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

As I have said, there is already a mechanism to enable that to happen, through the community impact assessments and through the work that the local authority would need to do by way of consultation, and with the scope that it has to consider different geographical areas in different ways. I am always open to having discussions with members in advance of stage 3, but, for the reasons that I have outlined, I do not think that there is a need to pursue amendment 12.15:15I now turn to amendments 23 to 27, in the name of Tim Eagle. I recognise his intention in raising these issues at committee. The amendments all seek to create new national exemptions, focusing on rural and island businesses or residents. Section 14 of the 2024 act permits local authorities to establish local exemptions where those meet the needs of the area. National exemptions should be introduced in a proportionate way to avoid unduly restricting the flexibility of authorities to design schemes that would best suit their local area. For example, a local authority may, if it wishes, design a local scheme that exempts local residents or those who are travelling for business or medical purposes. Local authorities can also introduce different schemes for different areas, and they may exclude rural areas if they wish.In any event, the amendments all refer to rural areas“where the population is less than 3,000 people.”That is unworkable, as the extent of the rural area in question is not defined and cannot be determined. It would be possible to draw any rural area to have fewer than 3,000 people within it.Amendment 25 would require that the purpose of the trip is not for tourism. That would most likely require the purpose of the booking to be established at the time that it is made. That may not be practicable for accommodation providers, and it would place an additional administrative requirement on them. It may also have implications for third-party transactions, where the final purpose of the trip will not be known at the point when the accommodation is first sold.Amendment 27 refers to agritourism businesses. It is not clear what is meant here—there is no standard categorisation of agritourism, and the amendment does not provide a definition.Taken together, those issues mean that amendments 23 to 27 are not workable and, in any event, would unduly restrain the flexibility of local authorities to design appropriate schemes for their areas. That is an important consideration. I therefore ask the member not to move the amendments. If they are moved, I would urge committee members to reject them.Amendment 30 would add a requirement to the content of the Scottish ministers’ three-year review of the operation of the 2024 act. Section 75 of the act requires that the report must set out an assessment of the impact of a visitor levy scheme on business and communities. The amendment would also require those reports to include an assessment of the scheme’s“impact … on tourism in rural areas of Scotland”.I recognise the concern about the potential impact of the visitor levy on rural areas, and I am happy to support the amendment if it is moved, subject to lodging my own amendment at stage 3 to remove the redundant reference to Scotland, as the schemes apply only in areas of Scotland.Finally, amendment 31 would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations“to enable a local authority to modify or suspend the operation of a … scheme as it relates to island communities within”an authority’s area. Section 13 of the act already provides a means by which an authority can modify a visitor levy scheme, including in so far as it relates to island communities, if and when it considers that to be appropriate. Such modifications could include removing island communities from a scheme where islands were part of the wider local authority area. No additional provision is needed to allow for such modification. I therefore ask committee members to reject amendment 31.

Search Hansard contributions

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

In the same item of business