Meeting of the Parliament 28 May 2024
Regarding amendments 23 and 24, I share the concern of constituents and business owners in my region that the implementation of a charge at caravan or holiday parks could displace motorhomes and caravans to lay-bys, farms or people’s gardens. However, as the minister mentioned, local authorities will be able to decide what to cover, and the situation may well be different in different areas of Scotland. Those local authorities will know that better than I do. I look forward to Highland Council’s consultation on that, and I am sure that my constituents who made strong representations to me will be able to do so in that process, too.
In light of that, instead of throwing out motorhomes and camping sites altogether, as the amendments seek to do, we should explore how to catch all non-resident and non-Gypsy Traveller motorhomes that use our roads—often to unsustainable levels, as happens every year on Skye and across the north coast 500 route. Such motorhomes could be charged, either physically or through a licence plate recognition system, at entry points such as the Skye bridge or a point on the north coast 500, or when disembarking from ferries.
Those vehicles damage our roads. They present costs to the local authority without always paying back, either to the council’s budget or to the local economy in any way. Anyone who lives by the north coast 500 route will tell of the personal costs that they have incurred, whether that is in removing rubbish, repairing damage or claiming on their car insurance because of the state that the roads have been left in. Although increasing the number of rangers could help with that, that would also be a cost to the local authority. Money for that has to come from somewhere, and I would much rather that there be a minimal charge on those who use the council’s roads than that my constituents’ council tax bills go up to cover the cost. I hope that the minister will be happy to consider how we can charge those vehicles fairly and effectively without promoting displacement and irresponsible tourism, and I would be very interested in taking part in the summer engagement that he mentioned.
I also have great sympathy with Liam McArthur’s amendment 1. Although I understand why it may not be suitable for the bill, I am glad that he lodged it, as it has allowed the debate, and I am keen to support his and others’ calls for a levy on cruise ships at a suitable opportunity.
Across the Highlands and Islands, cruise ships arrive with more people on board than the populations of the towns that they visit. That is a lot for any local authority to deal with, even if some businesses manage to take advantage of it—while many do not. Whether or not a local person supports those ship visits, it is hard to argue that there is no impact—the impact often costs the public purse, even if it pays into private interests in other ways. I am therefore glad to hear from the minister that the door is open. He can expect me to knock on it soon.