Good morning and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2022 of the Local Government Housing and Planning Committee. I remind all members and witnesses to ensure that their devices are on silent and all other notifications are turned off during the meeting. The first item on our agenda today is to decide whether to take item 5 in private. Are members agreed? We're all agreed. The second item on our agenda is to invite Gordon MacDonald to declare any relevant interests. Thank you very much, convener. The only relevant interest is that my wife is a local government councillor. Thanks very much. The next item on our agenda today is to debate the Visitor Levy Scotland Bill at stage 2, and we're joined by Tom Arthur, Minister for Community Wealth and Public Finance. The minister is joined by Scottish Government officials, Ben Haynes, who's the bill team leader, Laura Wilkinson, who's the Scottish Government legal directorate. Ian Shanks, who's the parliamentary council's office. I welcome the minister and his officials to the meeting. I'd also like to welcome Stuart McMillan MSP, Liam McArthur MSP, Daniel Johnson MSP, Jeremy Balfour MSP, Sarah Boyack MSP. We are also expecting Neil Bibby, who will join us shortly. Thank you all for attending this item. We are going to start right away. The question is that sections 1 to 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendments 26 in the name of Miles Briggs group with amendments 18, 1 and 2. Miles Briggs to move amendment 26 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Good morning, colleagues. My amendment 26 looks to remove camping sites and caravan parks from the final bill that was published. During the passage of the bill, it's been quite clear that this, instead of being a visitor levy, is more an accommodation tax. We heard really important evidence with regards to camping sites and caravan parks, often being, for people on fixed budgets, looking towards having a lower priced holiday. I think it's important, therefore, that they are not included in what will be a percentage scheme potentially adding to additional costs, so that's why I've decided to bring forward this amendment and move it in my name. Stuart McMillian to speak to amendment 18 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. First of all, I'm pleased to bring forward amendment 18 to the bill. At the introduction of the bill, I included the boat moorings and berthings as one of the types of accommodation to be covered by a visitor levy. That led to concern in the recreational boating community and a view that the visitor levy should not apply to someone using a berthing, as it primarily is a safe haven for a vessel and a very different scenario from someone, for example staying in a room or in a hotel. I think that the phrase that was put to me by a number of folk is, I mean, berths, mariners, or berthings or moorings. They're really just a car park for vessels. Many recreational boaters will use their boat to travel to a mooring, leave their boat and perhaps stay in a local B&B for the night. Having a visitor levy applied to that situation did not seem to be the right approach. There were many difficulties around collecting and remitting the levy, with many moorings being run by small voluntary community groups with someone, sometimes no formal record of who actually has used that berth. I welcome the committee's recommendation in the stage 1 report that the boat moorings and berthings should not be covered by a visitor levy, and in my role as the chair of the cross-party group recreational boating and marine tourism, I arranged for the minister to meet with members of the boating community, certainly here in the Parliament, but also in my constituency, to certainly hear their concerns. I know that he has listened carefully to their perspective and is sympathetic to the purpose behind this amendment, and I therefore hope that the Government is able to support it. Liam McArthur speaks to amendment 1 and other amendments in the group. Thanks for me very much, convener. Unlike Miles and Stuart, who are trying to crowbar certain visitors out of the bill, I am trying to shoehorn some visitors into the bill. First of all, it is worth putting on record that this levy and this bill will only work where there is sufficient local flexibility recognising the different ways in which tourism operates within different communities and at different times of the year. Fundamentally, there needs to be seen to be fairness and equity in relation to the way that the bill applies. As COSLA has pointed out in their briefing, cruise traffic is now a significant and a growing part of the tourist economy. There is a risk that, as the bill stands, it will exempt tens of thousands of visitors from paying the levy. At a local level in somewhere like Orkney, where cruise traffic is a highly significant proportion of the tourist visitors that come to Orkney each year, there is a risk that, without being able to apply this to cruise traffic passengers, the viability of the levy is not sustainable. The revenues that you would raise otherwise do not allow the administration of the levy to wash its face. As well, there is a risk for local authorities that, in applying it to some but not to others, particularly such a highly significant part of the tourism sector, there is a risk that you lose public confidence in what local authorities are doing. That is a very invidious position to place them in. I know that there are issues of competence in relation to applying this levy to cruise traffic. I am very grateful to the Minister for the engagement that I have had with him over recent weeks. I know that there are ongoing discussions with local authorities through COSLA and how they get around this issue, but I thought that it was important at this stage in the scrutiny of the bill to allow at least a debate to take place for commitments and assurances to be put on record by the Minister. I will allow other colleagues who may have similar concerns or issues in relation to their own parts of the country, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and, indeed, any other colleagues. Would anyone else like to speak to these amendments? I would like to speak to these amendments. I want to speak to Liam McArthur's amendments 1 and 2. I appreciate that Liam has recognised that these amendments are not the basis for the way that such provisions might be framed in law. On the motorhomes aspect, we recognise the number of motorhomes and camper vans and, in some cases, the way that they park up overnight are a problem in rural areas. The Scottish Government should explore and be open to workable solutions, however simply adding motorhomes to the bill is not workable for the following reasons. The cost is a deciding factor in whether a motorhome or camper van user chooses to use a designated site or not. That is already there in the commercial site charge. A visitor levy based on a percentage of charge does not make a decisive difference on that. More generally, the issue with a motorhome or camper van charge is how to do it. Charging at the point of hire only covers hire vehicles, not people who own vehicles. If a van is hired in Paisley, say, the income would then go to Renfrewshire Council rather than—and the vehicle would be travelling further through Scotland and may stop off in different areas. Then there might be the case where some areas—some local authorities—have a visitor's levy and some don't. If we were to go for number plate recognition, given that many thousands of places where a camper van might stop off, how would that be done and at what cost? The visitor's levy has been long awaited for and Greens are concerned about adding parts now for which there is not yet a clear route to implementation. I absolutely understand the complexities in relation to the application to motorhomes. Back to my earlier point about flexibility, there would at least be an opportunity in island communities where the issue of motorhomes is not simply the impact they can have once they arrive but the impact in terms of capacity on ferries tuned from the mainland. So there is the option, I suppose, of applying a levy through motorhomes travelling on the ferries. You would apply it there, so irrespective of where it comes from, where it has been leased, et cetera, actually the benefit in terms of the revenue gathered could be allocated to the island community. As you say, it wouldn't necessarily apply uniformly across the board, but I think that there is a recognition that there does need to be flexibility in the way that local authorities are able to apply it. The point is how to make it workable across the board and the issue would be then what happens to mainland local authorities and the impacts there. I think that it is something that needs to be looked at but probably not for this bill. I would like to now bring in the minister. Thank you very much, convener, and good morning to the committee. These amendments all relate to the meaning of overnight accommodation in the bill. The bill as introduced takes a broad approach to the types of overnight accommodation to which a visitor levy could apply. That means that all relevant types of accommodation that are offered for residential purposes other than to be someone's usual place of residence are covered. By taking this approach, it allows a local authority to decide after the consultation it must carry out while deciding whether or not to introduce a visitor levy if there are any types of accommodation it would wish to exclude. Amendment 26 seeks to remove camping sites in caravan parks from the list of accommodation types to which a visitor levy can apply. Such sites are an important part of the accommodation sector, particularly in rural parts of the country. There is no consensus among local government or the tourism industry that a visitor levy should never apply to a campsite or a caravan park. Therefore, I believe that it should be left to local authorities after consultation to make that decision reflecting their judgment on local circumstances. On that basis, the Government does not support amendment 26, and I would ask Miles Briggs not to press it. Turning to amendment 18, I want to put on record my appreciation and thanks to Stuart McMillan for the work that he has put into the issue of boat moorings and berthings, which he raised during the course of stage 1 and in the stage 1 debate. The committee in its stage 1 report recommended that boat moorings and berthings should not be captured by the bill, and Stuart McMillan's amendment would meet that recommendation. This is an area where there has been consensus from local government, the tourism industry and the committee itself. The Government therefore supports this amendment, which will remove moorings and berthings from the types of accommodation covered by the bill. I will now turn to amendments 1 and 2 from Liam McArthur. I am grateful for Mr McArthur for bringing his amendments to committee and for bringing his experience as a constituency representative to bear. As those amendments work together, I will speak about both of them. Amendments 1 and 2 seek to bring within the scope of any visitor levy scheme accommodation in a vehicle or on board a vessel. That is undertaking a journey. As I understand it and as Mr McArthur has highlighted, the intention behind these amendments is to highlight the issue of a cruise ship levy and a motorhome levy. Given the relevance of that to the bill, I will just briefly set out the Government's position on both these issues before addressing the effects of the amendments themselves. On a cruise ship levy, the Government's position, as announced in October, is that we will seek to give local authorities the power to create a cruise ship levy. We have therefore been working with COSLA and local government to scope out the work needed on a cruise ship levy and assist them with developing a formal cruise ship levy proposal. On Friday last week, COSLA wrote to the Government setting out their formal proposals for a cruise ship levy. We have committed to a public consultation on a cruise ship levy once proposals have reached a suitable stage of development to hear the views of all relevant stakeholders in line with the new deal for business. If policy work and a consultation can be completed in time and Parliament agrees, we will seek to amend the visitor levy bill to include a cruise ship levy. If that is not possible, we will explore other ways of passing the required legislation. I do not want to delay this important bill by waiting for that policy and consultation work to be undertaken, but neither do I want to rush work on a cruise ship levy to meet the timescales of this bill. I am very grateful to the minister for not just his comments now, but for the engagement that we have had previously. In relation to the question of timing, there is a risk that if one part of the levy is put into place ahead of the other, in the sense that unfairness that I talked about will be seen to apply even if it is only for a year or two years until a cruise ship levy is applicable. The choreography of the way in which it applies will be crucially important to most local authorities with a heavy reliance on cruise line traffic. I wonder whether the engagement that ministers have had with COSLA has picked up this point about ensuring that all aspects of the levy can be applied simultaneously if councils wish to take forward those proposals. Most certainly with regards to the engagement that we have had with COSLA as I touched on, we have received just last week a formal proposal from COSLA. I am conscious of the appetite within local government for the power provisions within this bill to come online as soon as possible, hence my position of not wanting to unduly delay this. However, I also recognise that, given the nature of a cruise ship levy, while having some similarities and unrest distinct from a visitor levy, it is important that there is a proper process of consultation and engagement to ensure that we can get this right. My hope would be that we are in a position to amend the legislation to enable a cruise ship levy to be captured. However, if we are unable to do that, we will identify an alternative vehicle and I will be more than happy to keep Parliament and individual interest in members up to date in that work. I recognise the point that Mr MacArthur raised with regard to wanting to have those provisions come into effect simultaneously, but I also have to recognise the appetite of local government to get this provision in space as quickly as possible, subject to Parliament agreeing. However, I say notwithstanding that, I will be happy to continue to engage with Parliament to explore ways in which we can ensure that once we have that developed, worked up proposal on a cruise ship levy, that public consultation, that extensive engagement with business and relevant stakeholders, then we will be in a position to bring that forward as soon as practically possible. Minister MacArthur, you said that it is extremely helpful and that you are aware of my interests in that area. I know that it is very early in that process, but would you be considering either primary legislation or would it be via delegated powers to bring forward any type of change going forward in the future? Given the significance of creating a new levy power just as we have taken an approach with primary legislation here, that is what would be appropriate for introducing a cruise ship levy. Where we are in a position to introduce it via primary legislation by an amendment to this bill, that would of course provide a means to do that. If that is not possible, then we would be looking for another vehicle, but as I highlight, given the significance of