logo
Scots tourism chiefs 'very sceptical about visitor levies'

Scots tourism chiefs 'very sceptical about visitor levies'

City of Edinburgh Council leader Jane Meagher has previously declared the levy, capped at five nights in a row, will provide a 'once in a lifetime opportunity to invest tens of millions of pounds towards enhancing and sustaining the things that make our city such a great place to visit – and live in – all year round'.
Businesses will be required to apply the levy to any advance bookings made from October 1, 2025, for stays on or after July 24, 2026.
While council chiefs agreed to push the start date back by three months to give businesses more time to prepare, the prospect of visitors being taxed on overnight stays, and hotels being handed the responsibility of collecting the tax, is continuing to rankle within the tourism and hospitality industry.
Industry chiefs wrote to Minister for Public Finance Ivan McKee last week warning that legislation allowing councils in Scotland to introduce tourist taxes will 'fail at the first hurdle' and harm Scotland's economy and businesses. The letter, spearheaded by the Scottish Tourism Alliance, urged the Scottish Government to change the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act to remove from businesses the burden of collecting the tax by introducing a QR code system paid directly to local authorities.
'We share the Scottish Government's ambitions to build a stronger economy and to make Scotland a world-leading visitor destination but are frustrated and very concerned that the visitor levy in its current form risks undermining that success,' the letter states.
'Taking a different approach to the rest of the UK on this policy is putting the sector at a competitive disadvantage and causing considerable complexity and unnecessary cost to businesses. Unfortunately, it is another example of a well-intentioned policy being badly implement.'
Preparations for the levy are being made as hotels, bars, restaurants, and visitor attractions are continuing to battle a cost of doing business crisis which was recently exacerbated by sharp increases in employer national insurance contributions and national living wage that came into in April.
Domestic tourism in Scotland has also failed to recover from the pandemic as strongly as the overseas market, as UK consumers continue to feel the pressure of the cost of living crisis.
Read more:
Leon Thompson, director of UK Hospitality Scotland, told The Herald that the industry is concerned the levy will undermine the competitiveness of Scottish tourism on the world stage, and highlighted the burden it will place on businesses at a time when they are grappling with high costs.
'Our position has always been that we are very sceptical about visitor levies, not just in Edinburgh but generally,' he said. 'The reason for that is just around costs [and] price competitiveness. It is possible for destinations to price themselves out of the market. We are very keen we don't see that happening anywhere in Scotland.
'The levy also comes with some costs for our businesses as well. They will have to collect the money on behalf of the council so therefore I think it is really imperative there is some financial benefit coming to businesses. The most obvious way to do that is to ensure that there is a steady flow of visitors coming to the city so that there are opportunities to increase revenue right across hospitality but particularly for the accommodation businesses that are going to need to collect the money.'
Marc Crothall, chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Alliance, raised concern over the cost of the levy due to be introduced in Edinburgh, and shares Mr Thompson's concerns about the responsibility to administer the scheme being delegated to businesses.
He told The Herald: 'Whilst there is a recognition that there is a need for more monies to be invested in the tourism and visitor experience and a transient visitor levy is a means to raising such monies, it is all about striking the right balance – both in the timing of the introduction of a levy, the amount that would be charged to the person staying overnight, and fully assessing the economic and competitiveness risk before introducing it.
'The 5% levy charge being applied on top of the accommodation rate is being mooted by many as too much, [as] most had expected a levy fee to be circa £3-£4pp [per person]. Nor is the percentage methodology approach acknowledged as being simple and easy for business and the visitor to work with, as well as it being costly to administrate.
