Chamber and committees

That is an interesting point.

Housing is obviously an integral part of the committee’s remit, and I want to look at how housing could be part of the solution. Rob Davidson touched on the work that South of Scotland Enterprise is doing with registered social landlords. Matthew Brown, you talked about the auditing of land—I think that you were probably referring to land in the public sector. What has that work produced in relation to this agenda and the housing crisis that many parts of the UK are declaring?

My questions about those who are not traditionally involved have been answered. To follow on from that question, I wonder what role the Scottish National Investment Bank could play in that.

In the interests of time, convener, I will not move the other amendments in the group. However, I put on record that, for stage 3, we need far more clarification of how a percentage system would work and the impact that it would have. If that is just in guidance, there will be differentiation across Scotland. Specifically, I hope that the points that Mark Griffin raised will be taken on board by the Scottish Government for stage 3.

Amendment 29 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Rate for levy

Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.

Amendment 6 moved—[Tom Arthur].

Amendment 46 is a probing amendment. It comes from some of the evidence that we took from communities that are part of larger council areas. They are concerned. Businesses that operate in Skye and Arran raised concerns about significant tourism activity on those islands and whether they would secure a fair share of that funding once the local authority that they are part of takes decisions over where that would be distributed. I want to probe ministers on how the money that is raised is reported and what role they would play in where that money is spent. That important principle has not been pursued in the bill.

As with other amendments, I am happy to discuss that further with the minister. When substantial tourism activity takes place in parts of a council area, it is important that businesses in those areas benefit and that any money raised does not just go into the council’s wider pot.

The same principles apply to private caravans as apply to Stuart McMillan’s mooring amendment. Not having a definition of “overnight accommodation” is at the heart of some of the problems with the bill. That is a difficulty. For example, we still need clarification on whether the proposed levy would apply to a privately owned holiday caravan.

I am happy to work with the minister if he is willing to meet me and representatives to discuss a stage 3 amendment, because, for caravan sites, there is still ambiguity in the bill over who would and who would not be charged. As with moorings, it is important that we look in more detail at who will be captured, especially because, as has been outlined, a payment will need to be made at some point, and we need to know what that will look like for various clients on campsites.

There is also a significant concern about behaviour change. Many colleagues have raised the problems with wild camping, and we need to know what the bill might mean for people who do not want to pay a levy and who, therefore, end up not using an established caravan site or campsite.

Thank you. With that in mind, I will not press amendment 26. I hope to take up the minister’s offer to have a conversation on the matter before stage 3.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 18 moved—[Stuart McMillan]—and agreed to.

Could you clarify something? My understanding is that, at the moment, the proposal in the bill is that a charge be made for seven nights of someone’s stay, and your amendment would double that, to 14 nights per calendar month. What guidance would be included in the bill in that regard? Perhaps the minister can also comment on that.

I heard what the minister had to say. As in our committee work on short-term lets, it is concerning that a framework bill leaves interpretation to councils. We know of two legal challenges that the City of Edinburgh Council has faced because of its interpretation of that legislation, and the Government’s approach sets up the legislation to be potentially problematic, with different councils deciding on different percentages. I will therefore test my amendment 27, to see what support there is for it in the committee.

I press amendment 27.

I hope that amendment 50 will be helpful. Given all the concerns that we have heard and the evidence that we have taken during the bill’s passage, it is important that a review be conducted a year after a scheme comes into force in council areas that decide to move forward with one. The amendment therefore sets out that

“Scottish ministers must, no later than 1 year after”

a scheme comes into place, review its impact. We need to look at the impact of a scheme not only on different sizes of businesses but in respect of behavioural change, which I have addressed in various other amendments. We need to consider the impact of such change not only on the sector but on our economy.

I move amendment 50.

I take on board Mark Griffin’s concern that we might not necessarily have a full picture after a year, but it might be more important that Parliament is able, if we become acutely aware of any negative impacts that the legislation might have on various parts of the tourism sector, to act to remove those impacts from the legislation. It is important that we have live information as soon as possible in the council areas concerned—I think that the City of Edinburgh Council and Highland Council have already said that they are moving forward with schemes—but there will be learning for other council areas, too. I am open to amendments at stage 3 on when reviews would take place, but I think that it is important that we take stock of a scheme’s impact on an area within a year of a council’s bringing it in.