West Lothian 'tourist tax' could bring in £1m as council urged to push forward
But while councillors welcomed the start of consultations agreed this week, the Tories branded the proposals a tourist tax which would hit local business and discourage visitors.
A visitor levy scheme for West Lothian could potentially bring in more than £1m a year into council coffers.
But while councillors welcomed the start of consultations agreed this week, the Tories branded the proposals a tourist tax which would hit local business and discourage visitors.
And councillors were concerned as officers offered a cautious two year path to an actual introduction following a similar decision taken by the council in Edinburgh last month.
Councillor Sally Pattle, Lib Dem, Linlithgow, asked how soon the levy could be introduced. 'How urgently are we moving on this, what is the time line given this is an easy revenue stream we can capitalise on.'
The meeting heard that there are statutory guidelines on the introduction of a levy demanding clear consultation.
'Are those conversations taking place already?' asked Councillor Pattle.
Jim Henderson, Business development manager said the conversation was in the early stages.
Edinburgh last month agreed to impose a five per cent levy from next summer. Glasgow, Argyll and Bute, and Aberdeen are all now in formal consultation stage. Other councils such as East Lothian, Stirling, Dumfries & Galloway, and others have been given approval for 'early engagement' work.
Many cities across Europe now have visitor levies in place.
A report to West Lothian's Executive outlined potential income based on the 298,000 visitors who stayed in the county in 2024. The most expensive accommodation, with an average spend of £100 per person per night would generate £1,342, 800 at a five per cent levy.
The lowest proposed levy of two per cent would generate more than £500,000 in the most expensive accommodation.
In a report to the Executive, Stewart Ness, Tourism and Town Centre Manager said: 'Whilst Visitor Levy is historically considered in areas of 'over-tourism', such as Edinburgh, it may be inappropriate to argue that this applies across West Lothian where some areas might benefit from an increase in visitors.
'There could be a risk that West Lothian is 'left behind' by neighbouring local authority areas that do use the ring-fenced funds raised through the introduction of a Visitor Levy to invest in tourism in their areas.'
Stressing the need to establish consultation with local businesses Mr Ness added: 'Local authorities are encouraged to conduct early engagement before entering the consultation phase.
'Although not statutory, this engagement phase is considered by the guidance to be best practice. Learning from other local authorities' areas who have undergone the process is available and this could be used to guide the process in West Lothian.
'By engaging with the tourism businesses in this collaborative fashion, it will increase understanding for the scheme amongst those who will be responsible for collecting the levy.
'By using already established networks, such as Visit West Lothian and Business Gateway, it should increase the participation rates of businesses in the engagement.'
However Conservative group leader Damian Doran-Timson criticised a move to what he called a tourist tax which could damage local business.
In an amendment he said: 'Given the importance of this tax on business and the negative impact this is likely to have on the tourist economy across West Lothian it is vital that all West Lothian Councillors are involved in the decision making on this extra tax.'
The amendment welcomed the decision to engage with those in the tourism industry and added: ' [We] trust the Council will ensure those who will have to administrate the scheme are fully advised of the processes involved and the implications.'
He told the meeting: 'This is a tax on people, a tax on businesses and a tax in individuals.'
The amendment called for any future decision on the implementation of a levy to come back to full council because all councillors would have businesses in their areas which could be affected.
The SNP group leader Janet Campbell welcomed the report but said : ' It doesn't seem to be moving forward at a pace we would have expected and, given that we are looking at more than £1m, which would almost cover the savings to be made on the community centres. It seems to be a bit of a no-brainer.'
Councillor Pattle said: ' I welcome this report, but I have concerns about the lack of urgency, I hope that we are able to move forward with this easy income strategy at pace.'
In a vote Councillor Doran-Timson's amendment demanding later decisions come to full council rather than the executive was defeated along with a similar amendment from the SNP.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
'Cormack targets three of four more signings'
Aberdeen chairman Dave Cormack has told Red TV he expects another three or four new signings at Pittodrie this summer in addition to the four already secured. (Press & Journal), externalRead Monday's Scottish Gossip in full.
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Should Chris Coghlan be denied Holy Communion?