'It is the firm view of many in the sector and among some local authorities that a much better approach to the charging and collection of a levy would be to apply a flat rate per person and for the levy to be paid via a digital-first approach, using QR code technology. In adopting this approach, the visitor pays straight to the authority, which takes away the cost, time burden and VAT (valued added tax) implications for the accommodation business, and benefiting the authority, who gets the money into their account quicker to spend.
Read more:
'Most importantly, when levies are raised, they should only be used for investing in projects that directly enhance the visitor experience. Currently there remains concern [held] by many about where monies will be spent, the cost of administration and that the levy will be too much on top of already high costs, especially for Scottish and domestic visitors but not excluding international tourists, who may well go elsewhere or have a reduced stay.
'We also continue to be concerned that without more weight being given to the visitor levy forums, set up to advise on how the monies raised will be invested in enhancing the visitor experience and made up of representatives from both the sector and communications, then there is a risk that Edinburgh councillors could spend the revenue on local vote winners rather than on how the legislation intends.'
Neil Ellis, group operations director Places Hotels in the capital and chair of Edinburgh Hotels Association, agreed that it is vital any revenue raised by the tax is used to enhance the visitor experience in the city. 'Business, leisure and event visitors are all contributing significant sums over the next few years so Edinburgh must communicate its intentions as loudly as possible,' he told The Herald.
'The majority of visitors to a destination don't mind paying as long as they know and can see where their money is being spent. I'm confident the new Visitor Levy Forum will succeed in ensuring a balanced approach is taken when reviewing and proposing levy projects.'
Mr Ellis, who runs the Place Hotel on York Place, highlighted business rates and the recent rise in employer taxation were among other challenges currently facing the industry, noting that business rates are higher in Scotland than England, where relief is in place for hospitality firms.
Michael Golding, chief executive of the Association of Scottish Visitor Attractions, said a recent survey of businesses had underlined the depth of concern about financial pressures in the sector. Some 78% of Scottish attractions said they were being affected by financial challenges, including the rising cost of energy, staff and reduced funding for the public sector and charities that make up a large portion of the sector. Just over half (51%) of attractions highlighted challenges around transport as a barrier to progress, following by staffing (35%), and seasonality (20%).
Mr Golding said: 'There is widespread recognition across Scotland that investment is needed in our infrastructure as well as to fund the ambition of our national tourism strategy to be world leaders in 21st century tourism. However, we are in a post-pandemic economy, with high cost pressures, a lack of funding, staffing issues, seasonality, transport and more.
'Focussing on the combination of the cost of business, and the ability of our visitors to spend, making Scotland more expensive does create a risk that less people visit, or that they stay less long, and most importantly for attractions that visitors ability to spend on activities is reduced. So, we must seek to balance our need for investment, while mitigating the risks, that should be underpinned by a well evidenced economic impact study to show that the benefits.'
One other ongoing challenging facing tourism and hospitality operators in the city concerns is access to labour supply. Mr Thompson hopes that the UK and EU reach agreement on a youth mobility scheme which would allow young people from countries within the bloc to sample life and experience work in Scotland.
The UK and EU recently agreed to work towards agreement on a youth experience scheme that would make it easier young people from the bloc to work and study and vice versa.
'We still have some issues around workforce supply, so it is quite heartening to see the UK Government is looking very favourably upon an extension to the youth mobility scheme to help ensure our businesses can access young people from the EU to come and work here,' he said.
'I think a place like Edinburgh would do very well from being able to attract that talent from across Europe. That's a positive development in that space. If it does happen, certainly Edinburgh will be well placed to take advantage.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lecturers to be consulted on industrial action following ‘derisory' pay offer
Lecturers to be consulted on industrial action following ‘derisory' pay offer

