Meeting of the Parliament 19 February 2026 [Draft]
Ivan McKee is too much “team SNP” to dump his predecessor in it, but, if he had a bit more freedom to speak openly, he would admit that mistakes were made in the past and that, if he had been the minister at that time, the mistake would not have been made.
To give him credit, the minister listened and, despite a very busy parliamentary timetable, has managed to find a vehicle to make the change and to respond to the needs of the sector, which had been raising concerns for a long time. He deserves credit for that.
As we have repeatedly heard from various speakers, there were deep concerns about complexity leading to greater bureaucracy and undermining the scheme itself because the amount of revenue that would be secured would be minuscule due to the additional costs involved. It is therefore right to empower councils to have greater flexibility to choose between having a percentage or a fixed-rate levy, and a number of the other changes set out in the bill are also right. I am sure that the sector will appreciate that while, as Murdo Fraser said, still expressing a degree of resistance to the whole scheme in the first place. We should recognise that the bill is an improvement, and Liberals will therefore support it at stage 1 today and at all other stages.
However, I add my voice to the caution that has been expressed by others. The fact that local authorities have a power does not mean that they have to use it, especially in the really difficult financial circumstances that we all see every day. Local authorities should not just charge ahead and implement the levy because they have the power to do so. For example, as Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out, they should listen to what the Holiday and Residential Parks Association has said about the impact of per-night and per-person costs, particularly for families looking for lower-cost holidays.
I also urge caution about the use of funds, because I have heard some wide interpretations of what counts as the tourism sector. If the scheme is to work and have the confidence of the sector, it must be used directly for tourism purposes or that confidence will be shot. If there is going to be a virtuous benefit back into the sector, the fee must be ring fenced by local authorities, using the consultative mechanisms set out in the previous bill to make that work. It is difficult to introduce new taxes, but if, on day 1, people from some political parties come along with very wide interpretations of how the money can be used, that will undermine the very scheme that we are trying to promote.
To return to the economic circumstances, we already know that many businesses are facing significant increases in business rates and employer national insurance contributions while also dealing with low consumer confidence. I urge local authorities that are considering using the tax to look at the wider economy in their local areas and to consider carefully. That does not mean that they should never do it, but it does mean that they should look at the economic circumstances now to ensure that they are not further undermining what is, in some cases, a fragile sector.
My final caution is for Parliament. This is a tight bill for a specific purpose, to fix a problem that we have identified. Please do not add amendments to it. Do not add bells and whistles. Let us make sure that we can get the bill through, using an expedited process, so that we can fix a particular problem. I know that there are things that I would like to include in the bill, but, unusually for me, on this occasion I will be cautious and restrained. It is important—particularly because we have a tight schedule towards the end of the parliamentary session—that we do not add bells and whistles, to ensure that we can get the bill through and fix the problem.