Meeting of the Parliament 19 February 2026 [Draft]
I thank the organisations and individuals who provided evidence during the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s scrutiny of the bill and the original visitor levy legislation, whose contributions were central in shaping the committee’s deliberations. I also thank the committee clerks for supporting us in reaching the conclusions that we reached in our stage 1 report.
Labour agrees that the bill is absolutely necessary. Visitor levies will be an important tool for public authorities, and the bill seeks to ensure that those levies will operate within a workable and transparent framework. It recognises the diversity of Scotland’s visitor economy and the different pressures and opportunities that are faced by local areas. We support full devolution to councils and their having the flexibility to customise the system so that it meets local needs.
We are not here to debate the principle of a visitor levy, which was thoroughly examined during the passage of the original bill. However, we should also not be here to discuss implementation through further primary legislation. One law should have been enough, particularly given this Parliament’s already crowded legislative timetable.
The Government argues that the amending bill addresses issues that could not have been predicted, but that does not quite chime with my recollection of the original debate. I can remember not the current minister but the previous minister coming to the Parliament to say, “We couldn’t make a decision on this, so we passed the decision to committee.” The committee took evidence, realised the difficulties in making that decision and said, “No, thanks, that’s for the Government to decide.” The committee did not do so without highlighting the difficulties in deciding between a percentage rate and a flat rate; that was made very clear at the time, and we would have expected the Government to do its due diligence and research and to provide the proper leadership, instead of saying that it was the Parliament’s fault. The committee and the Parliament gave a clear steer to the Government that it was ministers’ decision to take.
The committee was also clear at the time—as it is now—that any levy system must be clear, manageable and proportionate for businesses and local authorities. Smaller operators and those with limited administrative capacity must be confident that compliance will not become an undue burden. Cost is therefore central to the bill’s success. It is evident from the committee’s report that the Government has not sufficiently clarified its implementation cost estimates or adequately explained discrepancies between the financial memorandum and stakeholder evidence. I welcome the opportunity to work constructively at stage 2 to ensure that we establish a realistic and robust financial framework.
Another key issue is the possibility of multiple levy schemes. The committee previously supported councils having flexibility to develop more than one scheme, while stressing the need to avoid unnecessary complexity. However, it remains uncertain whether a single transaction could fall under more than one scheme and, given the proposed flexibility across localities, that lack of clarity is unhelpful. The committee was right to recommend that that be addressed through amendment at stage 2.