introducing that new discretionary power for local authorities, I think it is something that, in balance, would take the views of Parliament on this matter and take it out of course, but in balance I think it would lean towards primary legislation. I am going to bring in Mark Griffin and then we will move on. It is just to ask the minister for some clarification around a cruise ship levy. If there is not the time to insert it into this piece of legislation, if it is a different legislative vehicle that introduces a cruise ship levy, will the measures in this bill still apply in relation to timescales and consultation? Will local authorities then have to do the same work again with a percentage? Is that a potential cruise ship levy, as they have to do with the levy that has been introduced? With regards to a cruise ship levy, it is well understandably related in terms of some of the policy intent and motivation behind it to a visitor levy. It is distinct, so we would of course have to consider that in a case-by-case basis, but I think what has emerged from the work on the visitor levy and what is reflected within the bill as introduced is the importance and the high regard given to the importance of engagement between local authority, business and communities. We would consider proposals in partnership with COSLA and business and would be more than happy to engage with other members on the development of the proposals on a cruise ship levy. Of course, it would be subject to public consultation as well and that would help to inform the approach that we would take. Broadly speaking, we would want to be consistent with the principles and broads approach of engagement and facilitating engagement that we are taking through the visitor levy. With regard to the specific details, we would work through the process of engagement, public consultation and more than happy to engage directly with elected members as well as with COSLA with individual authorities who have a particular interest in a cruise ship levy. If I may convener, I just wanted to touch on motor homes. Those that use eligible types of accommodation such as campsites will be covered by a visitor levy if a local authority chooses to introduce one. The Scottish Government remains open to engagement and discussion with stakeholders on a wider motor home specific levy and will consider any developed proposals that will work to support the visitor economy. Discussions with council and land management stakeholders have highlighted significant issues with a levy on motor homes, with potential difficulties in application, administration and compliance, difficulties you yourself highlighted in your remarks. Those difficulties are, however, happy to give way. I'm very grateful. I just want to highlight two brief points. First of all, I recognise typical motor homes, but I think there's a basic principle here. It's not always possible to tell who is staying where, regardless of the type of accommodation, and we have to assume that people will be honest. I don't actually say a motor home is any different from any other type of accommodation. Secondly, there is a risk that by not having a levy liable for vessels that are moored but providing accommodation or vehicles that are essentially parked up and accommodation, that there are certain types of accommodation which are being sold by businesses and that they aren't having the levy applied to them whereas other accommodations are. I just wondered if the minister would acknowledge that there is at least potential for the loophole and that's something that needs to be thought about as we consider this through stage 2 and ultimately stage 3 to ensure that there aren't any significant areas where people can provide accommodation and are not liable for the levy. On the point about moorings and berthings, for vessels that can provide residential accommodation, which are permanently or mostly situated in the one place, they would be captured with moorings and berthings. This was Mr Macmillan outlined in his amendment. There would be certain categories of the vent that aren't consistent with the policy intent of the bill. On the point about motor homes, I do recognise that. I made reference to the fact that if they are in a site where a visitor lily could be applied, they would be captured by that. What I was going to say is that I do recognise the difficulties. I don't believe them to be insurmountable but we do need to do work to ensure that any tax is robust, works for local government, the tourism industry and motor home users. It's not opposition to the principle of a motor home levy, it's just a recognition that this is something again that will require more detailed work. Some of the points have been highlighted in that, certainly. I'm very grateful and I'm encouraged by what you're saying there, Minister, in terms of the openness to discussing this. As I've raised with the convener, there is, in relation to island authorities, an opportunity to levy any such charge on vehicles that are coming in via ferry. I think in terms of the principle of the levy being about supporting infrastructure and services, that would seem to be an appropriate way to apply it. Are you open to considering whether or not there is an option available to local authorities to apply it through that route? Albeit, as the convener said, you couldn't apply it similarly for mainland-based local authorities, but in the spirit of flexibility and applying it in appropriate ways, depending on need and circumstances, that should, I would have thought, be an option available to certainly island authorities. In principle, I would want to take an approach that recognises that our island communities are unique and have distinct needs and assets. Just in terms of whether we have broader reflections on structures and organisations with regard to the delivery of public services and what opportunities there are for islands to have more bespoke arrangements, I think. Naturally, that speaks to the point that you make, Mr McArthur. With regard to the provisions around the cruise ship levy and the motorhome levy, I'm more than happy to have these exploratory discussions. I would just want to, obviously, caveat by saying that it's important that what we have in place is robust, that there are not undue burdens around administration and compliance, which would ultimately undermine the policy intent. On that space, I think that there is an opportunity for further discussion. On that basis, what I would just want to really conclude on, convener, is that we do have those commitment to bring forward a cruise ship levy and have set out the rationale and approach behind that. We do have the openness and willingness to explore a motorhome levy in more detail. What I would just say is a final point, just for clarity. The bill has introduced, has a taxable event, the purchase of overnight accommodation, that does not easily translate across to the very different context of booking a cruise ship holiday in Hyren and Campervan. Those levies are likely to need a different legal framework with different taxable events and different compliance powers. I just offer back to give it a reason why the Government is unable to support amendments 1 and 2 at this stage and why I would ask Mr McArthur not to press them. Thank you. Miles Briggs to wind up. Thank you, convener. I think considering Stuart McMillan's mooring amendment, the same principles do apply for private caravans as well. I think this is at the heart of some of the problems within the bill, not having an actual definition of what overnight accommodation is. I think it's difficult for clarity whether a proposed levy would apply to a privately owned holiday caravan is something we still need clarification over. I'm happy to work with the Minister if he's willing to meet with myself and representatives for a stage 3 amendment. I think for caravan sites there is still ambiguity within the bill over who would and who wouldn't be charged, and I think that's important, like with moorings, that we look at more detail of who will be captured, especially what you've outlined with a payment needing to be made at some point and what that looks like for different clients within campsites. There is also a significant concern over changing behaviour, and we know from many colleagues the problems with wild camping and what that might also mean for people not wanting to pay a levy and therefore not using an established caravan or campsite. On any aspect of the legislation, where there are concerns about definition and whether or not the legislation will ensure that the policy intent is met, I'm more than happy to have that discussion ahead of stage 3 around refining any language. I would just note of course the flexibilities that do already exist there for local government and the bill is introduced around exemptions and exclusions. With this in mind, I won't move this amendment at this stage and hopefully take up a conversation for stage 3. Miles Briggs seeks to withdraw amendment 26. Does any member object? No objections. A call amendment number 18 in the name of Stuart McMillan, already debated with amendment 26. Stuart McMillan, to move or not move. Move is convenable. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're all agreed. A call amendment number 1 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with amendment 26. Liam McArthur, to move or not move. In the hope of working with the minister to see if there are ways forward, either in relation to camper vans or cruise traffic, I will not move. Liam McArthur seeks to withdraw amendment number... It's not moved. Oh, it's not moved. A call amendment number 2 in the name of Liam McArthur, already debated with number 26. Liam McArthur, to move or not move. Similarly not moved, convener. A call amendment 3 in the name of Pam Gosall, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Pam Gosall, to move amendment 3 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. The cost of doing business in Scotland is exceptionally high and recovery remains precarious following Covid and cost of living crisis. This is further compounded by business rates, VAT regulations on short-term lets and so on. It goes without saying that industry, as it stands, cannot get behind the visitor levy bill in its current shape. To do so, we must ensure that the visitor levy is as cost neutral to businesses as possible. There are around 2,000 to 3,000 smaller accommodation operators who are not VAT registered. In fact, David Weston from the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association told the committee that they often hear from their members that they are managing their turnover in order to stay below the threshold. Because of antidote code speaking, it can take a 50% increase in turnover just to cover the cost of going over the threshold. And yet only two businesses operating below the VAT threshold were consulted in the Vrea. The Federation of Small Businesses told the committee that one of the main concerns was that members feared being pushed over the VAT threshold. The financial memorandum does not even assess the financial impact on businesses if VAT is applied to the levy, nor has the Scottish Government provided any indication that it intends to revisit the financial memorandum or the Vrea. My amendments seek to exclude these small and micro businesses from falling off that cliff edge. That is why I urge members to back amendments 3 and 5 in my name today, which will exempt accommodation that has an annual turnover below the VAT threshold. Quite frankly, this will be a costly and complicated undertaking for all providers, but especially for small accommodation providers who do not even have an accounting system but instead use books and keep a diary. Should amendments 3 and 5 fall, I ask members to support 16 in my name, which introduces provisions for businesses operating under the VAT threshold to retain 20% of the total of their first return in order to recover costs for setup. Under amendment 11, I have sought to address how net proceeds can be used to improve the tourism offering and, in turn, improve the prospects for accommodation providers operating in an area. While I recognise the pressing need to close local government budget gaps, businesses should not suffer as a result. It is important that, where possible, businesses see some return on this owners undertaking. As outlined in my amendment, businesses located in the local authority should be included in any decision made by local authorities as to how the net proceeds of the scheme will be used. This would allow local authorities to maintain freedom over how the net proceeds are spent, accompanied by the expertise and knowledge of local businesses. In the interest of growing the local economy and improving the tourism offering, I cannot see any sensible reason for my colleagues to object to amendment 11 in my name. I am content to support amendments 38 and 39 in the name of Daniel Johnson, which requires the Scottish Government to define what a small accommodation provider is. I will be supporting amendment 42 in my colleague's name, Miles Briggs, to introduce provision for business impact assessment. Clearly, the Bria is outdated and flawed. Therefore, I would welcome local authorities conducting their own prior to introducing or changing a visterlevy scheme. The small accommodation sector runs on tight margins and already faces an endless barge of regulations. This Parliament runs a real risk of sinking small businesses to fill the gaping black hole in public finances. I urge members to protect Scotland's small and micro businesses, which are backbone of local economies and communities, by supporting amendments 3, 5, 11 and 16 in my name. I move the amendments in my name. Daniel Johnson to speak to amendment 36 and all other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. First of all, I would just like to remind members of my register of interests in that I am a director and social shareholder in a company that holds retail interests. I say that largely because I know what it's like to have to implement changes in new charges in a business and in a small business, and sometimes that is easy and sometimes it's not so easy. I think there are two fundamental points that I want to make in moving these amendments. First of all, I think it's consideration of what the practical realities are for implementing new charges are for very small businesses, but actually also the important point in terms of the interaction with this proposed levy and that of VAT. And indeed, the sometimes complex nature of having to comply and indeed pay VAT for many small businesses. And I think the levy potentially adds to that. But I think first and foremost, as somebody with a retail background, I recall both changes in VAT regime, also introduction on the bag charge. Neither of those things were unwelcome. Indeed, the VAT changes at the time were very welcome, but they weren't always easy to do. I was, I remember spending one night in my shops until midnight trying to get my tills working properly for the next morning. And it is not straightforward. It was also quite stressful. And I think we need to bear that in mind when we're asking what are very often not businesses, but actually activities that sit along the side of main businesses. And that this may well be a kind of a very significant additional administrative burden that we're placing on them. There are many forms of accommodation throughout Scotland, which are really important in terms of our mix and the offer that we have as a country, which are very small. Very often one or two bedrooms, very much not the main economic activity perhaps in a farm. And those businesses are being run from essentially a school exercise