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

Kerr, Stephen Con Central Scotland Watch on SPTV

The next three groups consist entirely of my amendments. I will comment on them as swiftly as I can.Amendments 14 to 18 go to the very heart of public confidence in the visitor levy. The question is not simply how the levy is calculated or applied, but what happens to the money once it is raised.When the Parliament first legislated to create a visitor levy, it did so on the basis that proceeds would be used to develop, support and sustain facilities and services that are substantially used by visitors. That was the compact—it was never presented as a general revenue-raising device to plug unrelated gaps in local authority budgets. Amendments 14 to 18 are designed to tighten that link. They would strengthen the requirement for net proceeds to be directed towards purposes that are connected to tourism and the visitor economy. They would also enhance transparency on how funds are allocated and provide a process for challenge if the net proceeds of the visitor levy are not being used as intended.The amendments would also create clearer reporting and accountability processes. Amendment 18 would create an annual reporting scheme on how the visitor levy has impacted aspects of tourism such as visitor numbers, the length of visitor stays and the viability of tourism businesses. That would reassure businesses that pay the visitor levy and communities that live with its consequences that its impact is being monitored and that the money will directly improve tourist activity.If a hotel, guest house or self-catering operator collects a levy from its customers, it should be entitled to say to them, “This is being invested in improving the place you’re visiting.”Such investments might be in infrastructure, environmental maintenance, cultural assets or services that sustain the visitor experience. They should not become an indistinguishable line in a council’s general account. It is not about mistrusting local authorities; it is about clarity of purpose. We all know that local government is under severe financial pressure, but if the levy is perceived to be a back-door tax that is detached from visible benefit, support will quickly erode.My amendments would also protect councils. Clear statutory guardrails would reduce the risk of challenge and strengthen the legitimacy of decisions that are taken. They would give councillors a firmer foundation on which to explain and defend how funds are used. If the levy is to endure, it must command consent, which flows from fairness, proportionality and transparency. Agreeing to amendments 14 to 18 would reinforce those principles and keep faith with what the Parliament intended and with what the sector was told. I ask colleagues to support them.I move amendment 14.

Search Hansard contributions

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

In the same item of business