Summary
This blog post is published in advance of the final debate on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill which will take place on Tuesday 24 March.
The Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill (herein, ‘the Bill’) was introduced on 5 January 2026. Stage 2 ended on 4 March 2026, with Stage 3 amendments debated on 19 March 2026.
The Bill aims to modify the Visitor Levy Act 2024. It will allow local authorities to charge a visitor levy as a fixed amount or different fixed amounts – currently they can only charge a percentage of the cost of an overnight stay – and will make other changes to how the levy operates.
The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee (LGHPC) was designated lead committee for Stage 1 of the Bill. Its report was published on Wednesday 11 February with the Committee recommending that the general principles of the Bill be agreed to.
At Stage 2, the Scottish Government proposed a number of amendments, and these were agreed by the Committee, as was one motion proposed by Tim Eagle MSP. Other opposition amendments were either not agreed to or withdrawn. The first Scottish Government amendment removed the per-person, per-night option from the Bill. Another amended the period of time required between a council deciding to make changes to its Visitor Levy Scheme and the implementation of that change.
A number of Government amendments, and one other amendment (proposed by Stephen Kerr MSP), were agreed during the Stage 3 debate on 19 March. This blog post does not cover all the amendments agreed, rather it focusses on the most significant ones.
More information on the background and intentions of the Bill (as introduced) is included in the SPICe briefing published in February.
Changes agreed at Stage 2
Removal of per-person per-night option
Perhaps the most significant amendment agreed during Stage 2 proceedings was the removal of the option of setting a fixed amount per person per night. This was an ask of the tourism sector at Stage 1 with many arguing that this would be unworkable as it would need operators to confirm details on numbers of guests. Instead, there will be an option to set a fixed amount per night with an option to set a fixed amount per room or area per night, rather than per person. This amendment was unanimously agreed by the Committee.
COSLA, representing the views of local government, expressed disappointment at this amendment, stating:
COSLA strongly opposes the removal of the per person, per night option. A proportionate amount of time for engagement must be given to consider changes that have such a lasting consequence. Claims that a per person per night approach is unworkable is widely disputed and risks removing a serious and proven option for local authorities to consider.
Switching from percentage to fixed amount
With the option now available to local authorities to either charge a fixed-rate (per room or per area) or a percentage, the Committee had questions about the process councils must follow should they decide to switch from one approach to another. This is relevant because the City of Edinburgh Council, Glasgow City Council, Aberdeen City Council, Stirling Council and West Dunbartonshire Council have all agreed to introduce schemes in their areas based on a percentage approach, which was the only option available prior to the introduction of this Bill. During Stage 1 of the original 2023 Bill, some of these councils had expressed a preference for a scheme based on a fixed-rate charge.
Under the 2024 Act, if councils decide to make significant modifications to existing schemes, they have to go through the full consultation and implementation process before changes can come into force. An amendment, agreed unanimously at Stage 2, shortens this period to 6 months if the existing scheme is already up and running. If schemes are not yet in force, as is the case for all councils currently, then the implementation period resulting from any changes would remain at 18 months (as set out in the 2024 Act).
COSLA welcomed the shorter implementation periods proposed by the Stage 2 amendments but argued that “the lead in for new schemes must be cut from 18 months to 12”.
Avoiding overlapping schemes
At Stage 1, the LGHPC was concerned that a council could have two or more Visitor Levy Schemes in place that may overlap, meaning a single overnight stay could be subject to more than one levy. The Government therefore introduced an amendment at Stage 2, agreed by the Committee, aimed at preventing this scenario. COSLA stated:
COSLA welcomes the Governments stage 2 amendments that will simplify the landscape and prevent double charging across overlapping schemes.
Reporting requirements
One Opposition amendment was agreed during Stage 2, lodged by Tim Eagle MSP. This requires there to be reporting on the impact of visitor levies on tourism in rural areas and will amend Section 75 of the 2024 Act (requiring the Scottish Government to review the operation of the Act three years after the first VL Scheme comes into effect). Agreeing to the amendment, the Minister for Public Finance stated:
I recognise the concern about the potential impact of the visitor levy on rural areas, and I am happy to support the amendment.
Changes agreed at Stage 3
The Stage 3 debate took place on Thursday 19 March. Some of the amendments agreed are technical changes aimed at tightening up previously agreed amendments, for example relating to the ability of local authorities to switch from one type of charge to another. These were all agreed to without a vote.
Accommodation providers retaining a proportion of levy
Perhaps the most significant amendment at Stage 3 relates to allowing local authorities to permit accommodation providers to keep a proportion of the visitor levy payable to help “to mitigate possible additional administrative cost”.
Since Stage 1, the Parliament has heard concerns from the tourism sector that businesses are effectively becoming tax collectors for local authorities. A visitor levy charge is a new process that accommodation providers are being expected to manage, in addition to the many other administrative and regulatory requirements they already face. Small businesses in particular, may not have the IT systems in place to manage a levy.
Most of the schemes already announced allow accommodation providers to retain a small percentage of the levy, so, clearly, the 2023 Act does not forbid this. However, by putting this provision on the face of the new Bill, it is more likely that councils will consider compensating accommodation providers. However, the amendment does not compel local authorities to do so.
National versus local exemptions
Much of the Stage 3 debate focussed on the need for national exemptions, for example ensuring that people travelling to another local authority area for medical purposes do not pay the levy. The Scottish Government was not minded to accept these amendments, arguing that it should be up to local authorities to decide on the exemptions in their areas. These amendments were not agreed to by Parliament.
Revoking schemes
One opposition amendment was agreed to at Stage 3. This was Stephen Kerr MSP’s amendment which would require a local authority to consider, as part of each three-year review of the operation of a scheme, whether the scheme should be revoked.
Greig Liddell, SPICe, 23 March 2026