It is not, it's fair to say, a universal view among Catholic priests that MPs who vote the wrong way on assisted dying and the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth should be punished by excluding them from communion. But so it has turned out with Chris Coghlan, the Lib Dem MP for Dorking and Horley. He voted for assisted suicide and didn't vote at all on the Antoniazzi amendment allowing women to abort up to birth. Now he's complaining that his parish priest is intent on denying him communion at mass. Or as he put it on X: My Catholic Priest publicly announced at every mass he was denying me Holy Communion following the assisted dying vote. Children who are friends of my children were there. This followed a direct threat in writing to do this four days before the vote. In a piece in the Observer, he explained: I was deeply disturbed to receive an email from my local priest four days before the vote on Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill saying if I voted in favour I would be 'an obstinate public sinner'. Worse, I would be complicit in a 'murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded'. Such a vote would, he wrote, be 'a clear contravention of the Church's teaching, which would leave me in the position of not being able to give you holy communion, as to do so would cause scandal in the Church. The priest is in fact entitled to deny communion to those 'obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin' under canon 915 of the Code of Canon law. And plainly, in terms of the teaching of the Church, anyone voting to pass a law for assisted suicide – giving someone poison for the specific purpose of doing away with themselves, as opposed to, say, refusing life support – runs counter to the teaching of the Church in the most public possible way. The priest was arguably correct to describe him as complicit in a murderous act, though Chris Coghlan himself maintains that assisted suicide (whereby a practitioner presents the patient with a lethal dose of barbiturates or some other cocktail of toxins) is different from direct euthanasia, whereby someone, for instance, injects the patient with toxins directly. I'm not sure that's quite the distinction he thinks it is; a murderous act pretty well covers giving someone a lethal dose of poison, even if it's actually delivered by the would-be suicide (let's see how long that provision lasts). And voting to legalise this process is as morally culpable as taking part in it. The question is, whether a public denunciation is the best way to go about changing hearts and minds, even those of self-regarding LibDems. My nice liberal priest friend thinks Coghlan's priest 'is a prat and he should be ashamed of himself. It goes against everything we stand for; we're not in the business of publicly punishing people. The man presumably was following the dictates of conscience, which is the first law. I don't think it helps the church and I don't think it helps this particular chap to change his mind.' And naturally, my liberal clerical friend quotes the late Pope Francis on the matter, to the effect that 'communion is not a reward for the perfect but medicine for the soul'. That's one way of looking at it; the other, more conventional view, is that you shouldn't take the eucharist if you're in a state of grave sin. (Me, I'd like to see that definition more widely applied.) But all this fuss tends to distract, I think, from the actual issue as to whether the Church's approach to assisted suicide is right. And there's absolutely nothing in the bishops' statements on the issue that is specifically religious. That is to say, the Catholic and, I'd say, the Christian view, is nothing else than the moral view that people who aren't remotely religious can share. You may not, like the bishops, regard life as a gift from God, but there's nothing specifically Catholic about their concerns: Can MPs guarantee that the scope of the Bill will not be extended? In almost every country where assisted suicide has been introduced the current scope is wider than was originally intended. What role, if any, will the judiciary have in the process? We were told that judicial oversight was a necessary and vital part of the process; now we are told it isn't needed at all. What will protect the vulnerable from coercion, or from feeling a burden on family? Can the National Health Service cope with assisted suicide or will it, as the Health Secretary has warned, cause cuts elsewhere in the NHS? Can MPs guarantee that no medical practitioner or care worker would be compelled to take part in assisted suicide? Would this mean the establishment of a 'national death service'? In contrast to the provisions of this Bill, what is needed is first-class, compassionate palliative care at the end of our lives. This is already provided to many in our society but, tragically, is in short supply and underfunded. No-one should be dispatched as a burden to others. Instead, a good society would prioritise care for the elderly, the vulnerable, and the weak. As Cardinal Nichols put it: Once assisted suicide is approved by the law, a key protection of human life falls away. Pressure mounts on those who are nearing death, from others or even from themselves, to end their life in order to take away a perceived burden of care from their family, for the avoidance of pain, or for the sake of an inheritance. The radical change in the law now being proposed risks bringing about for all medical professionals a slow change from a duty to care to a duty to kill. Even Chris Coghlan might concede that much. This is why it's so insanely annoying that he's trotting out the usual canards about Catholicism in public life. 