Hansard

It has been about five years since the Scottish Greens first secured a commitment to the bill’s being introduced. That happened as part of annual budget negotiations the last time we were in Opposition with a minority SNP Government. Since then, we have had a pandemic that delayed its introduction. It should have been introduced at the end of the previous parliamentary session, but, for understandable reasons, it was one of the bills that could not be introduced. That put us in the privileged position of being in government with SNP colleagues while the bill was being developed. I am glad of the work that we were able to undertake together, particularly with the minister, Tom Arthur.

I put on the record our thanks to Mr Arthur for the excellent engagement, not just while our party was in government with SNP colleagues, which we would expect, but since the end of the Bute house agreement and our move into Opposition. That model of engagement is absolutely a model for working in what we now have—a Parliament of minorities, where that outreach and approach to Opposition parties will be essential. It is an example of the fact that the next two years can still be very productive for this Parliament if we have such cross-party collaboration.

Visitors contribute so much to our communities and our local economies, but they do not contribute very much to local authorities, which have to bear the cost of them. At the core of the bill is the principle that local communities and taxpayers should not have to contribute all the costs. Some years ago, I was struck when Parliament took evidence from Adam McVey, the then leader of the City of Edinburgh Council, on the huge additional sums that were required simply to empty the bins in Edinburgh city centre during the festival. There is a massive increase in costs for the local authority, which does not get much in the way of direct financial benefit from the festival, despite all the other immense benefits that it brings.

The bill begins to address that. It will be of huge value in areas in my region such as Arran and Loch Lomond. One area of the bill that is particularly well designed is the flexible approach that would allow West Dunbartonshire Council—although I would prefer it to work with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority on this—to introduce a visitor levy up the west shore of Loch Lomond, where it would be very lucrative, and to do so in a way that would not necessarily compel the local authority to introduce it in other areas, such as Clydebank, where it might not be so helpful. That money could be reinvested in communities such as Balloch, which benefit from the visitor economy but are also seeing significant negative impacts at the moment. That money could be used to mitigate those impacts and improve the local visitor experience.

I thank my colleague Ariane Burgess and Living Rent, which is Scotland’s tenants union, for their campaigning for confirmation that the scope of the bill would allow the proceeds to be spent on affordable housing. That is absolutely essential for not just local communities but local businesses, particularly hospitality businesses in rural communities, which are experiencing acute labour shortages due to housing shortages. I am very glad that the minister confirmed at stage 2 that that would be the case, and I hope that that will be reflected in the guidance.

I have a brief question for the minister that we did not quite cover at the end of our consideration of amendments at stage 3. Is the minister in a position to outline a timescale for the commencement regulations for the bill? Should we expect draft regulations to come before the end of this calendar year? We would be keen to have more of an understanding of the timescale for that.

I was very glad about the minister’s commitment to take the next steps towards a cruise ship levy for Scotland. A cruise ship levy is distinctly different from the visitor levy, although there are some similarities. The Greens believe that a cruise ship levy should take into account the significant pollution and other impacts from cruise ships, not just passenger numbers. Given that there are cruise ships that can dock and depart on a single day, there should still be a way to apply that levy to them, even if there is no overnight stay in the local authority area.

Mark Griffin and Willie Coffey were right to point out that, although the bill will have significant benefits for some authorities, the benefits for others will be negligible. That is why it must be only one part of the picture when it comes to the fiscal empowerment of local government. There is a range of other options that we could take forward, including a demolition levy, an incineration levy and a large events levy. The Greens are certainly proud of those that are coming forward, such as the carbon emissions land tax, and what has already been delivered, such as the ability to double the council tax on second and holiday homes.

The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill is a good bill. It will become good law, it is well drafted, and Parliament has significantly improved it. The power is an important one that will have a positive impact on local communities, but it must be only the next step in the fiscal empowerment of local government, not the final step. We need to give local government in Scotland the power to really govern our communities. Our economy will certainly see the benefit of that if we do so and we take a leap of trust in our elected colleagues at local level.