Meeting of the Parliament 24 March 2026 [Draft]
I commend Tim Eagle, who is having a gossip with Fergus Ewing at the back of the chamber, for resisting the temptation to add lots of bells and whistles to the bill. He was restrained. That was important because, when the minister came to us, he asked for an expedited process. He asked for our good will, because we knew that the parliamentary timetable was incredibly tight and that adding another bill into that mix could endanger other pieces of legislation.
I commend all the members who took part—the committee members and the various spokespeople—for keeping it tight. Of course, there was a debate about some elements, including the medical exemptions, which I agree with and which I will return to later. We managed to get through the bill at speed, which is what the industry wanted.
The industry has behaved incredibly professionally. Marc Crothall from the Scottish Tourism Alliance, as well as Fiona Campbell from the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, are professional advocates for their sector, and their sector should be proud of what they do for it. They have managed to elevate the sector to an industry that is respected for its economic contribution, as well as for its contribution to good employment.
The sector has been transformed in recent decades. It is now something that we can all be incredibly proud of, with great visitor attractions and high-standard accommodation and restaurants. The sector is a good one, which is due in part to the contribution and advocacy of Marc Crothall and Fiona Campbell.
This is a good bill. It is not just a technical bill—it is more than that. It will improve a piece of legislation that had a flaw: none of us in the chamber had identified the need to give local authorities the flexibility that they required to ensure that the levy, when applied, is easy to implement. We have now given local authorities that flexibility.
However, just because local authorities have flexibility and power does not mean that they have to use it. It is not a compulsory power; they can choose to implement it or not. I urge them to consider carefully the wider economic circumstances that we now face. We are all having to consider that. Of course we would like more money for public services, but we all must consider the damage that can be done to important sectors by constantly ramping up tax—the message that it sends about our belief in the sector and wider sectors in the economy. I urge caution on local authorities in using the power. The economy is struggling, as we have all seen, and any additional cost—particularly in comparison with other parts of the world—can act as a disincentive. Act with caution.
Secondly, if the powers are going to be used, make sure that the money that is accrued from the levy goes into tourism. I have heard scary stories about what some local authorities are planning to use that money for, and it does not sound like tourism to me. We need to ensure that the money is ring fenced for the direct benefit of the tourism sector, because we need to keep the confidence of that sector for the longer term if we are going to grow our relationship with it.
My final point is about the exemption for hospital and medical visits, which has been raised in particular by my colleagues from the Highlands and Islands, where there are long distances that require overnight stays. People making such visits should be given exemptions. Every council that implements the levy should—because they will have the power to do so—give exemptions. I hope that the minister makes it clearer to local authorities that, although they have flexibility and they have the choice, they should provide the medical visit exemption. He should encourage them to do so.
We will support the bill, because it is a good bill that improves the original one and because, although it will give local authorities the power to charge a levy, that does not mean that they have to use it.