'I am not the Catholic MP for Dorking and Horley. I am the Liberal Democrat MP for Dorking and Horley,' he writes, a la John F. Kennedy. But there is nothing specifically religious about the Church's position – if you exclude that bit about life being God's gift. It is one which any conscientious individual might take on prudent and rational grounds, without any spiritual motivation whatever, unless we are to assume that concern for vulnerable people is a Christian prerogative. Coghlan doesn't need to swank about not being bossed about by priests – a position highly gratifying to any English parliamentarian, invoking all sorts of latent prejudice – but instead he should ask himself whether the Church itself has a point. Its argument isn't arcanely religious unless it's arcanely religious to say that human life is sacred. By turning this into a Martin Luther moment – Coghlan stands up to bossy cleric – he is distracting attention from the fact that he voted for a measure which will diminish the value of human life at its most vulnerable. I don't in fact think the priest is being helpful here, though he was perfectly within his rights to warn Chris Coghlan that his vote was at odds with his faith. Publicly condemning him risks turning this rather tiresome Lib Dem into some sort of poster boy for the rights of conscience. But conscience can be a tricky organ; influenced by fashion and opinion as well as by an innate moral sense. Right now, the real problem isn't whether Coghlan will be turned away from the altar rail; it's whether institutions such as Catholic hospices will be required to participate in assisted suicide or whether they will in fact receive specific protection by law to prevent that happening. If they are required to participate in helping people kill themselves, they'll have to close. Over to you, Chris 'Compassion' Coghlan.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Prince William: ‘Homelessness project is getting people off streets'
The Prince of Wales has praised those working on his project to end homelessness for 'shifting the dial' on the 'mammoth challenge'. The Prince said his Homewards project, which is two years old, is in 'delivery mode'. In a letter to those working on the ground to end homelessness, he said: 'I know this is a mammoth challenge and change won't come overnight, but over the past year we've started to shift the dial and there are now people who are no longer experiencing homelessness thanks to your tremendous efforts.' Signing off with a message urging them to 'keep going!', the Prince said he remained confident that the 'ambitious' five-year project would go on to prove that homelessness can be 'rare, brief and unrepeated'. 'Creating long-term change is complex and unpredictable, but I am confident we can lead and inspire understanding, empathy and optimism that homelessness can be ended,' he said. The Prince's Homewards project includes more than 100 initiatives across its six locations in the UK. Some 300 homes – a mixture of empty accommodation, private rentals and new-builds – are forecast to be delivered through Homewards's 'innovative housing projects'. The first residents moved into flats in Aberdeen in March after Homewards brought together a local housing association, high street retailers and others to provide and furnish the property. The first tenants in Sheffield are moving in this week. Two years in, the project has also launched Upstream England, a new early intervention initiative in schools to identify young people most at risk of homelessness. The Prince will hear how the prevention scheme is working when he travels to Meadowhead Secondary School in Sheffield on Tuesday. Prince William unveiled a new partnership in February with Lloyds Banking Group, which has made £50 million available to organisations tackling homelessness. Nearly £3 million has also been secured for Homewards locations from partners and coalition members. The Prince wrote: 'I am immensely proud to say that your collective effort has already allowed us to achieve lasting impact. 'After a year of convening, our second year has seen Homewards shift into delivery mode.' He added: 'Together, we are demonstrating tangible impact.' The Prince launched his Homewards programme, which aims to develop a blueprint for eradicating homelessness in all its forms, 'making it rare, brief and unrepeated', in 2023. Six locations were chosen – Newport in south Wales, Lambeth in south London, Northern Ireland, Aberdeen, Sheffield and the three neighbouring Dorset towns of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole – with the aim of delivering bespoke solutions to homelessness in each area. The Upstream school survey pilot is set to be rolled out to two other schools in Sheffield later this year. The scheme, which seeks to tackle the root causes of homelessness and provide support to young people and their families at the earliest opportunity, is modelled on the successful Geelong Project in Australia, which saw a 40 per cent reduction in youth homelessness and a 20 per cent reduction in the number of young people leaving school early. Homewards has also created action plans to focus efforts on the most at-risk groups in each location, such as single people and under-25s in Aberdeen, lone parents in temporary accommodation in Lambeth and families and women facing multiple disadvantages in Newport. Liz Laurence, Homewards's programme director, said: 'We're proud to say, as we head into our third year, that Homewards is the broadest collective effort working to prevent homelessness across the UK.' Ms Laurence added: 'We set out with a mission to demonstrate that together it's possible to end homelessness, and I think we are really confident about where we are … We are starting to really see a difference on the ground.' The five-year campaign is a major focus for the Prince, who has told how visiting shelters with his late mother Diana when he was a child left a deep and lasting impression and inspired his work. Polly Neate, former chief executive of Shelter and now an independent social policy commentator, said: 'In our wider culture, as a country, we see homelessness as something that is inevitable, that we don't really understand, that we feel powerless about doing anything about. 'What Prince William and Homewards are doing, if you want to put it in a nutshell, is tackling that culture straight on and saying 'This is not inevitable. This is preventable'.'
