider inviting the Deputy First Minister to the chamber to address this discrepancy and any others that may feature in the budget. I imagine that, at this point in the session, you are very well aware of standing orders. Members will be aware of the mechanism that exists to correct any inaccuracies. Members will also be aware at this point that points of order take precedence over other business as they seek to establish whether proper procedures in this item of business have been or are being followed. I would simply say to Mr Sweeney that he will be aware of the various mechanisms of scrutiny that exist for him. At that point, we will move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 11730, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Visitor Levy Scotland Bill. I call on Tom Arthur to move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that motion 11871, in the name of Tom Arthur, on Visitor Levy Scotland's Bill at stage 1 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to vote and there will be a short suspension until our members to access the digital voting system.