Chamber and committees

Amendment 26, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 18, 1 and 2.

The next group is on review of the act. Amendment 50, in the name of Miles Briggs, is the only amendment in the group.

The next group of amendments is on inspections. Amendment 17, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

That ends our consideration of the bill at stage 2. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow the minister and his officials to leave the room.

We previously agreed to take the next agenda item in private, so that was the last agenda item in the public part of our meeting.

Are you pressing or withdrawing amendment 3?

There will be a division.

For

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)

Against

Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)

Abstentions

Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)

There will be a division.

For

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)

Against

Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)

Abstentions

Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)

There will be a division.

For

Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)

Against

Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)

I will speak to Liam McArthur’s amendments 1 and 2. I appreciate that he has recognised that those amendments are not the basis for how such provisions might be framed in law.

Greens strongly support a cruise ship levy and we welcome the minister’s reassurance that that proposal will be fully developed.

We recognise that the number of motorhomes and camper vans—and, in some cases, the way that they park up overnight—can cause problems 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 a number of reasons.

First, if cost is a deciding factor in whether a motorhome or camper van user chooses whether to use a designated site, that is already there in the commercial site charge, so any visitor levy based on a percentage of that charge would not make a decisive difference.

The more general issue with any motorhome or camper van charge is how to implement it. Charging at the point of hire will cover only hire vehicles, not those that are driven by their owners. If a van is hired in Paisley, for example, the income would then go to Renfrewshire Council, although that vehicle might travel through Scotland and stop off in other areas, some of which might have a visitor levy while others might not. The use of number-plate recognition has been suggested, but, given the many thousands of places where a motorhome or camper van might stop, how would that be done and at what cost?

The visitor levy is long awaited, but the Greens are concerned about adding elements to it that do not yet have a clear route towards implementation.