Hansard

This group of amendments seeks to modify section 19 of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024. Section 19 requires net proceeds to be used to facilitate the achievement of scheme objectives, and when that is not needed, any surplus amount must be used for the purpose of“developing, supporting and sustaining facilities and services which are substantially for or used by persons visiting … for leisure or business purposes (or both).”That purpose captures many of the things that Stephen Kerr’s amendments seek to cover. To that extent, they are unnecessary. However, the amendments would also require any such surplus to be used for other purposes, too, that are not considered appropriate.Amendment 14 would require the surplus proceeds to be spent on measures that reduce costs on tourism businesses. The current provision in section 19 already provides that net proceeds are to be used for purposes that are broad enough to cover the matters that are mentioned in proposed new sub-paragraph (ii) (A), (C) and (D) without the need for the amendment. The amendment would require the proceeds to be used for all the listed purposes, removing local discretion for authorities to apply funding where they consider it is most needed. In addition, “policing”, which is mentioned in proposed new sub-paragraph (ii) (B), is the responsibility of Police Scotland. Requiring local authorities to spend surplus net proceeds on any such policing matters would not be appropriate.Amendment 15 would require authorities to spend net proceeds on measures that are related to mitigating the cost of regulating the tourism industry, but that includes costs that do not appear to relate to the operation of visitor levy schemes. In addition, it is unclear what is meant by“enforcement measures targeting unfair competition within the tourism industry.”The amendment would appear to require surplus net proceeds to be used for the purpose of mitigating the cost of any regulatory activity that is connected to the tourism industry, as it is not limited to costs that are attributable to local authority regulatory activity. I am not persuaded that that is necessary. In my view, it is sufficient that local authorities may use any surplus net proceeds for the purpose of“developing, supporting and sustaining facilities and services which are substantially for or used by persons visiting”the area of the local authority“for leisure or business purposes”.Amendment 16 would require local authorities to spend surplus net proceeds for the purpose of measures that offset costs and charges on the tourism industry. It is difficult to see how that could be achieved without the authority giving some form of financial assistance or compensation to businesses. In particular, any such surplus would be required to be used for the purpose of measures that offset licensing fees that are imposed on the tourism industry. That would undermine the policy intention behind their imposition, with licensing fees usually set on a cost recovery basis that does not generate revenue for the authority.For those reasons, I urge members not to support amendments 14 to 16.Amendment 17 would impose a duty on the Scottish ministers to put in place a process for reviewing visitor levy schemes, but only where a local authority is using the net proceeds for improper purposes. It is not clear what the effect of the review process would be.The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 already requires local authorities to use net proceeds for the purposes that are set out in section 19. It would not be lawful to use such proceeds for another purpose. Section 20 of the 2024 act requires an authority to publish annual reports on its visitor levy scheme. The reports must include information on the amount of money collected, how the net proceeds have been used and the performance of the scheme with reference to its objectives. That provides a regular opportunity for the authority to demonstrate propriety of spend. Section 21 of the 2024 act provides for three-year reviews by the local authority of the operation of a visitor levy scheme. The authority must publish a report of its findings. Taken together, these provisions already provide a robust monitoring and reporting mechanism. It is not clear how the additional review would enhance the existing processes.There is also a critical role for the authority’s visitor levy forum, with the forum being consulted on how net proceeds from visitor levy scheme are used, annual reports and reviews of schemes, satisfying the interests of transparency.Section 22 of the act also gives the Scottish ministers power to regulate the process to be followed by a local authority when introducing, administering, reporting on or reviewing a scheme.For those reasons, I ask members not to support amendment 17.Amendment 18 would require a local authority’s annual report on a visitor levy scheme to include information about how the scheme has impacted on visitor numbers, length of visitor stay and the viability of tourism businesses.As I mentioned, section 20 of the 2024 act already requires a local authority to provide information in its annual report on the performance of the scheme by reference to the scheme objectives. Section 13 also requires the authority to consult in advance on how it intends to measure and report on the achievement of those objectives. Where it is relevant to the objectives, local authorities may include information in its annual report about the matters mentioned in the amendment, provided that that information is available and reliable.Although I appreciate the intention behind amendment 18, it is not clear to me that the particular information sought will always to be relevant in relation to the objectives of a visitor levy scheme. I therefore ask members not to support it. However, I am happy to explore whether statutory guidance provided by VisitScotland for local authorities could be updated to include additional guidance on the content of annual reports.