jotter and a cash tin. I think the assumption that is being made here and is very often made when government comes forward with these sorts of proposals, is that this is as simple as adding a button to the till or adding a parameter to a computer system. And sometimes that is the case, but for the smallest businesses that's not. Which is why my amendments would seek to create a category defined either by a number of rooms provided or a turnover threshold that would exempt those businesses. So for the very smallest businesses, which would find it difficult to administer this and exempt that from this scheme. The second point I would just like to make is that I think it's worth pointing out is that as far as we are aware is that this levy will be liable for VAT. So we just need to be mindful of the interaction of that. And that indeed in comparison to other countries that most other countries don't have VAT levied on accommodation. And so therefore I think Pam Gosol's amendments both in terms of their purposes, but also highlighting that interaction VAT is very important. Again, I don't think members should be under any illusion that VAT is not necessarily a straightforward tax to either minister on behalf of government, nor indeed a minister on behalf of businesses. Very often it is a struggle to ensure that you can pay your VAT bill, that this requires a degree of cash flow management again, which is a burden replacing on businesses. And as I said, a levy that is not just going to add the charge, but there will be 20% on top of the levy as well. So we are in doing this, adding complexity and I think we need to give consideration to the smallest businesses for that. On Pam Gosol's last amendment 16, while I think we need to be very mindful of the time and cost that may be required of businesses, I just would consider that we, with other taxes and levies, don't give money back to businesses. When I was in business I might have liked it if the land revenue had given me a rebate for the time it took me to prepare my tax returns. Unfortunately they didn't, but I just wonder what precedent that sets. But I think that the point about giving consideration to that time and the cost is an important one. Finally I would just say that my amendments are very much probing amendments. I recognise that they mean... Is there an intervention please? Of course. I thank the member for that. The member obviously said that you don't want to be giving money back to businesses and starting that. What do you propose then if this goes ahead, businesses will have that burden and we know that local authorities will be able to take their money out for basically the work they do, but yet businesses won't, they will be taxed. So what do you propose? I'm not the minister. Ms Gosol, unfortunately. I would just merely point out that when it came to preparing my corporation tax for VAT, I wasn't unable to claw back money for those. I really appreciate the point. I think we do need to be mindful about the time and cost required by businesses to pay this. I think we just need to ensure that we're doing so in a consistent manner. But as I was just saying, as I recognise that my amendments as drafted may not be practical, my principle is about ensuring that we recognise the smallest micro-businesses and we give consideration to them and indeed seek where appropriate to exempt them. Thank you for that. Before we move on, I just want to clarify. I said amendment 36, actually amendment 38. I'd like to bring in Miles Briggs to speak to amendment 42 and all other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I support all the amendments tabled in this group. It goes to the heart of who will really be impacted by this bill, and that is businesses of length and breadth of Scotland. Our tourism sector has been very diverse in many communities across Scotland as well. But I think Daniel Johnson really touched upon this, importantly, that this is not going to just be about a hotel chain with an IT department with a bookings team. This will be an individual person who runs their business out of a diary sometimes, all of a sudden being turned into a government tax collector. I think that we have to be really mindful of what that will do to businesses and the consequences they face as well for not being able to report on time or collect what will be a complex, potentially levy. I also think that it's important some of the amendments with regards to Pam Gosles around that. Around 20 per cent of unregistered borderline businesses admit to having taken action to try to remain below the threshold and outside of that system. So I think that it's also important we consider behaviour change within industry as well. My amendment 42, though, makes provisions to ensure that business impact assessment is undertaken and that I think can help provide post legislation as well an opportunity to address some of the concerns around the potential economic impact of this legislation. So I hope that the minister and the committee will see that the introduction of such a provision can be useful in scoping the impact of this legislation going forward and I move amendment 42 in my name. Thank you. Would any other members like to speak? Mark Griffin. I am very interested to see what the Government response is going to be to the amendments specifically related to the VAT threshold. We have very strong evidence from operators that they operate up to the VAT threshold because if they were to go beyond that annual turnover level, they have said that to recoup the costs of being VAT registered, they would need to increase their turnover from £85,000 a year to over £120,000 a year. So that is a significant increase in turnover for a levy being imposed on their business that they would have to achieve to essentially break even so. Well, I think that the amendments as tabled are good to start that debate. I am really interested to hear what the Government response is going to be to that particular point about VAT threshold. On the other amendments in this group, I have a degree of sympathy with them as well. I would say that what they do seem to do is to increase in administrative burdens to local authorities and also the opportunity to recoup costs for businesses. It actually takes away from the sums that businesses that the tourism sector, the culture sector hope to see invested in their local communities to improve the tourism offer. I am concerned about an unintended consequence of the hard-raised funds from visitors going to administration schemes rather than investing in the attractions that they would want to see invested in. So essentially I am looking to hear the Government response to the VAT amendments but concerned about some of the unintended consequences of the remainder in that group. Thank you very much, convener. Those amendments form an important group as they relate to how businesses are affected by any visitor levy that a local authority seeks to introduce. Amendments 3 and 4 by Pam Goswell would seek to exclude from having to collect and remit a visitor levy visitor accommodation that is operated by a body with an annual turnover below the VAT threshold. I know from my own discussions with business organisations that there is a concern about the VAT treatment of a visitor levy, something that is decided by the UK Government. The position on VAT is not something that the Scottish Government can decide. The Scottish Government's position is that any local authority thinking of introducing a visitor levy will need to consider the potential VAT implications. That it would have for relevant businesses in their areas. Under the bill is introduced a local authority when creating a visitor levy scheme could choose to create an exemption from the scheme for rose businesses that are near the VAT threshold. However, I am not persuaded that this is something that should be imposed at a national level. Local authorities are best placed to know their local circumstances and the businesses in their area. I do not want to remove the discretion for local authorities to decide what exemptions work in their area, including in relation to that. For those reasons, the Government does not support amendments 3 and 4, and I would ask the committee not to support them. Turning to Jan Johnson's amendments 38 and 39, I understand the motivation behind those amendments. The Government is continuing to listen to businesses and will seek to minimise administrative burden as much as possible for businesses that are implementing a visitor levy. However, I am again not persuaded that we should be removing the flexibility from local authorities to decide what is right for their local circumstances or that a national definition of small businesses imposed by ministers and regulations is the correct approach. A local authority could choose to create an exemption for small businesses in its area if, after consultation, it was decided that it was right to do so. Given that flexibility in the bill, the Government does not support amendments 38 and 39, and I would ask Daniel Johnson not to press him. However, I am happy to continue having discussions. I think that there are aspects around administration and taking into the points and the well-made points that Mr Johnson made that can be captured through the guidance process. On amendment 42, I appreciate the intention behind Miles Briggs amendment, I agree that it is essential that businesses are fully engaged in any decision to introduce or modify a visitor levy scheme. I also agree that any impacts on a local authority's area of a visitor levy scheme should be fully assessed. Section 12 of the bill already requires a local authority to carry out such an assessment, and I therefore do not think that amendment 42 is necessary. The expert group, bringing together business organisations and local government, is currently developing national guidance for local authorities on the use of any visitor levy power. I would expect guidance that they produce to cover the impact assessments that it would be good practice for a local authority to produce. I am also proposing amendment 15 in a later group to allow the guidance to have a statutory footing. If Mr Briggs still feels that further details are needed on the impact assessments to be completed by a local authority, I would be more than happy to meet him and potentially to write to the expert group to make sure that they are taking this important aspect on board, certainly. Noting his previous comments about the previous amendments, but relevant to this one, I wonder if the government might consider the requirement to consider small businesses and VA3 thresholds explicitly as local authorities develop and deploy their plans for local levies and make that requirement for that as part of the impact assessments in the bill. As I was just touching on there, I would be more than happy to meet Mr Briggs, but I would be more than happy to meet Daniel Johnson. Given the fact that guidance is going to be produced, subject to the agreement of the committee as an amendment that I am bringing forward in a later group, which would put that guidance on a statutory footing, I think that that can give quite a strong basis. It allows for that local flexibility for local governments in consultation with businesses and communities and relevant stakeholders in that area to determine the best approach for the levy, but through guidance, giving that clarity and information and support to assist local authorities in implementing a visitor levy that minimises administrative burdens to allow the most effective outcomes, certainly. I appreciate the minister taking intervention on that point. Can you give us a sense of the timescale when you believe that that advice and guidance will be ready that local authorities can use if they wish to? That is currently under development. Of course, we still have the parliamentary process to go through with regards to this bill, but we would want that to be available to the earliest opportunity. I am more than happy to provide the committee with a written update on expected timescales around the work that the group is undertaking at the moment. For the reasons that I have set out and expanded on in response to interventions, the Government does not support amendment 42, and I would ask Miles Briggs not to press it. Turning to amendment 11 from Pam Goswell, I would note that the bill already includes a requirement for local authorities to consult with businesses when it is considering introducing a visitor to levy, but that includes consulting on the objectives of the proposal and how the local authority will measure and report on the achievement of those objectives. That means that there is already a clear role and opportunity for businesses to engage and make known their views on a visitor levy. For decisions on the use of the funding raised by a visitor levy, the general position is that they should rest with the local authority. Any visitor levy scheme would be introduced by a local authority, and it is they who are democratically accountable. Nevertheless, section 17 of the bill already places a duty on authorities to consult when using the proceeds, including a specific duty to consult with businesses engaged in tourism. I think that strikes the correct balance as opposed to the amendment 11 duty to involve businesses in the decisions. I am however open to ways of ensuring on-going and meaningful engagement on a visitor levy with communities and businesses, and that is something that I will be considering further in the weeks ahead before stage 3. Given the democratic accountability of local authorities and the duties already in the bill around consultation, the Government does not support amendment 11, and I would ask Pam Goswell not to press it. Lastly, in this group, I will turn to amendment 16 from Pam Goswell. This seeks to allow an overnight accommodation provider to retain 20 per cent of the visitor levy raised in the period of their first return to a local authority. The Government does not support this amendment. Like Daniel Johnson, we are not aware of any precedent in the UK where a business collecting tax is able to extract from their returns a sum to meet the costs of administering a tax. While we have and will seek to keep the administrative costs of a visitor levy as low as possible, we do not think that it is the right approach to allow accommodation providers to retain some of the levy collected to meet administrative costs. There are also some other issues with amendment 16. As one example, the period for a return under the bill could be one month or several months and can fall on lower high season, meaning that a 20 per cent deduction could vary hugely. For all these reasons, the Government does not support amendment 16, and I would ask Pam Goswell not to press it. Pam Goswell to wind up. Press or withdraw amendment 3. Tourism is one of Scotland's most important sectors. It employs hundreds and thousands of Scots up and down the country. I firmly believe in Scotland's tourism sector that I want to see it flourish. While I can understand some local authorities popular with tourists seeking to generate additional revenue to support local infrastructure and mitigate against the impact of tourism on public services, the majority of Scottish tourism and hospitality sector is financially fragile and still in survival mode. We should look to maximise opportunities for growth rather than creating additional regulatory administrative or financial burdens. I am disappointed that the minister today has chosen to reject some sensible amendments here. I am also disappointed that the minister, instead of making decisions today here in the Scottish Government, which he has the powers to do so, has decided to basically pass on the VAT