As the first Member to speak in this debate who is not on the committee, can I thank the members of the committee who have spoken so far, especially Paul Davies as the Chair, as well as his research and clerking team and all those who gave their evidence for the report on this important sector, for the recommendations to Welsh Government and for bringing this debate to the Chamber today? What the committee has brought us today is a very interesting report with lots for us as Members, but also for the Welsh Government, to consider as to how they can support the industry, not just financially, but as a friend who listens to concerns in the industry as well. So, I was glad to see that one of the very first lines in the report notes the 'colossal hit' that the tourism hospitality and retail sectors have been under over the past few years. It’s in that context that it is crucial that, now more than ever, we need to be that supportive friend to the sector.

With the interests of time in mind I’ve picked out just a few of the committee report’s recommendations to focus my contribution on today. In recommendation 8, it stated that:

‘The Welsh Government should outline in detail their reasoning for the increase in the number of days per annum that a self-catering property must be available to let to 252, and days actually let to 182’.

As the Minister will be aware, I’ve raised this issue on a number of occasions in this Chamber and had little explanation from Ministers as to the reasoning for that change. Self-catering accommodation forms an important part of the mix in the tourism economy, which is a key industry in many parts of Wales. Moreover, it provides accommodation in rural areas away from centres, allowing them to benefit from the tourist economy too, and in some parts of Wales, it’s the only viable way of turning a day trip in a remote but idyllic Welsh community into an overnight stay.

But what still hasn’t been set out is the rationale for the number of 182 days and how it’s been arrived at, and the jump from 70 to 182 qualifying days seems hugely significant, particularly in light of the consultation responses being overwhelmingly opposed to it. So, justification for changes from the Minister would be reasonable and welcome. What the industry would like to hear from Government is how this will be measured. Is the new threshold linked to seasonal activity, or how many days they expect in an average tourism season? What will that figure look like? In some localities where there is currently a lack of tourist activity and provision, but it would be beneficial for it to be developed, we may wish to spread tourist destinations far away from hotspots. So, there may be a good reason to incentivise lets to be available, and there may need to be wiggle room built in to allow for that locally. These thresholds appear to be very high in that context, therefore, would there be room to adapt to those local circumstances? And whilst we have a great tourism offer here in Wales, I’ve reiterated time and time again that, with the current post-COVID tourism sector visitor market in a very uncertain and unstable period, this impact, along with cost-of-living pressures and the cost-of-doing-business crisis debated here just a few weeks ago, should be taken into account in any new rationale for these new thresholds.

Recommendation 9 asks for the Welsh Government to,

‘set out the evidence base it considered in deciding to pursue the introduction of a local tourism levy at this time.’

I don’t have to repeat the arguments that have been made in opposition to this tax, but given the climate that these businesses are currently having to operate in, it surely should be apparent to Welsh Government that now is not the time to be burdening businesses with yet more taxes, when the sector is facing ever-increasing challenges. Sarah Murphy asked for an international perspective. Well, we know that Venice has introduced a tourism tax specifically to suppress the number of tourists entering Venice, rather than add to the numbers. So, it's unbelievable that a replication of the Venice model seems to be the Welsh Government's preferred option here. 

Finally, Llywydd, recommendation 11 says that,

'The Welsh Government should set out in detail the intended approach to consulting on the draft legislation for a proposed local tourism levy'.

While I appreciate that the consultation is still live—and I'll take this opportunity to encourage all those in the sector to have their say—what I would have liked to have seen from Welsh Government on this is more engagement with the sector as, again, I've repeatedly tried to bring the voice of the industry to this Chamber, and they tell me, time and time again, that they feel punished by this Welsh Government. Let's not forget that these are the businesses that already invest in their communities through the local supply chains, employing local people and reinvesting that money in their communities. An additional taxation jeopardises further investment in communities across Wales. Those within the tourism sector are clear, and they keep telling me that morale within the industry is at an all-time low, and it is as a direct result of the Welsh Government's actions in this area that specifically target their industry. And so, Vikki Howells's contribution earlier saying that they're all naysayers is really disappointing in that context as well. Therefore, I hope, in consideration of the report, the Welsh Government sees this as the time to get behind the tourism industry, back our local communities and safeguard the one in seven jobs that rely on it thriving.