motion_title: Amendment 65 and 66: Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
motion_text: Group 8 is on enforcement of the levy and penalties. Amendment 19, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 53 to 66.The amendments in the group all relate to compliance and enforcement, which is an important part of any tax regime. I should say at the outset that we do not anticipate that local authorities will use the powers regularly or often, but it is important that they are there to deal with any deliberate evasion or other practices to avoid paying a visitor levy.Amendment 19 will give ministers the power to make regulations that allow a local authority to substitute their own calculation for that of an accommodation provider. That could be done only in circumstances in which the local authority had reason to believe that the level of levy that someone has reported and returned in their return under section 23 is deliberately or carelessly inaccurate. The power will also allow the regulations to provide that an authority may make an assessment where no return has been made. Amendment 19 will therefore provide local authorities with another tool that could be used in such situations and could avoid the need to apply penalties to an accommodation provider.I turn to the amendments in the name of Ross Greer. Amendments 53 to 64 all substitute the current penalty level that is set out in the bill with the words“to be determined by a relevant local authority”.That would mean that a local authority could apply any financial penalty that it wished to any failure to comply with the provisions that are set out in the bill.I have given careful consideration to the amendments. I recognise that Mr Greer’s intent is with regard to the fiscal empowerment of local government and that the levy is a local tax. Given the Government’s commitment to working constructively with local government in the development of a fiscal framework and further fiscal empowerment, I am happy to tell Mr Greer that the Government will support those amendments.I thank Tom Arthur for taking my intervention. What happens if a local authority gets something wrong in its calculation? Does it also get a sanction? I register my interest as a director of a small hospitality business.As the member will appreciate, as public bodies, local authorities are subject to the law and have to operate within the terms of the act as decided by Parliament. When issues arise, interested parties have the usual methods to seek to address those issues.I recognise that it will be important to consider the provisions that will come through Mr Greer’s amendments, which I have previously spoken to, through guidance. Should the amendments be agreed to by Parliament, I would want to follow up and engage with the expert group to ensure that particular issues around penalties are covered as part of the guidance, to ensure that local government can take an informed approach.I hope that the commitments that I have made around Mr Greer’s amendments mean that he will consider whether amendments 65 and 66 are necessary, given that they would seek to add a surcharge. However, given the Government’s commitment to supporting his other amendments, which would enable greater flexibility and fiscal empowerment for local government, the Government does not believe that those further amendments are necessary.I move amendment 19.I should say from the outset that the Greens will support amendment 19 in the name of the minister. It is a sensible addition to the bill.My intention is to move amendments 53 to 64 en bloc, because, whether members are voting for or against any one of the amendments, I presume that they will be voting for or against all of them. I hope that Parliament will agree that I can move them en bloc so that we can get out of here 10 or 15 minutes earlier.I welcome the minister’s commitment that the Government will support the amendments. They are consistent with the principle that I have outlined throughout the afternoon of giving new financial powers to local government, and I therefore do not believe that we should be micromanaging how it exercises those powers.Local variation makes complete sense, particularly given the relative value, turnover, room rate and so on between average operators in different areas of the country. As the minister said, that approach would be consistent with the Scottish Government’s wider approach to devolving fees and charges. For example, the current consultation on planning fees would be very much in line with that.There is a small point that is worth making, which is that it avoids adding further to the Parliament’s workload, because, for any penalty rates that we set in primary legislation, the Parliament needs to come back in the future to adjust them—most obviously, in line with inflation. That either adds to the Parliament’s workload, or it results in some areas of fees, charges, penalty rates and so on simply not being updated for quite some time. For example, I think that we are about to come up on a decade since the last time that the fines that are issued by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency were updated, some of which are now considerably devalued by the impact of inflation since they were initially set.I very much welcome the minister’s comments in relation to guidance. National guidance is important in this area, sitting alongside local discretion.I want to outline the principle behind amendments 65 and 66, so I will address the request that the minister made in closing. Amendments 65 and 66 would do the same thing—under amendment 65, it would be a local power and, under amendment 66, it would be national. They would create a multiplier power, akin to that which is in place already for low-emission zones, which is that, if an operator were repeatedly in breach and repeatedly issued with fines, the level of the fine would increase with the number of occasions on which they were in breach.The logic is the same as that for low-emission zones, which is that we should never be in a position in which a fine is simply seen as the cost of doing business and a hit that is worth taking. I hope that the