Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee 04 March 2026 [Draft]

04 Mar 2026 · S6 · Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee

Item of business

Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

McKee, Ivan SNP Glasgow Provan Watch on SPTV

Amendment 4 responds to feedback from local government, industry and committee members on the implementation periods that may be applied to visitor levy schemes.As you may recall, at stage 1, there was consensus on the general principle of reducing implementation periods, but there was no discussion on details as to what those implementation periods should be. I met representatives of industry and local government on 12 February to discuss the issue and seek proposals on what amendments could be made to support quick changes while balancing the need for effective and adequate preparation.There was consensus on minimum implementation periods for rate or amount increases and for changes between levy bases. Amendment 4 therefore provides that such modifications will require a minimum of six months before they can be brought into effect.There was less agreement on implementation periods for new schemes. Industry supported the existing 18-month minimum period, while local government considered that the period could be reduced to 12 months. Given those mixed views, I consider that the 18-month minimum period before new schemes can come into force should remain unchanged.For those reasons, I ask committee members to agree to amendment 4.I turn to amendment 13, which is in the name of Stephen Kerr. Although I fully recognise the importance of transparency and engagement with business, I do not consider this provision to be necessary or proportionate.Local authorities are already under statutory duties to consult businesses, communities and other stakeholders before modifying a scheme. They are also expected to consider impacts carefully as part of decision-making processes. The amendment would duplicate those safeguards and impose an additional procedural requirement wherever a proposed increase exceeds the consumer prices index, regardless of the circumstances.The CPI is not always an appropriate measure of the underlying costs of operating a scheme. In some cases, sector-specific or operational costs may rise more quickly than general inflation. It is therefore important that authorities retain the flexibility to respond to local funding pressures without being subject to an inflexible statutory trigger.I turn to my amendments 6 and 11. The amendments are intended to avoid unnecessary duplication and delay for local authorities.Where a local authority has already published and consulted on a draft scheme, the amendment makes it clear that it does not need to reconsult if scheme changes are required solely to reflect amendments made by the bill.The bill already provides an exception where a scheme has been consulted and reported on, a decision to proceed has been published and the proposed start date of the scheme has been publicised. The amendments simply extend the same approach to schemes that are slightly earlier in the process.As with the equivalent provision for existing schemes, the associated amendment would commence the new section automatically two months after royal assent. It recognises that councils should not be disadvantaged where they have already undertaken consultation.Overall, the amendments support a consistent, proportionate approach and help to ensure timely implementation. They do not remove the requirement for local authorities to consult on new schemes. I ask members to reject amendment 13 and to agree to amendments 6 and 11.I move amendment 4.

Search Hansard contributions

Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee 04 March 2026 [Draft]

In the same item of business