situation that it is more a UK Government situation and nothing to do with us here charging the VAT. I am sorry, I am pushing the businesses over the threshold. He also looks at exemptions that local authorities should look at what they apply and again passing it on to local authorities. I would just want to draw the committee's attention. With regard to the position with FAT, I have set that out in just a factual manner. It is a tax that is ultimately decided upon by the UK Government and I respect that. That is just a statement of fact. With regard to the position of local authorities, this is a discretionary power. It will be up to individual local authorities to decide whether to use it. A key principle underpinning this legislation is the fiscal empowerment of local government. That is just to be clear. It is the rationale for the position of giving that level of discretion around areas like exemptions and deciding how best to respond to the VAT to local government who are best placed to make these decisions as the ones who would be ultimately choosing to implement a visitor levy and administrating it. That is clear. It was factual. However, the fact is that we can today here, Minister, you can make decisions here and you have the powers to say that basically amendments can be changed. Moving on to, obviously, rejecting 11, you talk about basically in 17 that there are other ways to engage. Will I welcome the minister's point there? I really hope that he does put something in, if not in the bill, but make sure that local authorities are engaging with those businesses. I have said that it is over 2,000 to 3,000 small and micro businesses that will be affected if it pushes over the threshold, but also the fact that how this money will be spent is very important, the engagement. That is something that I have said many times to the minister that we must do more in this Scottish Parliament to also give those powers to local authorities, but make sure that we ask those powers to be that the fact that they need to do more engagement with small and micro businesses. While I welcome that, I think there is much more to do on that. On 16, the minister obviously rejects the fact that not to give any money towards the burdens that business will be facing. I am a little bit worried about that because businesses will be facing burdens. This is where I would ask the minister back to say that. What solution would you find there? How will small micro businesses pay for that burden, the fact that they have got to do that accounting? That money will not come from the levy at all. By rejecting my sensible amendments, the SNP Greens have once again proven that the new deal for business is nothing but empty rhetoric. This bill is a last thing that small accommodation and self-catering sector needs at the time when recovery remains uncertain for many. I am certainly with industry in this and I am disappointed, obviously, with today's decision from the minister. I hope that the minister will consider these areas here in the Scottish Parliament. I do move yet. Do you press or withdraw amendment 3? The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those against, please raise your hand. Any abstentions? The result is two, four, four against and one abstention. The amendment is not agreed. Moving on to the next grouping, it is called consultation by ministers and local authorities. I call amendment 4 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I move amendment 4 and will speak to all the amendments in this group. Amendments 4 and 7 in this group flow from the helpful scrutiny of delegated powers and law reform committee at stage 1 and fulfil a Government commitment to amend the bill in light of the DPLRC's comments. Amendment 4 would amend the bill so that before making any affirmative procedure regulations changing the list of accommodation types in the bill, ministers are required to consult with local authorities and tourist organisations. That is a sensible change that will mean that the bill reflects good practice and will ensure that local government and the tourism industry is suitably involved in any potential changes to the list of accommodation types covered by the bill. Likewise, amendment 7 requires consultation with local authorities and tourist organisations before any affirmative procedure regulations are made setting national exemptions from a visitor levy. That, again, is a change that means that the bill reflects good practice and one that I hope the committee will be able to support. I have now turned to new bibis amendments in this group, as they all address a similar issue. First of all, amendments 14 and 41 adjust the definition of local tourism strategy in section 11. That is relevant for amendment 49, which altered section 17 of the bill so that when using the procedure of a visitor levy scheme, a local authority would have to have regard to any local culture and tourism strategy that it had created. Amendments 43 and 44 and amendments 47 and 48 propose similar changes. They would require culture and tourism organisations and businesses, rather than just tourist ones, to be consulted under section 12 when the authority is proposing a scheme and under section 17 when it is deciding how to use the proceeds. In Scotland, we have a vibrant cultural sector and I know that visitors enjoy the many cultural offerings that we have, whether it be the formal festivals or museums or galleries or someone playing the fiddle in a village pub. However, I have concerns about the effects of these amendments. Section 12 of the bill already requires a local authority to consult with people who are likely to be affected by a visitor levy proposal, which provides a suitable basis for cultural organisations to have their say and be involved in decisions on a visitor levy. The use of funding raised by a levy is also an important aspect. On that, I would note that section 17 currently requires proceeds to be spent on facilities and services that are substantially for or used by visitors. While there will be a strong overlap between cultural spending and facilities and services used by visitors, they will not always be the same, and I am therefore wary of making changes to the bill, which takes the focus away from spending relating to visitors. I value the role that culture plays in a society and in the tourism economy. However, on funding the bill has specific provisions already in place and the current consultation requirements that cover community representatives, businesses engaged in tourism and tourist organisations. The Government would prefer to keep the focus on tourist businesses, organisations and strategies, while still allowing authorities to consult with such others as they consider appropriate. Adding a specific reference to culture would, in our view, move too far away from the tourism focus that reflects the feedback that we have had from industry. I therefore ask Neil Bibby not to press his amendment and, if he does so, for the committee not to support them. I have now turned to my amendment 8. It amends section 12 of the bill, so that a local authority proposing to introduce or modify a visitor levy scheme where a scheme area will include all or part of a national park must consult the park authority for a national park. That reflects the evidence at stage 1 that the bill should ensure that national parks are engaged and should have a status in the bill that reflects both the statutory basis and the important role they play in the visitor economy. The amendment ensures that the views of a national park authority are sought by local authorities at this stage alongside the current statutory consultations listed in section 12, as just discussed, community representatives, tourist businesses and tourist organisations. Similar changes are made to section 17 by my amendments 12 and 13. Again, those would require a local authority to consult with the relevant national park from time to time on the use of visitor levy funds where a visitor levy scheme area overlaps with the area of a national park. This reflects evidence during stage 1 of the bill and the legal status of national parks. It creates a proportionate duty on a local authority to engage with any relevant national park authority and to ask members of the committee to support it. Lastly, in this group as my amendment 14, that is again related to national parks and would mean that in using the net proceeds of the visitor levy scheme where the scheme area includes all or part of the national park, a local authority must have regard to a national park plan. Such plans have a statutory basis under the national park Scotland act 2000. Making a reference to the rem here ensures that a local authority has to have account of those plans when it is using the net proceeds of a visitor levy scheme. On that, I will conclude and move amendment 4. Neil Bibby to speak to amendment 40 in all other amendments in the group. Good morning to the committee and to the minister. I will speak to my amendments 40, 41, 43, 44, 47, 48 and 49 in this group on the visitor levy bill. We've heard already this morning how important the Scotland tourism industry is to our country and that's something we all agree on. I'm sure we all agree on the importance of Scotland's cultural scene as one of the greatest assets we have as a country. It enriches the lives of people here as well as selling brand Scotland overseas. It's one of the main reasons why people choose to visit Scotland. Many people come to Scotland as the minister said earlier to visit our castles, to visit sites of historical significance. Other visitors travel here to see sites they've seen on film and on television. Of course we have many people who come here to experience a concert in Glasgow or the festival in Edinburgh. We also have free entry to museums and galleries as the minister said and that's something that we want to maintain and should maintain. Many international tourists will visit these museums and galleries as well and we should remember that too. We are a world leader in our cultural offerings but we cannot take that for granted. As someone put it to me recently, Scotland was once the world leader when it came to shipbuilding and just because it was once the case doesn't mean it will always be the case. Culture and the Arts requires significant public subsidy from government grant and aid funding but from other sources of funding too and Mark Griffin alluded to that earlier. We have to recognise the real difficulties, the real challenges that are facing the cultural sector in Scotland just now in relation to funding, in relation to jobs, in relation to the cost of living crisis in terms of the recovery after the pandemic. The interests of the cultural sector, I believe, therefore must be fully and properly factored into the legislation and implementation of operation at Levy and consultation around that. That's why I'm here today putting forward these amendments. My proposed amendments would make small changes to ensure culture is referenced alongside tourism and key parts of the bill. Consultation in relation to this is going to be absolutely critical and my amendments require proper and meaningful consultation with the culture sector on the implementation of this proposed levy. As the minister said they would also mean taking cognisance of local cultural strategies as well as tourism strategies. I've spoken with many in the cultural sector in Scotland to support these amendments and I've also spoken with people in the business tourism community who are also supportive of these because they appreciate the joint importance of consultation with business tourism and the cultural industry. I believe these amendments are common sense and would help to improve the bill in a small but significant way. The minister's amendments in this group, as he's referred to, would ensure appropriate consultation with local councils and tourist organisations. I hear what the minister says about provisions with the relevant organisations. I still instinctively believe that we need something to specifically mention culture in terms of the bill to make it clear that the culture organisations in Scotland will be properly consulted and those cultural strategies will be taking cognisance of. However, I will reflect on what the minister has said. I will obviously, although I instinctively don't agree with him, I won't seek to press them today but I will consider what the minister has said and also to further engage with the cultural sector and those in the business tourism industry who are keen to see something done in this area. I think that the minister has taken a prize of tourist offer, not least of which cultural organisations and offers are a critical part of our tourism offer. Therefore, I think that need to be taken into consideration in terms of both how the levy is rolled out but also how the funds are being used. In further amendments, we will be discussing definitions, but I think that the consultation process and how effective that is is vital for giving confidence to business that this will be something that improves the tourist offer rather than simply being another tax that businesses within this sector have to pay. Let's take this one head on. There is a fear, frankly, that it's just another consultation exercise that there will be another form to fill in, something that local authorities will perform in order to levy this tax and really what businesses want is to be involved in deciding how this money is spent. Therefore, I would be grateful if the minister in his concluding remarks could maybe give his thoughts about how the guidance can be devised, the requirements can be put in place, so it's not just a form on a website but actually it's engagement with business and actually co-decision making with the businesses impacted about how this money will be spent and ensuring that it genuinely adds to our tourist offer in our town cities and rural locations rather than simply being another fiscal burden on businesses that are, as Pam Goswell has previously pointed out, are struggling. I would like to speak to Neil Bibby's amendments. The cultural offering made in a location is part of what makes it attractive to visitors, so I can see no problem with ensuring that cultural services are part of the range of services benefiting from the bill that is currently drafted without needing these amendments. Minister to wind up. Thank you, convener, and I thank Neil Bibby for bringing forward these amendments and giving us an opportunity to discuss and I agree with him wholeheartedly on the vital role that culture plays for all our lives in Scotland, but particularly in making Scotland a world-class tourist destination as it is. I appreciate that he's not going to press his amendments and I would want to stay in the record. I'd be very happy to meet with Mr Bibby ahead of stage 3 to discuss his proposals in more detail. What I would recognise is that, with that definition around tourism organisations, we want to ensure we're in caption the broadest range of stakeholders who have impacted by the business economy and it seems, I think, would be self-evident to all of us that the cultural sector would be a key part of that, but I recognise the point that Mr Bibby raises around wanting to ensure that there's assurance provided on that matter. I would note, in touching on the points that Mr Johnson made with regard to guidance, an amendment in a later group will seek to put the guidance on east statutory footing and that particular role that will be had with the Visit Scotland Act convening body and working to produce that guidance. I think that that can help to address a lot of these concerns. The guidance being on a statutory footing is highlighting what best practice would be. But crucially, of course, is going to be what happens on the ground now. The bill is introduced, provides quite a strong series of mechanisms for engagement ahead of the introduction of the visitor levy, the requirements around consultation, the transparency requirements around reporting and review. But I recognise, particularly with the point that Mr Johnson raises, asks from industry about how we can strengthen that process of engagement. As I touched on in speaking to an earlier set of amendments, I am actively considering and very happy to engage with members ahead of stage 3 to explore options of how we can enhance that process of consultation and engagement involving. Crucially recognising that this is a tool that will physically empower local government and locally elected members are democratically accountable to their electors as decision makers, but recognising that strong desire from business to have involvement that goes beyond consultation prior to the introduction of a visitor levy but can be sustained throughout that period. I think there's a recognition that that continued involvement of businesses, tourism stakeholders or communities will actually be a major asset in helping to ensure that a visitor levy can deliver on its full potential because fundamentally, and I agree, I want this provision to be viewed as an economic development tool that can really boost our local visitor economies. At the discretion of local authorities as to whether or not they introduce it and through that process of collaboration. So happy to discuss further on how we can provide reassurance around the engagement of the cultural sector. I think there'll be opportunities and avenues to do that through guidance and also about that more sustained engagement beyond consultation and what that may look like ahead of stage 3. