Hansard

These amendments all deal with the types of overnight accommodation on which the levy would be payable and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to them. Liam McArthur has explained amendments 1 and 2, which allows me to set out the Government’s position regarding a cruise ship levy and a levy on motorhomes. I am grateful to Mr McArthur for his constructive engagement ahead of stage 3.

The Government is open to introducing a cruise ship levy and to exploring the detailed mechanisms that would be required to operate it. We will therefore engage with local authorities, the cruise ship industry and other stakeholders in the coming months to explore the issue further and to develop more detailed proposals. I thank the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for its work on the matter, which will be a useful starting point for those discussions. I can confirm that we intend to launch a public consultation later this year, so that we can formally hear the views of those who would be affected by such a levy and to further consider the impacts on businesses, local government and others. That will build on the constructive engagement that we have had during the development of the visitor levy, and ministers will be happy to engage with members who have an interest in a proposed cruise ship levy.

Motorhomes are also an important part of the visitor economy and are used by many people to explore the more rural parts of Scotland and our many islands. Recent research by VisitScotland has shown the benefits that motorhomes can bring to the visitor economy. However, I know that they can also place particular pressure on smaller communities, so there is an understandable view that they should be subject to some kind of levy.

The Government is open to discussion with stakeholders about the issue and will consider developing proposals that will work to support the visitor economy. Discussions with councils and land management stakeholders have highlighted significant practical issues with any levy on motorhomes, including potential difficulties with application, administration and compliance, but the Government’s door remains open to discussion of the issue and to any workable proposals that can be brought forward. I note Liam McArthur’s suggestion about the opportunities for the potential application of such a levy in island settings.

I reaffirm the Government’s commitment in these areas and make clear that I am committed to engaging on these matters, as are my ministerial colleagues. I intend to engage during the summer on the issue of a cruise ship levy and to further explore measures regarding motorhomes.

Having outlined that and made those commitments, I ask Liam McArthur not to move amendments 1 and 2.

I turn to Miles Briggs’s amendments 22, 23 and 25, which would remove campsites, hostels and caravan parks from the scope of a visitor levy and would make it impossible for a local authority to include them in its visitor levy scheme.

Where there is a strong consensus between, and among, local government and the tourism sector that a type of accommodation should be removed from the scope of the visitor levy, the Government is open to removing that accommodation type. Members may recall that that happened with boat moorings and berths earlier in the passage of the bill. However, there is no such consensus on the issues of campsites, caravan sites and hostels. Such accommodation is an important part of Scotland’s tourism sector, offering lower-cost accommodation and a different type of experience. The Government’s approach to the visitor levy takes that into account, with the percentage charged for the levy reflecting the generally lower cost of such accommodation.

Such accommodation is much more prevalent in some parts of Scotland than in others and removal would therefore disproportionately affect some local authorities more than others. Clearly, removal would also reduce the level of income that a local authority would receive from the visitor levy, which would, in turn, affect the level of funding available for investment in the visitor economy.

The Government therefore does not support amendments 22, 23 and 25 and I ask Miles Briggs not to press them.

Amendment 24 seeks to include campsites only

“where the provision of camping pitches is the primary income of the business”.

I appreciate where Miles Briggs is coming from with his amendment, but it is not one that the Government can support. Businesses may have a variety of income streams and those may fluctuate over time depending on conditions in the wider economy. How would the exclusion operate given that the amendment is unclear on how “primary income” would be defined and over what timeframe? Again, this amendment would affect some local authorities disproportionately. In the absence of a national consensus, I do not want to remove the flexibility for local authorities to determine accommodation providers for their individual schemes. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendment 24.

Similarly, Miles Briggs’s amendments 26 and 27 seek to reflect situations where income from caravan and camping pitches is not the main focus of a business. In this case, again, the Government believes that it is best left to local authorities to decide on what is a local tax. In the absence of any consensus between local government and the tourism industry, flexibility would be needed to define what was ancillary and what would happen if that changed over time. The Government therefore does not support amendments 26 and 27.

Amendments 28 and 29 seek to exempt the provision of caravan and camping pitches for a festival or event. I understand the thinking behind the amendments but, in the absence of a consensus, the Government does not support them. There are also problems with the amendments at a practical level. For example, how would they apply to a general-purpose campsite where some of the people who were staying were taking part in a particular event and others were not? I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to move amendments 28 and 29.

My amendment 3 is largely technical and I ask members to support it. It will make the consultation requirements for regulations under section 4 consistent with consultation requirements elsewhere in the bill.

I will make a final point in respect of the points that are raised by many of the amendments in the group. Under the bill, a local authority that seeks to introduce a scheme will be required to consult before it is introduced, and it will be able to exclude certain types of accommodation. In the absence of a national consensus, that decision is best made at a local level. I am very willing to continue the discussion with MSPs from all parties if there are types of accommodation that they believe should be excluded from use of the powers in section 4. At present, however, the Government does not believe that it is right to take that step without a clear consensus among local government and the tourism industry. The bill seeks to introduce a local tax and, as part of empowering local government, to give local authorities the powers and responsibilities to make decisions that are right for their areas.