North Wales Chronicle

time15 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Lecturers to be consulted on industrial action following ‘derisory' pay offer

Members of the Educational Institute of Scotland University Lecturers' Association (EIS ULA) are taking part in a consultative ballot on whether to accept the proposed offer, and whether they back industrial action. The ballot will be open for six weeks and will close on August 11. The EIS ULA, which is open to all university lecturers in Scotland, has called on its members to reject what it called a 'real-terms pay cut' and back industrial action. It said the offer 'fails to recognise' the contribution made by university lecturers, or make up for years of below-inflation pay rises. It also called on employers to return to the negotiating table with a 'significantly improved' offer, warning of 'widespread disruption' if industrial action were to take place. Garry Ross, EIS ULA national officer, said: 'This 1.4% offer is not just disappointing, it is derisory and does not reflect the dedication and expertise of our university lecturers and academic-related members. 'Our members are working harder than ever, delivering world-class education and research, yet their financial security continues to be undermined by employers who appear unwilling to offer a fair deal. 'This offer fails to recognise the essential contributions of our members and does nothing to address the severe impact of rising living costs or the sub-inflationary rises they have experienced over a number of years.' The union said the offer stood in 'stark contrast' to the 4.14% increase given to further education lecturers, and to pay awards made to NHS workers and other public sector employees across Scotland. It said this disparity highlighted a 'clear injustice' within higher education, and demonstrated the need for a more equitable approach to staff pay, A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'Staffing and operational matters are the responsibility of individual universities. 'The Scottish Government is not directly involved in higher education pay negotiations, but we are absolutely clear that Fair Work must be the guiding principle for all employment-related decisions, and we continue to urge university management and the respective trade unions to reach decisions that ensure employees are treated fairly.'

Lifetime Isas may need to carry warnings for some savers
Lifetime Isas may need to carry warnings for some savers

North Wales Chronicle

time15 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Lifetime Isas may need to carry warnings for some savers

The savings accounts enable people to save for their first home or their retirement in one pot. But the Treasury Committee said the dual-purpose design of the Lifetime Isa, or Lisa, may be diverting people away from more suitable products. MPs found that the objectives to help people save for both the short and long term make it more likely that people will choose unsuitable investment strategies. Lisas held in cash may suit those saving for a first home, but may not achieve the best outcome for those using accounts as a retirement savings product, as they are unable to invest in higher-risk but potentially higher-return products such as bonds and equities, the committee said. It also described current rules penalising benefit claimants as 'nonsensical'. Under the current system, any savings held in a Lisa can affect eligibility for universal credit or housing benefit, despite this not being the case for other personal or workplace pension schemes, the committee said. The report said: 'The Government provides higher levels of contribution through tax relief to many other pension products that are not included in the universal credit eligibility assessment, such as workplace pensions and Sipps (self-invested personal pensions). Treating one retirement product differently from others in that regard is nonsensical.' The report added: 'If the Government is unwilling to equalise the treatment of the Lifetime Isa with other Government-subsidised retirement savings products in universal credit assessments, Lifetime Isa products must include warnings that the Lifetime Isa is an inferior product for anyone who might one day be in receipt of universal credit. 'Such warnings would guard against savers being sold products that are not in their best financial interests, which might well constitute mis-selling.' Savers can put in up to £4,000 into a Lisa each year, until they reach 50. They must make their first payment into their Lisa before the age of 40. The Government will add a 25% bonus to Lisa savings, up to a maximum of £1,000 per year. People can withdraw money from their Lisa if they are buying their first home, aged 60 or over or terminally ill with less than 12 months to live. People withdrawing money from a Lisa for any other reason face a 25% withdrawal charge, and can end up with less money than they put in. The report said: 'The withdrawal charge of 25% is applied to unauthorised withdrawals, causing Lisa holders to lose the Government bonuses that they have received, plus 6.25% of their own contributions. 'Several witnesses described that loss of 6.25% as a 'withdrawal penalty'.' There are also restrictions on when Lisas can be used to buy a first home, including that the property must cost £450,000 or less. The report said: 'Many people have lost a portion of their savings due to a lack of understanding of the withdrawal charge or because of unforeseen changes in their circumstances, such as buying a first home at a price greater than the cap. 'However, the case for reducing the charge must be balanced against the impact on Government spending. The Lifetime Isa must include a deterrent to discourage savers from withdrawing funds from long-term saving.' It also added: 'Before considering any increase in the house price cap, the Government must analyse whether the Lifetime Isa is the most effective way in which to spend taxpayers' money to support first-time buyers.' The committee noted that in the 2023-24 financial year, nearly double the number of people made an unauthorised withdrawal (99,650) compared to the number of people who used their Lisa to buy a home (56,900). This should be considered a possible indication that the product is not working as intended, the committee said. At the end of the tax year 2023–24, around 1.3 million Lisa accounts were open, the report said. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts spending on bonuses paid to account holders will cost the Treasury around £3 billion over the five years to 2029-30 – and the committee questioned whether this product is the best use of public money given the current financial strain. MPs also raised concerns that the product may not be well enough targeted towards those in need of financial support and could be subsidising the cost of a first home for wealthier people. It said the data on this issue remains unclear. The report also highlighted the benefits of certain elements of the Lisa, including being an option for the self-employed to save for retirement. Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said: 'The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime Isa, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age. The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals. 'We know that the Government is looking at Isa reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it. 'We are still awaiting further data that may shed some light on who exactly the product is helping. What we already know, though, is that the Lifetime Isa needs to be reformed before it can genuinely be described as a market-leading savings product for both prospective home buyers and those who want to start saving for their retirement at a young age.' Brian Byrnes, head of personal finance at Lifetime Isa provider Moneybox said: 'The report marks a further opportunity to engage with policymakers and continue the conversations needed to ensure the Lisa continues to offer the best level of support to those that need it most.' He added: 'While it is right that the Government ensures the Lisa provides value for money as part of its review of the product, it is our view that it absolutely does… 'The Lisa has proven particularly valuable for first-time buyers on lower to middle incomes, with 80% of Moneybox Lisa savers earning £40,000 or less.' He continued: 'We firmly believe that by future-proofing the house price cap and amending the withdrawal penalty, the Lisa would continue to serve as a highly effective product, helping young people build and embed positive saving behaviours early in life, get more people onto the property ladder, and prepare for a more secure retirement.'