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We're all agreed. I call amendment 5 in the name of Pam Gosol already debated with amendment 3. Pam Gosol to move or not move. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We're not agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those against, please raise your hand. Any abstentions? The results of the vote are follows. Those in favour were two, those against four and those abstaining one. The motion is not agreed. Moving on to the next grouping, rates and charges. I call amendment 27 in the name of Miles Briggs group with amendments as shown in the groupings. I point out that if amendment 34 is agreed to I cannot call amendment 35 under a preemption. Miles Briggs to move amendment 27 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I speak to all the amendments 27, 29, 31, 32. I missed one bit. Just when you were getting going. Apologies. I missed out a piece about section 4. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. Miles, apologies. You can pick up where you were. I move amendments 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 45 and 51 in my name. During the passage of the bill, the committee didn't take a position on whether or not we supported a percentage scheme or a flat rate. But it was quite clear, I think, from all businesses who gave evidence to committee through in person evidence or through their submissions that they preferred. To see the introduction around a flat rate fee. This was partly around the simplicity of implementation, the submission of returns being also made far more easy to administer, calculate and introduce and perhaps most importantly also to explain to guests as well. The use, as committee heard, of a percentage system to calculate a visitor to Levy could also be open to confusion around the complexity of additional services being provided, for example, meals and services, which would be harder to administer as part of a percentage fee. Therefore, given the concerns which have been voiced already today with regard to the impact on business, Conservative members believe that if this bill goes forward then actually a flat rate fee will be the most simplistic way of taking this forward and therefore I move this set of amendments in my name. Daniel Johnson to speak to amendment 28 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much Camuna. First of all, I should explain the primary purpose of my amendment. It may not be entirely clear. My amendment essentially caps the number of nights that the Levy would apply to. The key point here is being a member representing an Edinburgh constituency during the summer festival. There are a large number of people here who are using accommodation such as hotels and other types of accommodation but are coming here to work and actually provide their services and be part of the festivals. It strikes me that when people are using accommodation beyond a certain number of nights it really ceases to be temporary or visitors but they are here to work. Therefore, a simple threshold in terms of a number of nights would be a simple way of providing an exemption for people visiting a place on a semi-permanent basis and therefore to work. It is the complexity of trying to come up with definitions and just as a simple number. Again, this is a probing amendment in order to explore these thoughts about how we treat people that are here either for particular purposes or actually here to service the tourist and visitor economy themselves. Can I also just address the points raised by Miles Briggs? I think it's fair to say that there are mixed views regarding whether a percentage or a flat fee should apply both amongst local authorities and indeed amongst the business community. I've spoken to business organisations that have said themselves that they have members that will argue both sides. But I would say that I think the arguments Miles Briggs has made have some merit. There is a considerable degree of additional simplicity from having a flat fee. When you are applying a flat fee simply it is a matter of multiplying the number of rooms that have been occupied over a given period. I think that it is not to be underestimated the complexity of having a percentage, not just for the reasons that Mr Briggs set out in terms of additional charges, but also the fact that a vast majority of accommodation providers are variable rates. Therefore, you are actually requiring them to some quite complicated record keeping and indeed potential administration. I think that needs to be thought through. I think that the other point I would make is that there is a degree of consistency and it makes it a very understandable thing. The last thing we want is 32 different varieties of visitor levy that will make it very complicated and very confusing for visitors visiting this country and visiting a number of different places in the time spent in Scotland. I think that it is important that we have discretion that this is a levy that is locally devised and locally implemented, but I also think that we should be looking at ways in which we can make that a degree of consistency to improve that understandability. What I would say, however, on the flip side of that, because I think there are opposing views on this, is that the moment you have a flat fee, you then get into the complexity of how that is increased and administered and with all the issues you have where you have fixed rates in lot. We are all aware of the issues around fiscal drag and so on. Having spoken to colleagues in local authorities, that is one of the concerns that they would then get into an annual or however regularly that would be reviewed debate about what the fee should be, which is the argument for a percentage. I think that the final point I would say is that percentages are inherently more complicated. VAT is a non-trivial tax to both collect and administer and indeed police and verify that people are paying the correct amount. I just think that we should be careful about the complexity of the system that we are actually creating with the percentage fee. In the final summary, I think that we do need to think about how we treat people who are here. I am afraid that I am just finishing. I am sure that the minister will accommodate. Just in terms of for clarification and maybe the minister can also come in on this, I think the bill as it stands looks towards just seven nights being charged and so the member's amendment around 14 nights per calendar month would double that and just for clarification wondered what guidance would then be within the bill. My understanding is the bill stands at seven nights charging currently. That may well be my error. I think that the key point is that this is a probing amendment to ensure that we seek to treat people who are here to do work in a different manner to those who are here to visit and partake in tourism and I'll stop there. Minister to speak to amendment 6. I will speak to all the amendments in the group including my own amendment 6. First, as we have heard, amendments 27, 30, 31, 32 and 45 from Miles Briggs seeks to substitute the word percentage for a flat rate. As recommended in the committee stage 1 report, we have explored whether a consensus can be found on the basis of the charge for a visitor levy. We have not identified a consensus in that point within and between businesses, tourist organisations and local authorities. The Government will continue to explore this issue as the bill moves through Parliament, but in the absence of a consensus, the Government's position remains that a percentage charge provides a consistent basis for a visitor levy, while the level of visitor levy paid reflects what someone is willing to or able to spend on their accommodation. We have heard various arguments deployed on the relative merits of both approaches. I know the points that Mr Briggs made regarding a percentage levy. Daniel Johnson raised some of the challenges with a flat rate. Own at a flat rate would not take account of inflation and seasonality. That also raises administrative concerns. While Miles Briggs amendments have provided an opportunity to again consider and discuss the basis in which the levy is to be calculated for the reasons outlined, I do not support them. I would also ask the committee to reject and should be pressed by Miles Briggs. Turning to other amendments lodged by Miles Briggs, amendments 29 and 51 are designed to remove section 5 of the bill in its entirety. Given section 5 sets out how visitor levy is to be calculated, agreeing to this amendment would fundamentally undermine the bill and so the Government does not support these amendments. Amendments 33, 34, 35 and 36 all seek to alter the ability of ministers to set out in regulations made under section 9 of the bill, what accommodation providers in areas with a visitor levy must include in their bills and what they must publish. Those amendments would remove key parts of what the regulations might set out. For example, the regulations requiring invoices specify the accommodation portion or that the accommodation portion and the rate of the levy is published by a liable person. The provisions at section 9 of the bill are there to be used if necessary to make sure that there is transparency for any visitor on the visitor levy they have been charged and the calculation that was based upon. It is an important safeguard for customers and needs to be kept in the bill, so therefore I ask Miles Briggs not to press any of his amendments in this group, and if he does, I ask the committee not to support them. Turning to amendment 28 from Daniel Johnson, it seeks to put a cap on the number of nights within a month that a visitor can be charged with a visitor levy putting at 14 nights. Currently there is no cap in the bill just to give that as a point of clarification. Of course local authorities could choose to do so under the provisions of the bill that is introduced. I know that a cap on the number of nights is something that both industry and local government have raised and is some local authorities who wish to introduce the visitor levy have been considering. The Government does not support amendment 28 as it stands and it raises practical difficulties around how different local authorities would be aware of how many nights of visitor levy some had already paid, for example in a 20-night stay across various parts of Scotland. I am also mindful of the need to give local authorities flexibility. We need to shape any visitor levy to meet local circumstances. However, given the interest of both some local authorities and tourism businesses in such a cap, I would ask Mr Johnson to meet me between stages 2 and 3 of the bill to see if there is a proposition on this that can command support from local government and the tourism industry. With that in mind I would ask him not to press amendment 28. Amendment 6 from the Government is related to the Government's position on the basis of the charge. As I covered earlier, in the absence of a strong consensus on the basis of the charge, the Government believes that a percentage charge provides a consistent basis for a visitor levy. It means that any visitor levy is proportionate to the amount that someone has chosen to spend on their accommodation. However, in light of the concerns from industry that there is currently no mechanism in the bill for setting a maximum rate, the Government has lodged an amendment that would give Scottish ministers the power to set a maximum percentage rate for a visitor levy, subject to certain conditions. If approved, that power could only be used after consultation with local authorities, representatives of businesses engaged in tourism, tourist organisations, representatives of communities and any other relevant persons. It would also require Parliament to approve under affirmative procedure any cap before it came into force. The Government feels this strikes the right balance between local autonomy that allows for local decisions that reflect local circumstances and the genuine concern of industry that there is currently no mechanism that could limit the level at which a visitor levy could be set. The new text of the bill, as proposed by amendment 6, would provide a mechanism that could be used, if necessary, after consultation and with parliamentary approval. I will conclude my remarks there and ask the committee to support amendment 6. Thank you. Would any other members like to speak in this grouping? Mark Griffin? Thanks, convener. I would like to thank Miles Briggs for her table in his amendments and has given us the opportunity to debate the merits of a flat rate versus a percentage charge. He will be aware that this was one of the more difficult elements of the legislation that we grappled with and then did not take a view. There are merits on either side in terms of ease of collection of a flat rate but also the fairness of a percentage rate, scaling up in terms of the cost of the accommodation provided. What I would say to Mr Briggs is that I think that there is no consensus among local authorities and operators and just ask them to withdraw the amendments on the basis that we have continuing discussions on going and thank them for giving us the opportunity to do that again. Allow us not to vote on these amendments and prejudice the discussions that will no doubt carry on to stage 3. Thank you, convener. I think that one of the concerns is with the Government's decision now to support a percentage rate of what that means and interpretation at a council level. If that's set and a minister maybe can clarify this at 5%, which I think the Scottish Government are currently proposing, whether or not that then presents a sliding scale for different councils to appeal. So we would then have different councils deciding to charge different rates. I think that that's a concern with both Edinburgh and Highland councils, two of key councils for tourism activity. It's just to clarify that there is no Scottish Government proposal. There are, within the supporting documents, illustrative examples that were provided with regards to costs to assist members in the wider public and stakeholders in terms of engaging with the legislation. But if the bill is introduced, it would be for local authorities. What we have proposed with the amendment that I've just put forward would be power through regulations and with the various provisions associated with that I set out for a national carp mechanism as well. The bill stands it would be for local authorities to determine what the rate should be. Thank you, convener. I heard what the minister had to say. I think, like with our work around short-term lights as a committee, it is concerning with framework bills when interpretation at a council level, and we know sitting here in Edinburgh, two legal challenges Edinburgh City Council have faced because of their interpretation of that legislation. I do think that this sets up the legislation potentially to be problematic with different councils deciding on different percentages. I therefore will test my amendment 27 to see what support there is in committee and move it in my name. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those against, please raise your hand. And all those abstaining. The result of the vote is as follows. Those in favour is two. Those against were four and there is one abstention. So the amendment is not agreed. Call amendment 28 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 27. Daniel Johnson to move or not move? Not moved. Daniel Johnson seeks to withdraw amendment 29 in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 27. Miles Briggs to move or not move? In the interest of time, convener, I won't be moving the other amendments in this group, but just to put on record I do think we need for stage 3 far more clarification over how a percentage system will work, the impact it will have and if this is just going to be in guidance, a differentiation of that across Scotland. So hope and the points which Mark Griffin raised can be taken on board by Scottish Government at stage 3 specifically on that. So not moved 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 45 and 51. Thank you for that. The question is that section 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 30 in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 27. Miles Briggs to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 31 in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with 27. Miles Briggs to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed. Not moved, convener. I call amendment 6 in the name of the minister already debated with amendment 26. Minister already debated with amendment 27. Minister to move formally. Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. Oh no, we're not agreed. There will be a division. All those in favour, please raise your hands. All those against, please raise your hand. And any abstentions. The result of the vote is 5, 4, 2 against and 0 abstentions. So the amendment is agreed. The question is that section 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're all agreed. The question is that section 7 and 8 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're all agreed. Call amendment 32 in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 27. Miles Briggs to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 33 in the name of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 27. Miles Briggs to move or not move? Not moved. of Miles Briggs already debated with amendment 27 and I remind members that if amendment 37 is agreed I cannot call amendment 35 miles Briggs to move or not move. I call amendment 35 in the name of miles Briggs already debated with amendment 27 miles Briggs to move or not move. I call amendment 36 in the names of y rwrl areaf, mae ydych chi yn y sectorhau deilig, mae'r hwn yw'r rhan o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r sylwag i'r cyfrannu meddwl, rwy'n gwrs, mae'n gwybod, mae'n gwybod o'r cyfrannu hyd yn gweithio y cyfrannu. Felly mae'r cyfrannu hwn yn gymryd o'r cyfrannu, mae'n cyfrannu hynny. Mae'n gweld i'r unig yma, ond rydw i'n cael ei ddechrau. Felly nid i chi'n gweithio'r mynd i Gwyllgor, a'i'r cyfrannu hefyd. Rydyn ni'n golygu, byddai'n bwysig. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i fodw'r arglwgau yng Nghymru, rydych chi'n arddangos ochr, yn gweithio'r cyfrif—同 y gallwn o'r bwysig—au'r casidd bones i ddefnyddio'r bwysig. Mae'n ffawr awed inni. Felly, mae'n ysgrifمل yw'r cyfriflachau. Rwy'n ateb yng nghymru yw byddai'n bwysig, ychidael i ffawr i dda'n eu bwysig. Fysterio eich dystyn nhw, ond mae'n cael ff APPLAUSE rygwch yn ond i ni'r rhaid o'r cyfnodd y gobeithio, ac rwy'n ddigonwyd â'r hynny'r gyfer y cyfnodd ychydig i'r rhaid o'r cyfnodd, rwy'n gweithasg yn ei ffordd, rwy'n ddigonwyd a'r cyfnodd, credu'r cyfnodd yn cerddurech yn ymgyrchol gwahaniaeth oherwydd mae'n gweithio'n gweithasg ymgyrchol. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithasg yn gweithasg yn gweithasg, a'i gweithasg yn gweithasg yn gweithasg, y gwybod i'r gwybod i'r cymryd yn y cyfnod o'r cynllun gwelwch i gael o'r systemi. Felly byw'r gweithio fel y cymryd yn ei gael i gael o'r cymryd yn y gweithio'r cyfnodol i'r gweithio'r cyfryd. Felly, mae'n gweithio'r sgwrthau yn y cyfryd yn y cyfryd, a'r pwyllfa'r gwaith yw'n pwyllfa'r cyfryd? Mae'n ddim yn meddwl i'ch credu y cwmryd y gallwn'n ddim yn ffliðiwch i'w ddiwyllgor y mynd i gael y bydd. Fe ydych yn y bydd honno o'r byffordd ac mae'r eich parffordd yn ynap yn gwybod llawer yn ei wneud i'r pwysigau'r lleoghau, yn ychydig i ymddystrym i ddiogelio'r lleoghau, lleoghau oredu'r lleoghau ar well gael'r tynnau ei ddymiannol, o ran y taw chymweiynau a'r lleiw Llyfrgellau, ac sy'n ddigonwch. Wyn Shimdrill hefyd am y byd y gweithio pairon nifer o'r lleiw Llyfrgellau. Rydym yn sgwygen gwerthoedd mewn gwirionedd panrygiad y seamasol is y galleych am deall. Fydden nhw'n fwy o'ch meddwl a'r oedden nhw, ac mae'r uno oedd yn gŵr dyfodol i'r cyfeithio yma o'i adref yma yw yma oherwydd y cyfrifodd wedi'i mae'r edrydd ychydig, oherwydd yn cwrs hon. I think the government needs to take on board that variation which could take place and I haven't heard necessarily anyone arguing that these individual cases shouldn't be exempt from this scheme. I hope this gives Parliament and gives the committee an opportunity to properly consider not just a voucher scheme but a set of exemptions from this going forward. Given the time which will be before this comes into force, I think the sector can then work to make sure hynny ond wrth gwiaith� поддержwyr ymlaen o'r omfawr i'w cyflaen ei wneud. Maen nhw'n ddim yn bwrdd i chwilio i'n meddwl ei wneud hynny. Jeremy Balford i'r grwypiau i Gweinig 19 ddiweddol i ddweud y ddweud i'n meddwl eich linodau? Gweinogi i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'n meddwl ei wneud a'r ddweud i'ch dweud i ddweud i ddweud i… I move this amendment specifically around people with disability, but before I go on to that, I wonder if I could just add one comment to my colleague's marks in regard to his amendment. So for example, here in Edinburgh we have Ronald McDonald House, which is attached to a sick kids hospital, which allows parents to stay for a number of months with that. At the moment, without any exemption moved by Miles Briggs, either the charity will have to pick that up, or parents who are going through a very stressful period will have to pick that up. I would be interested to know if that is the intention of the Scottish Government to do that, or what scheme are they looking to do to stop either charities or very vulnerable parents having to pay that. If I can move specifically to my amendment, we know for more of the information we get in the Parliament, but those with disability are often in the poorest categories of our society. We have extra costs in regard to travelling, in regard to what we have to bring, and in regard to often having to bring a carer with them. Often a trip, whether that's a short period or a long period, from wherever they go in the UK, is often maybe once that happens in a very short period of time. And any extra cost for that disabled person is going to put them off having that break which they and perhaps their family require. So what I'm seeking to do is anyone who is on a benefit either in England or Wales or here in Scotland, issued by Social Security Scotland, would be exempt. Now I understand from reading the stage 1 report, I understand from conversations with other that there is concern with the industry of how do you implement that, and Daniel Johnson has picked that up already. In fact, this scheme works in many places already. So for example, if you go to the Festival Theatre here in Edinburgh, you go to the Playhouse here in Edinburgh, you turn up to book your ticket, you show your letter from either Social Security Scotland or DWP, which tells them that you're on an award, and then you get your exemption for that. It works in many other sectors. If you go to Orton Towers, if you go to Euro Disney, if you go to any of these venues, they all have that in place, and it's very easily managed. There has been quite a lot of reporting done on this. There is very little fraud that takes place around this, and it's an easy one for people who are having to implement it. Look at it, because each year a letter is issued by either DWP or Social Security Scotland confirming that you're on an award for disability benefit, and you can show that to the person who you are staying with. I appreciate that the minister may want to consider us further, so I would welcome whether his speech he makes now, if he would be willing to discuss that with me before stage three, and if he was willing to do that, and unless he is minded to accept it today, I will withdraw the amendment for further discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Would any other members like to speak to amendments in this group? No? Minister. The convener, both amendments 37 and 19 relate to exemptions. An important point that has been raised during the passage of the bill. Exemptions are an area where the Government believes it is best for local authorities to decide and put in place arrangements that reflect local circumstances. Where there is a strong consensus between local authorities, businesses and Parliament, the Government is open to putting national exemptions in place, which can be done through regulations under section 10 of the bill that is introduced. However, both COSLA, in their recent briefing for members, and the expert group and their leader, to me, copied to the convener have been clear that the do not support specific national exemptions being established at this point. I cannot ignore that clear message from both local government and the tourism industry that national exemptions would be unwelcome and should be avoided at this time. I would also highlight that, under the bill, local authorities will have the ability to create local exemptions developed together with their local community and local businesses. That seems to me an approach in line with the Verity House agreement and the overarching policy intent in the bill of seeking to empower local government with a new fiscal measure. However, I have sympathy with the motivation behind amendments 37 and 19, so I would offer today to meet Miles Briggs and Jeremy Balfour to discuss this issue further between stages 2 and 3 and to work to see if I can facilitate agreement between all the stakeholders involved in this important issue. On that basis, I would ask Miles Briggs and Jeremy Balfour not to press their amendments. Miles Briggs to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 37. I welcome ministers' comments on this and previous meetings. I met many in the sector as well who have said where the bill currently stands, how this could complicate situations. It is important that we have exemptions in place on the face of the bill and that they do not just get left to guidance and variation. I am happy to take up your offer of that meeting ahead of stage 3. I hope that there could be a competent amendment on the face of the bill around this. As I have said already, in short-term lets, some of that guidance for exemptions did exist. Councils are not necessarily knowing whether or not they can use that power. I am concerned that this becomes council-by-counsel interpretation across Scotland for those who decide to bring in a visit to Levy. With that in mind, I do not move amendment 37 in my name and will bring it back at stage 3, hopefully. Can you confirm that you withdraw amendment 37? Miles Briggs seeks to withdraw amendment 37, does any member object? No member object, so amendment 37 is withdrawn. I call amendment 7 in the name of minister already debated with amendment 4, minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 38 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 3, Daniel Johnson to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 39 in the name of Daniel Johnson already debated with amendment 3, Daniel Johnson to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. The question is that section 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 19 in the name of Jeremy Balfour already debated with amendment 37, Jeremy Balfour to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 40 in the name of Neil Bibby already debated with amendment 4, Neil Bibby to move or not move. Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 41 in the name of Neil Bibby already debated with amendment 4, Neil Bibby to move or not move. fake-dotwng ar gyfer y next grouping, scheme details, purpose and proceeds. I call amendment 20 in the name of Sarah Boyack, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I remind members about the preemption in this group, Sarah Boyack, to move amendment 20 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 20 in my name. I really want to say at the start that I have had a very strong interest in seeing a visitor levy yn edrych i gaelio fod iaith amserion cymrydol i dymlu? Mae hyn yn gaelio editoriala glowedol ar gyfer y dyfodol fanllun o'r cychwyn ac yn ymddangos iawn o hyd o'r amserion. Mae cymrydol yn選byn ymddangos iawn. Ond rwy'n gael i'ch tyfodd. Rwy'n gael i'r cyfryd aeth i'n gaelio ar dyfodol. Rwy'n gael i'ch gaelio rhaglan ar hyn ysgawr. Dysgolwch eich cyfryd ar gyfer ein gair ffordd o'r amserion ar gyfer y cyflodau cymrydol, My aim is to try and support the reduction of complexities for local authorities in setting objectives for their scheme, and, as members will be aware, are similar to amendments that I have laid in later sections in this part about how local authorities can actually use the proceeds in partnership with local stakeholders. If I go to amendment 21, it would take out the word substantially in line 28. That is because I have concerns that the use of the word substantially could make it over burdensome for local authorities to determine what kind of expenditure would be allowable or not allowable under the legislation. If we look at dictionary definitions, it could be to a great or significant extent or for the most part. The challenge for us in Edinburgh is that visitors use a number of the same services and facilities as local residents, but they impact on them and they can impact dramatically. Proving that they are used to a great or significant extent could actually be difficult because services are efficient in that they can be used for both residents and visitor needs could potentially stifle innovation or ways of moving forward. I know from talking to Edinburgh council that they are concerned that it picks up the points Miles Briggs has made earlier about short-term lets, that if we get into legal arguments that is not good for anyone going forward. We really do not want to be getting into legal arguments about what proceeds are being used and how to define whether substantial is actually being met in terms of the legislation. I really want to test how the legislation will work and how it is intended to work in the discussions that we have. I want to suggest that if you remove the word substantially it would reduce the complexity in consulting how the proceeds are to be used and how we get on and use the funds. I am very interested in the minister's comments about how he would define substantially. Amendment 24 in my name would achieve the same thing by ensuring the bills consistent in section 17 so that the complexities removed and councils getting on and using the proceeds from visitor levy in consultation with stakeholders. Moving on to other amendments, amendment 25 and 23 are two amendments that are worded differently that aim to achieve the same thing but through different means. I have put two different options on the table which I think could be used to make the use of proceeds less restricted. There is a debate where councils are concerned that the bill does essentially ring fence proceeds, which is counted to the Verity House agreement, and there are going to be different circumstances. Different councils will have different tourism challenges, so it is to enable them flexibility. Amendment 25 would only remove the words for leisure purposes. I want to suggest that removing those words would give councils flexibility and freedom to spend the net proceeds on the range of services and facilities that serve the tourism sector. I am interested in what is meant by leisure because I believe that investing in our arts and culture, our tourist infrastructure and our festivals are absolutely critical to Edinburgh's success. That is important in supporting a successful tourism economy that is all year round in our city and that would enable it to benefit our communities at the same time. We are a capital city, so we have national infrastructure. If we take, for example, the police presence in our city, we have already got major challenges. We have the capital city with parliament and government buildings, we have our airport, we have areas of significant interest. Let's give an example. If you have a match at Murrayfield, Easter Road or Tyncastle, if we have a demonstration in the city centre, that police presence is going to be stretched further. To what extent can a visitor levy enable the council to support the additional police services that we need but that are not there? We have the issue of how we define the type of expenditure on net proceeds falling under a leisure purpose that could unnecessarily restrict councils. Taking amendments 24 and 25 would increase the flexibility for local authorities to enable them to address local needs in relation to supporting tourism but would not give unnecessary restrictions on using the net proceeds. It's really important to try and get flexibility. I just want to stress that it's not just myself that sees this. If I take a quote from the Edinburgh News where the First Minister commented on the tourism visitor levy in Edinburgh, he was clear that he was a supporter of the tourism levy and that it could help many parts of Scotland but particularly he saw the advantages for Edinburgh. I've been to many European cities where you pay just a few extra euros and it's not a disincentive to going to those places so I don't accept the argument that people use against it. I think it would be wise to allow local authorities as much flexibility in relation to that spend. I'm in favour of allowing local authorities to decide how that money should be spent. I'm very much in line with that. That's a quote directly from the First Minister. If we move on to thinking about how other councils across the world have operated, I want to focus on the bit about the timescale issue. Amendment 22 in my name would reduce the period of time that's currently in place on the bill to give local authorities a bit more flexibility. I know that this was something discussed by members in the committee report on the bill. I think that it's important to get on the record, that's the use of section of stage 2. The timescale in section 13 part 2 is after consultation with stakeholders, not inclusive of the consultation. I think that that's absolutely key because if you take Edinburgh for example, there is already a huge amount of consultation which is on-going about how this legislation could benefit the city, how it would impact on the business community and the principles and the details. Critically, how to support particularly small businesses and that's something that my colleague Daniel Johnson mentioned earlier. It will be a challenge from day 1 so that means that there needs to be a lot of support in place now, a lot of discussions on the details and I'm conscious that how that works in practice is critical. But that discussion doesn't start after a scheme is proposed. It starts now, it's started already. If you look at other countries globally and localities within those countries, they have been able to implement similar levees in less than 12 months. That is not what I'm suggesting. I would suggest 12 months. Others have done it differently. In Rome for example, they managed to do it in a matter of months to raise support for their city. I do understand that a number of Scottish rugby fans paid a levy of 10 euros just this weekend but on current assumptions looking in reality the city of Edinburgh council is looking at the best case scenario for a levy being introduced is already late 2026 and possibly later. Those Italian fans who might come to visit our city won't be paying a levy in Edinburgh when they visit the city for the six nations in 2027. Time scale, the need to get going on this is critical. I'm putting a proposal forward just to create clarity and just to test what colleagues around the table think. Changing the implementation time, the minimum time from decision to implementation from 18 to 12 months would still be a minimum, so still up to local authorities. Just to stress that this time period is after the formal legislation required by local authority and it will enable a decision to go ahead with a scheme that has already been widely consulted on and that would let local authorities get going and deliver the benefits of such a scheme. Turning to the other amendments in the group, I think amendment 9 from the minister is trying to achieve similar amendment aims as my amendment 25, so I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments today. I do welcome the fact that I've already had consultation or discussion with the minister but getting things on the record today are key. While I recognise the minister's amendments would take on board feedback from the Edinburgh Tells Association in relation to business customers, I don't believe it would change the situation. My earlier example, nor would it take into account day visitors. I'm really looking for some reassurance from the minister in his comments and looking for a bit of clarity on the record in terms of what we're doing to empower our councils to get on and make sure that we maximise the opportunity for visitors coming to our country and particularly our city of Edinburgh, our capital city, to have a fantastic tourist experience so that we can invest in our city, in our culture, our arts, but the practicalities of making our tourist visits as successful as possible and getting that investment on the go from day one. Minister, to speak to amendment 9 and all other amendments in the group. Before I focus on the amendments related to funding, I would like to make some general points on that issue. In developing the proposals in the bill, the Government consulted and engaged with local authorities and the tourism industry. It was and is the very clear position of the tourism industry that funds raised by a visitor levy should be invested in the visitor economy. The bill therefore makes sure that this is the case by putting in place and placed a measure to give local authorities the freedom to use the funding raised as they believe appropriate to support the visitor economy in their area. The current wording in the bill has been carefully crafted to mean that the use of net funding raised by a visitor levy is spent on facilities and services with a strong connection to the visitor economy. However, if there are things linked to the visitor economy that members believe the current wording would preclude a local authority from funding, I am open to constructive suggestions from the committee or other members on how to address that and happy to consider refining the wording as necessary ahead of stage three. It will be for a local authority following the consultation process with local communities, tourism businesses and local tourist organisations in terms of the bill to decide how funding raised by a visitor levy is spent. Local authorities will want to use the funding in a way that best supports their local visitor economy. I am aware that those needs will differ across the country from improving street dressing to supporting work, promoting a destination, investing in relevant regeneration and potentially supporting affordable housing projects, recognising that tourism businesses can struggle to retain and recruit staff due to accommodation issues as part of wider pressures on local housing markets. I should be clear that it will not be for the Government to permit or exclude any particular use of the funding within the broad parameters in the bill that is rightly a decision that will be made at a local level after local consultation. I would also add that this is an area that I would expect in national guidance currently being developed by local government and the tourism industry and to be given a statutory basis by amendment 15 to address. In that context I will now turn to amendments 20 and 24 from Sarah Boyack. Rhes relate to the objectives that a local authority sets for a visitor levy scheme under section 12, and we are used to which the funding raised by a visitor levy can be put under section 17. The Government's position is that funding raised by a visitor levy should be used in facilities and services that have a clear link to the visitor economy. The wording in section 12 of the bill requires scheme objectives to relate to developing, supporting and sustaining facilities or services, which are substantially for or used by visitors. Section 17 then requires scheme proceeds to be used to further these objectives or otherwise for facilities and services, which are substantially for visitors. As I outlined earlier, I am open to constructive suggestions from members if the current wording in the bill would preclude a local authority from funding something related to the visitor economy. However, the Scottish Government believes that simply removing the word substantially would weaken that aspect of the bill. It is there to make sure that there is a clear link to the visitor economy in the use of revenue raised from a visitor levy. That has been a consistent ask of the tourism organisations and the accommodation providers who would collect and remit any visitor levy. Therefore, on that basis, I ask Sarah Boyack not to press amendments 20 or 24. I think that that is a constructive approach, but I just wanted to put on the record the fact that there are days in the year when we can have tens of thousands of additional people that are coming, not just maybe for the festivals, but if it comes at the same time it can deliver major challenges. I just wanted that on the record as an example in relation to policing, for example, which is not leisure, it is not culture, but it is critical to success and safety in our tourist economy. I hope that the minister will accept that point. I appreciate the point that the members are making. What I would highlight is this being a discretionary power for local government to implement after consultation and engagement. The points that I touched on earlier about looking ahead of stage 3 on how we can strengthen that process of engagement will be through that process of local engagement and consultation with businesses, tourism organisations, community organisations within a particular area to best determine how revenue raised through a visitor levy can be best applied to support the visitor economy. That is why I make the point that if it concerns that the current drafting would preclude what would be regarded as a use to support the visitor economy in a particular area, I am happy to have these discussions ahead of stage 3 to consider how we can refine that wording and to do so in partnership with local government and crucially and very importantly with the tourism sector. Amendment 21 in 25 from Sarah Boyack would remove the words for leisure purposes from section 12 and 17 of the bill so that the objectives of a visitor levy scheme would no longer have to relate to facilities or services which are substantially for or used by persons visiting the scheme area for leisure purposes. Funding would no longer be linked to those visiting an area for leisure purposes. I understand Sarah Boyack's wish to expand the objectives of a visitor levy beyond just those visiting for leisure purposes. However, the Government itself has responded to that point and has put forward amendments 9 and 10 and, as I said earlier, uses such as for housing and regeneration are not precluded if a local authority chooses to do so. I will turn to amendments 9 and 10 in a moment, but for now I would say that the Government believes amendments 9 and 10 are a better option on this issue and I would therefore ask Sarah Boyack not to press amendments 21 or 25. In the meantime, I will deal with Sarah Boyack's amendment 23. This alters the permitted use of proceeds by removing section 17.1B from the bill. In contrast to Sarah Boyack's other amendments, it would mean that a local authority could only use the proceeds for facilitating a visitor levy scheme's objectives. If those objectives were met, a local authority could not use any money raised in another way related to the visitor economy. This amendment would remove a sensible measure and restrict local government in the use of the funding raised by a visitor levy. It would tie the hands of local authorities to only being able to use money raised by a visitor levy in a way that would be unhelpful as circumstances change and new opportunities arose. I would note that amendment 23 contradicts the position in Sarah Boyack's amendment 20 and 30. I appreciate that she is exploring a variety of approaches to these sections in the bill. The Government therefore, for these reasons, does not support amendment 23 and I would ask Sarah Boyack not to press it. The stage 1 report from the committee highlighted the calls for the bill to be amended so funds can be invested in services or facilities used by visitors travelling for business purposes, as well as by those doing so for leisure. In response, the Government has considered the issue and has therefore brought forward amendment 9. Amendment 9, in my name, relates to section 12, which sets out the steps that a local authority must take before introducing or modifying a visitor levy scheme. These steps include preparing a statement of the objectives of a visitor levy scheme. As mentioned, section 12 requires the objectives to relate to developing, supporting and sustaining facilities or services that are substantially for or used by persons visiting for leisure purposes. Amendment 9 would change the requirement in relation to a scheme's objective so that it would refer to facilities or services used for leisure or business purposes or both. Amendment 10, in my name, deals with the same issue at section 17 of the bill, placing a duty on a local authority in relation to business visitors and the use of proceeds of the scheme. Again, as we have heard, section 17 requires the use of the proceeds to be used to be for the scheme's objectives or otherwise for facilities or services which are substantially for or used by persons visiting for leisure purposes. Amendment 10 would amend section 17.1b so that the other purposes there refer to facilities or services used for leisure or business purposes or both. That reflects a sensible enlargement of the purpose to which funding raised by a levy can be used with the support of local government and the tourism industry. Therefore, I ask a committee to support amendment 10. Turning to amendment 46 from Miles Briggs, I note that it would amend the bill so that a local authority setting up a visitor levy scheme would have to specify the manner in which it would decide that any net proceeds raised in a specific area could only be used in that specific area. The question of limiting the use of visitor levy raised funding to the area where it was raised was considered by the committee at stage 1. The committee's stage 1 report noted that such an approach would fail to provide for ambitious strategic long-term investment and the Government endorses that point. We want to give local authorities the freedom to make the strategic investments in their visitor economy that the levy can facilitate. I therefore ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 47 and, if he did so, for the committee not to support it. Finally, in this group, amendment 22 from Sarah Boyack would reduce the 18-month implementation period to 12 months. The Government believes that there is a strong case for the 18-month implementation period. 