Meeting of the Parliament 19 March 2026 [Draft]
I am sure that local authorities will consider that point carefully, because they understand the local circumstances and the business profile of such providers in the tourism sector. The way in which the bill, as amended, is now configured will allow for a wide range of flexibility for local authorities to set the rates for different types of accommodation as they best see fit—that also answers the point that Murdo Fraser made earlier. If local authorities feel that there is a need to do that due to the nature of their local tourism sector, I am sure that they will consider that seriously.
Amendment 32 would oblige every local authority to review those particular accommodation types, even when they are rare or where there is no evidence that the levy affects them disproportionately. That would create additional administrative requirements, which is something that we are trying to avoid, without having a clear benefit, and it would divert focus from locally significant issues, as is best understood by local authorities.
As I said, local authorities are already able to shape the schemes and the associated reviews that are referred to in amendment 32. We believe that the amendment would be overly prescriptive and that imposing nationally prescribed considerations in such a way is inconsistent with the flexible approach that is being taken forward in the bill.