Chamber and committees

Amendment 188, in my name, would ensure that the Scottish Government sought representations and views from international organisations that work in international development both on the strategy and on achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals in Scotland and around the globe.

It is important to pass the amendment, because our actions in Scotland can have an impact on populations around the globe. We know that waste is often sent offshore and that we outsource our waste problem to developing countries. That not only impacts on the environment there; it also incurs significant carbon emissions. I have seen for myself the impact in Bangladesh of waste from western countries—it is literally dumped on the foreshore, and it is absolutely horrific.

My amendment would ensure that stakeholders with views on those issues were consulted on the strategy that comes forward, and that Scotland takes steps now and in the future to ensure that we reduce the level of offshored waste and the carbon emissions that are associated with that waste.

I turn to amendment 187, in the name of Bob Doris. He spoke positively about the need to address the issue in question. I think that the amendment is trying to achieve a similar aim to my own. However, in crafting my amendment, I tried to anticipate and reflect the fact that things change and relevant stakeholders change. I have tried to provide flexibility in my amendment to reflect that, and it is not overburdensome on ministers to prove that they have consulted relevant stakeholders that represent the global impact.

I hope that that addresses Douglas Lumsden’s question about what the global south is. It would be up to ministers to engage in those conversations and to talk to companies that export waste from Scotland. I hope that members will think about supporting my amendment 188.

Among other amendments in the group, I very much support Maurice Golden’s amendment 1 on co-design and the suggestion that SEPA should review its waste guidance to ensure that it is in line with the circular economy strategy. That is fundamental, because SEPA is hugely influential and it is important that, as a key stakeholder in the Government, it is ahead of the game in ensuring that the bill is maximising its impact.

I have spotted that Graham Simpson has a couple of amendments in the group that give us a choice. If it was up to me and I had a vote, I would say that his proposal for requiring publication of the strategy within one year, rather than within six months, is probably better and more pragmatic. However, if the minister wanted to override my view and say that she was ready to publish the strategy tomorrow, I would be more than happy to see what happened.

On those remarks, convener, I shall conclude.

It is really striking that the first circular economy strategy was produced in 2016. There has been a huge amount of consultation on the bill. Are we not, therefore, at a point at which ministers could just crack on? It has been observed already that two years—not from now, but from when the bill is approved and adopted—is quite a long time off and we will be into the next session of Parliament. Again, there is something to say about leadership and getting moving on that critical agenda.

I have had a strong interest in seeing a visitor levy enabled in Edinburgh in order to raise vital funding to enable our council to promote, and to deal with the impact of, tourism.

My amendments are mostly probing amendments. I want to test them. I have met the minister, and I also want to hear his comments on his amendments in this group. I have lodged the amendments because I seek clarity about the impact of the bill as currently drafted.

My aim is to support the reduction of complexities for local authorities in the setting of objectives for their scheme. As members will be aware, the amendments are similar to amendments that I have lodged in relation to later sections about how local authorities can use the proceeds in partnership with local stakeholders.

Amendment 20 would take out the word “substantially” in line 28, because I have concerns that the use of that word could make it overburdensome for local authorities to determine what expenditure would be allowable or not allowable under the legislation. If you look at dictionary definitions of the word, “substantially” can mean 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 do so dramatically. Proving that they are used to a great or significant extent could be difficult. Because services are efficient, in that they can be used for both resident and visitor needs, it could also potentially stifle innovation or ways of moving forward.

I know from talking to the City of Edinburgh Council that it is concerned that, if we get into legal arguments, it would not be good for anyone. That also picks up on the points that Miles Briggs made earlier about short-term lets. We really do not want to get into legal arguments about what proceeds are being used for and how to define whether the “substantially” test is being met.

I want to test how the legislation will work, and how it is intended to work, in our discussions. I suggest that removing the word “substantially” would reduce complexity in relation to consulting on how the proceeds are to be used, and would enable councils to get on and use the funds. I am interested in the minister’s comments about how he would define “substantially”.

Amendment 24 would achieve the same thing by ensuring that the bill is consistent in section 17 so that the complexity is removed for councils and they can get on and use the proceeds from a visitor levy, in consultation with stakeholders. Amendments 25 and 23 are worded differently and aim to achieve the same thing through different means. I have put on the table two different options that could be used to make the use of proceeds less restricted.

There is a debate about councils’ concerns that the bill will ring fence the proceeds, which is counter to the Verity house agreement. There will be different circumstances, and different councils will have different tourism challenges, so it is about enabling flexibility.

Amendment 25 would only remove the words “for leisure purposes”. I suggest that removing those words would give councils the 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”. Investing in our arts and culture, our tourism infrastructure and our festivals is absolutely critical to Edinburgh’s success; it is important in supporting a successful tourism economy that is all year round in our city. That would also benefit our communities.

We are a capital city, so we have national infrastructure. If we take, for example, the issue of the police presence in our city, we already have major challenges with that. It is the capital city, so we have the Parliament and Government buildings, we have our airport and we have areas of significant interest. If there is a match at Murrayfield, Easter Road or Tynecastle, or if there is a demonstration in the city centre, the ability to ensure a police presence is 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?