power would never be required. The thinking behind it is that, if particular businesses were behaving in such a way that a local authority was considering raising its fine levels to act as a disincentive, other businesses, which might have made an honest mistake one year and so were eligible for a penalty, should not have to pay a higher penalty because the local authority was trying to deter those that were repeat offenders. That is the logic behind it.However, I have heard what the minister has said, and I am not minded to press amendments 65 and 66, given the Government’s agreement to my amendments 53 to 64.Minister, do you wish to add anything by way of winding up?I just want to thank Mr Greer again for lodging those amendments that the Government has agreed to support. They speak to a shared agenda across the Parliament on the fiscal empowerment of local government.Although I recognise the intent behind amendments 65 and 66, the Government would not be able to support them at this stage were Mr Greer to move them. More broadly, the suite of powers around penalties, fees, fines and levies that are available for local government can feed into a broader piece of work, which I know we are committed to taking forward in a spirit of partnership.Amendment 19 agreed to.Section 43—Penalty for failure to make returnsAmendment 53 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 44—Three month penalty for failure to make returnAmendment 54 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 45—Six month penalty for failure to make returnAmendment 55 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 46—Twelve month penalty for failure to make returnAmendments 56 and 57 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 48—Penalty for failure to pay levyAmendments 58 to 60 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 50—Penalty for failure to keep and preserve recordsAmendment 61 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 52—Penalties for failure to comply or obstructionAmendment 62 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 53—Daily default penalties for failure to comply or obstructionAmendment 63 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.Section 55—Penalties for inaccurate information or documentsAmendment 64 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.After section 55Amendment 65 not moved.Section 65—Power to change penalty provisions Amendment 66 not moved.Before section 71Group 9 is on “Report on operation of Act”. Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.Evaluation of the bill has been raised during its passage, including by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee at stage 1 and by Miles Briggs at stage 2. The Government has considered that aspect and, therefore, we lodged amendment 20. The amendment would put in place a requirement for the Scottish Government to review the operation of the act and prepare a report of that review. The review would be required to cover several areas that have been raised by members during the passage of the bill, including the impact of visitor levy schemes on businesses and communities, how the net proceeds of schemes are used and any exemptions from paying a visitor levy.Evaluation of the laws that we pass and their operation in practice is an important part of good policy making, and I hope that members will be able to support this important provision. I hope that it provides some reassurance to Mr Briggs that, although I was not able to support directly any of his amendments, his impact on the bill has been felt through the amendments that the Government has lodged.I move amendment 20.Amendment 20 agreed to.Section 74—Commencement17:30Group 10 is on commencement. Amendment 67, in the name of Ross Greer, is the only amendment in the group.This will be a short contribution. Amendment 67 simply compels the Government to bring in the regulations that are required to ensure that a local authority is operating a visitor levy within six months of royal assent, with the consequence for its not doing so being simply that the Government has to report the cause to Parliament. It is a bit of a stick rather than a carrot, but it is a very light stick to encourage the Government to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary accountability if the regulations cannot be brought forward within six months.I move amendment 67.Ross Greer’s amendment 67 seeks to require ministers to make regulations to commence the whole act within six months of its receiving royal assent, but it seems to recognise the need for some flexibility by saying that, if ministers do not do so, they have to report the reasons to Parliament.Members will know that there is a convention whereby an act is not commenced until at least two months after it receives royal assent, and the Government sees no reason not to follow that convention in this case.Regarding the period after that, the amendment anticipates that the commencing of the whole act within six months might not be possible, as it allows for a report to be made if that does not happen. I do not believe that it is appropriate to put that extra process in the bill, because it introduces uncertainty and does not make clear what would happen after that.As I outlined earlier, the Government is committed to commencing the act in line with the usual timescales. It is important that the usual flexibility of timing for bringing the act into force is provided, and I do not want to shortcut or change the usual process. Although I ask members not to support 67, I give members—and Mr Greer—the sincerest assurance that the Government will not be tardy in ensuring that the act is fully commenced, because we recognise the significant appetite that exists among our local authorities for us to get on with that.I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 67.Given the minister’s remarks and the very high level of engagement with the minister that I, all other Opposition parties and key stakeholders have had on the bill, I am happy, on the basis of what he has just said, not to press amendment 67.Amendment 67, by agreement, withdrawn.That ends our consideration of amendments.