Industrial firms to face £685m property tax hit after energy support pledge
Industrial firms to face £685m property tax hit after energy support pledge

North Wales Chronicle

time15 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Industrial firms to face £685m property tax hit after energy support pledge

Just a week after the Government's industrial strategy revealed electricity costs for about 7,000 energy-intensive businesses would be cut by scrapping green levies, estimates suggest many of the larger firms are set to see their business rates bill soar. Around 4,300 large-scale industrial properties in England – across manufacturing sectors such as automotive, aerospace and chemicals – will face a new business rates levy costing them around £685 million a year, according to tax and software firm Ryan. The levy, which comes into effect in April, is part of next year's business rates revaluation and is being used to fund tax breaks for high street retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, Ryan said. Alex Probyn, a practice leader of property tax at Ryan, said that while the industrial strategy move to reduce energy bills was welcome, 'it's perverse to then ask those very same businesses to foot the bill for high street tax cuts through higher business rates from 2026, a year before the energy support will come into effect'. He added: 'If the goal is to boost UK competitiveness, we need a coherent strategy that tackles the total burden of fixed costs — not one that gives with one hand and then takes with the other.' It follows Sir Keir Starmer's 10-year industrial strategy, which includes a measure to cut bills by up to 25% to help firms compete with foreign rivals. Under the new plans, a new British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme from 2027 will cut costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour for over 7,000 manufacturing firms by exempting them from levies on bills including the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market. Around 500 of the most energy-intensive firms, including the steel industry, chemicals and glass-making, will also see their network charges cut. They currently get a 60% discount through the British Industry Supercharger scheme, which will increase to 90% from 2026. But Ryan is calling for more coherence in strategy from the Government, cautioning that any benefit from lower energy bills risks being undermined by increased property taxation. UK firms already face the highest property taxes in the developed world and more than double the European Union average, according to the firm. Mr Probyn said: 'We're seeing two opposing policies rolled out simultaneously. One aims to support industry by reducing energy costs. 'The other increases a key fixed operational cost — property tax — on the very same businesses to subsidise other sectors. 'There is no coherent strategy; it's a contradiction.' A government spokesperson said: 'We are making it easier and quicker for businesses to invest and grow by cutting British industrial electricity costs with unprecedented new support which will cut electricity costs by around 20-25% for thousands of businesses. 'Our reform to the business rates system will also create a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and levels the playing field. 'A new, permanently lower business rates in 2026 will benefit over 280,000 retail, hospitality and leisure business properties and will be sustainably funded by a new, higher rate on the 1% of most valuable business properties.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store