There is the issue of how to define the type of expenditure of net proceeds that falls under “leisure purposes”, which could unnecessarily restrict councils. Amendments 24 and 25 would increase the flexibility for local authorities to enable them to address local needs in relation to supporting tourism, but without creating unnecessary restrictions on using the net proceeds.

It is really important to try to achieve flexibility, and I stress that it is not just me that sees that. In an Edinburgh Evening News article in which the First Minister commented on the tourism visitor levy, he was clear that he was a supporter of the levy and that it could help many parts of Scotland but that he saw the advantages for Edinburgh, in particular. He said:

“I’ve been to many European cities where you pay a few extra euros and it’s not a disincentive to going to those places, so I don’t accept that argument 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 am very much in line with that direct quote from the First Minister.

Let us move on to consider how other councils around the world have operated tourism levies. I want to focus on the timescale issue.

Amendment 22 in my name would reduce the period of time that is currently in the bill, to give local authorities a bit more flexibility. This issue was discussed in the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill. It is important to get on the record—this is the point of stage 2—the fact that the timescale in section 13(2) must be after consultation with stakeholders and not inclusive of that consultation. That is key. If we take Edinburgh as an example, we see that a huge amount of consultation is already on-going about how the legislation could benefit the city, how it would impact the business community, on the principles and details and, critically, on how to support small businesses, in particular, which my colleague Daniel Johnson mentioned earlier.

It will be a challenge from day 1, which means that a lot of support must be in place now and there must be a lot of discussion of the details. I am conscious that how a visitor levy scheme works in practice is critical, and that discussion does not start after a scheme is proposed; it starts now—indeed, it has started already.

If you look at other countries, globally, and at localities in those countries, you will see that they have been able to implement similar levies in less than 12 months, although that is not what I am suggesting. I 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 understand that a number of Scottish rugby fans paid a levy of €10 just this weekend. However, on current assumptions, in reality, the City of Edinburgh Council is looking at a best-case scenario for a levy being introduced of late 2026, or possibly later. Those Italian fans who come to our city for the six nations tournament in 2027 will probably not pay a levy to visit Edinburgh, so the need to get going on this is critical.

I have put forward a proposal for a timescale just to create some clarity and test what colleagues around the table think. Amendment 22 would change the minimum time from decision to implementation from 18 to 12 months. It would still be a minimum, and it would still be up to local authorities. However, I stress that that time period would be after the formal decision that would be required by a local authority. The provision would enable a decision to go ahead with a scheme that had already been widely consulted on. It would enable local authorities to get going on such a scheme and to deliver the benefits from it.

I turn to the other amendments in the grouping. I think that amendment 9 in the minister’s name seeks to achieve similar aims to my amendment 25, so I will be interested to hear his comments on that. I welcome the fact that I have already had discussions with the minister, but getting things on the record today is key.

I recognise that the minister’s amendments in this group would take on board feedback from the Edinburgh Hotels Association in relation to business customers, but I do not believe that they would change the situation that I described in my earlier example, nor would they take into account day visitors.

I am looking for some reassurance from the minister in his comments. I am looking to get some clarity on the record on what we are doing to empower our councils to get on in order to maximise the opportunity for visitors coming to our country, particularly to our capital city of Edinburgh, to have a fantastic tourist experience. That would allow us to invest in our city, in culture and in the arts, noting the practicalities of making our tourist visits as successful as possible while getting investment on the go from day 1.

I move amendment 20.

That takes me to the point about guidance—it is important and helpful, but we do not want it to take so long that it delays implementation of the legislation. Timing is critical, as are engagement and consultation.

Can you give us a sense of a timescale for that advice and guidance for local authorities being ready to use?

I think that that is a constructive approach, but I want to put on the record the fact that there are days in the year in which tens of thousands of additional people can come, not just for the festivals. If people come at the same time, that can deliver major challenges. Policing, for example, is not about leisure or culture, but it is critical to success and safety in our tourism economy. I hope that the minister will accept that point.

I have said that my amendments are mostly probing amendments, and I want to get some comments on the record today. I welcome the minister’s assurance that the bill would not preclude investment of the revenue in housing and regeneration, in particular given Edinburgh’s housing emergency. I declare an interest in that respect, given my previous employment.

I have made some points about the huge impact of tourism, which is very beneficial but also poses challenges, so a bit more thought and flexibility would be welcome in that regard. I will not move amendment 21 in my name—I will leave that for today and engage in conversation with the minister.

On timing, we in Edinburgh have been in discussions for a long time already, as I know certain other councils have too, because this is a now issue. City of Edinburgh Council is already working in consultation with a range of tourism and business-related organisations in advance of a potential visitor levy, and to support those businesses. Personally, therefore, I am disappointed that there does not seem to be support for reducing the lead time from 18 months to 12 months. I want to put that on record, and highlight that that period would begin after a scheme proposal had been agreed, which could be a long way down the track.

However, I recognise the feedback from other members today. I seek permission to withdraw amendment 20, and I will not move the other amendments in my name.

Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.

I will not move amendment 24, and I will reflect on the minister’s comments from our discussion.

Amendment 24 not moved.

What will be the impact of us recommending approval of the order? How will it affect the actual price of electricity for the plants that will be affected? How much do you calculate that it will save energy intensive industries in Scotland?

How many industries—individual plants—are we talking about?