18 months provides adequate time for both local authorities and businesses to put in place systems and train staff to effectively collect and administer a levy. In our 2019 public consultation on the levy, 82 per cent of respondents supported the timeframe of at least one financial year following the conclusion of consultation and engagement activities. That was also supported by 16 of 18 local authorities that responded to the question. A period of 18 months is also the recommended time, as suggested by the European Tourism Association. The Government therefore does not support this amendment and I would ask Sarah Boyack not to press it and the committee not to support it. Miles Briggs speaks to amendment 46 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 46, in my name, is a probing amendment. Really coming from some of the evidence we took from communities who are part of larger council areas and their concerns, specifically with regard to the sky and businesses operating there. Also Aaron, who raised concerns about what is significant tourism activity currently on these islands and whether they would secure a fair share of that funding once a local authority takes decisions over where that would be distributed. I wanted to probe with ministers with regards to the reporting of that money, specifically where it is raised. Also, what role would then be had on where that money being raised is actually spent. I think that's an important principle which hasn't been pursued within the bill. Again, like with other amendments, I'm happy to discuss that further with the minister. I think that it is important for substantial tourism activity to take place in parts of the council area for those businesses to then benefit from that and not just see that going into a wider pot within the council area. I'm grateful to Mr Briggs for giving way and I think that's an important point that he raises. What I would be happy to do is to consider how the existing provisions in the bill around reporting and transparency and the review mechanisms as well, not to mention the consultation that precedes the introduction of a visitor levy through the guidance that will be produced, constrained from that process to give that greater clarity and certainty. I would want to recognise that it's important that local authorities have that flexibility to invest as they see fit following that process of consultation. I recognise that there might be concern around transparency and I would want to provide assurance on that point. I think that's something that we can probably effectively address through the guidance that will be provided. On that basis, I'd be happy to engage further with the member before stage three. I welcome that. I think that there is also another amendment maybe for stage three around who would then be involved from tourism representative bodies in a wider council area for that decision making on expenditure as well. But I'm happy to take that on board. In terms of other amendments in the group, I welcome many of the amendments that Sarah Boyack has brought. I think that there is a concern, though, within maybe not Edinburgh and Highland who both are council areas who have been long advocating for a tourist levy, but other council areas and this being established. I think that we need to take into account many of the concerns that have already been expressed in terms of the setup period, what systems would be used for businesses. Therefore, we wouldn't support amendments 21 and 25, but we would support the other amendments. But with regard to my amendment 46, I won't be pressing it, Camino. Thank you. Do any other members wish to speak to amendments in this grouping? I would like to speak to some of Sarah Boyack's amendments on the amendments on leisure purposes. Scottish Greens believe that the bill should, as part of its purpose, give scope for councils to use the revenue for a range of purposes. For example, we strongly support housing. There is a significant connection between the visitor economy and the housing sector. For example, in the provision of accommodation for visitors that does not reduce access to housing for residents and in recognising that the visitor economy itself requires accommodation for the many staff that work within it. So already supply of affordable housing is a foundation of a thriving visitor economy and that's why we strongly welcome the minister's assurance that investment for housing and regeneration purposes is a legitimate use of revenue. On removing substantially, I'm concerned that removing the word substantially does the opposite of what is intended in terms of reducing complexity and that it could also narrow the scope of how the revenue could be used. On the amendment 22, around the consultation period, Scottish Greens have pushed for visitor levy for many years and are proud to be in a government that is finally making it happen. While we understand the appetite to reduce the lead time as much as possible, we accept that 18 months finds a middle way. If the passage of the bill stays to time and councils are ready with their consultation process, then visitors levy schemes could be in operation as soon as spring 2026. Sarah Boyack to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 20. I did say that my amendments were mostly probing amendments and I did want to get some comments on the record today. I welcome the reference from the minister that housing and regeneration would not be precluded, particularly given Edinburgh's housing emergency. I would have to declare an interest in my name when I say that, given my previous employment. That is welcome. There were other points that I made about the huge impact of tourism, which is very beneficial but also poses challenges, where I think a bit more thought and a bit more flexibility would be welcomed. I will not move the other amendment to my name in relation to substantially. I will leave that for today and I will engage in that conversation with the minister. The other thing that I want to say is that, in terms of timing, we have been in discussion for a long time already in Edinburgh and in certain other councils as well, because it is a now issue. The council is already working consultation with a range of tourist and business-related organisations in advance of the potential of a visitor levy and also to support those businesses. Personally, I am disappointed that there does not seem to be the support for reducing the lead time from 18 months to 12 months just to put on the record because that is after a scheme proposal has been agreed. That could be a long time down the tracks but I recognise the feedback from others around the committee today and I will seek permission to not move amendment 20 and I will not move the other amendments in my name. Can I confirm that you withdraw amendment 20? Do you confirm that? Thank you. I call amendment... Cereboyic seeks to withdraw amendment number 20. Does any member object? No member objects, amendment 20 is withdrawn. I call amendment 21 in the name of Cereboyic, already debated with amendment 20. If amendment 20 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 9. Cereboyic to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 9 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Minister to move formally. Moved. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The question is that section 12 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. At that point I am going to briefly suspend for a break. Welcome back. I call amendment 45 in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 27. Miles Briggs to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. Call amendment 46 in the name of Miles Briggs, already debated with amendment 20. Miles Briggs to move or not move? In light of the minister's comments, not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 22 in the name of Cereboyic, already debated with amendment 20. Cereboyic to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that section 13 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. The question is that section 14 to 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 23 in the name of Cereboyic, already debated with amendment 20. I remind members that if amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 24, 25 and 10. Cereboyic to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 24 in the name of Cereboyic, already debated with amendment 20. Cereboyic to move or not move? Not moved. I will reflect on the minister's comments in response to the discussion that we have had today. Thank you. I call amendment 25 in the name of Cereboyic, already debated with amendment 20. I remind members that if amendment 25 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 10. Cereboyic to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that I call amendment 10 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 20. Minister to formally move. Moved. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. We are all agreed. I call amendment 11 in the name of Pam Gosol, already debated with amendment 3. Pam Gosol to move or not move? In light of the minister mentioning the need for sustained engagement and obviously mentioning it when my colleague Neil Bibby spoke about in the culture sector, I'm hoping that the minister will include businesses in that, so I won't be moving. I call amendment 47 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 4. Neil Bibby to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 48 in the name of Neil Bibby, already debated with amendment 4. Neil Bibby to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. I call amendment 12 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 4. Minister to move formally? Moved. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 4. Minister to move formally? Moved. Is that section 17 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We're all agreed. The question is that sections 18 to 19 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We're all agreed. Moving on to the next grouping under the title review of the Act. I call amendment 50, in the name of Miles Briggs in a group on its own. Miles Briggs to move and speak to amendment 50. Thank you, convener. I hope this is a helpful amendment given all the concerns that we've heard during the passage of the bill The evidence we took is important. It is important that we see the introduction of a review a year after the scheme comes into force in the council areas that take it forward. Therefore, my amendment 50 asks that the Scottish Ministers must review the impact of this later than a year after a scheme comes into place. I think that it is important that we look towards Mae'r dweud i gilydd y brifysgol a'r hyn yn iaith. Felly hawdd ar gyfer blaenau cyfnodau yn ddrallu gyfnodau am ymmlynedd yn gyd, yn credu'r ddylch yn y sector, ma'r echudoedd yn arch坦 ymddian nhw. Felly mae hyn yn rhaid adeiladau 50 yn i'r cyfnodau am eu namesu. Gyfnodau yn fawr ar gyfer ddyliau i amgylcheddriaeth i amgylcheddoriaethu i'r ddylcheddoriaeth, Mark Griffin. Mae'r rhwng, iechbyn ymddugol honais, oherwydd ei gallu, surfiliadau o beth capitalista ymdwyll botwng Trust. Wydwch chi ei wnes gorfod am addresses familiariaus o beth eu modd arlaiigo issuedd trinfodderol hyn Didl. Mae esyn rydym wedi hynod o'r rydw i gym朋友io Raddaeth ac Ilo. Ond ond mae oedden nhw'n iawn o'r pethau yn dechrau i dyn ni'n maes i ddwynt i ddechrau'n maes o gael mewn cyfranc,氾 cyfransnw i'r leirin, y ffawr cyfransnw i ddwyntai, maes i ddweud y timsgail. Mae'r ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud angen i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud, lefiershcems. Under section 18 of the bill, each year a local authority would have to report on their visitor lefi scheme, under section 19, within three years a local authority would have to review its scheme and publish a report of its findings. Any national level evaluation would need to happen in partnership with local government and would be best to take place once many visitor lefi Cymru a'r ystyfiadau rydw i niwach ar gyfer deuaethau mewn cyfan. A o'i gwybod i'r niwch arlawn, ac mae'n gwybod i Llyfrgell Cymru gyda'r llunio amddangosol ar gyfer Tywyddau Diwrnod. Cymru gymryd yng Nghymru i fynd i'r hyn o ran o'r cyfan hyllud yn ystod yn maen o'r panodol sy'n ilynwg yn ei hubau cyнитеiliaeth gyda'r cyfan, oherwydd mae yn ei chyrdun o'r gwael. Rydw i ddim yn i kalbi'r piwyd gyda'r cyfan. yn mynd i llawer o rhaid at roeddog, mae'n cael ei fawr yn gallu ddangos arddangos. Felly, gwag wneud hynny ond wnaeth yr oeddwn ni'n ochr oes hynny ddylai, ddylai'r rangos o'r llai o wyg yr sgwyl, felly rydyn nhw i'r parllament yn gwybodaeth o ddwylltu yn cael ei gwybodaeth. Aethwn i'n mynd i ddefnyddio esgwilio'r cymwyth deiligog arno'r gwahadau o fewn i ddefnyddio'r cyffredinol oedd yn y stag un, I will be keen to explore how the Government can help to facilitate that wider process of review once there are a number of visitor levy schemes up and running to identify the way, how different schemes are operating in different parts of the country, what the impacts and outcomes of that are. I'm happy to consider how we can provide more assurance around that process. I suggest that, at this stage, if Mr Briggs is content, I'm conscious that we've already got a number of items that we're going to be discussing and meeting, so if he's content to add this to the agenda, I need any other member who'd be interested, I'd be happy to explore. I just think that, as Mr Gryffin suggests, one year I think would be premature. This is ultimately about fiscal empowerment of local government. There's a review mechanisms there for local government as well after three years. We would not want to be a situation where we were duplicating reviews that local government had already carried out, but I do recognise that interest in what was going to be the aggregate impact of multiple visi