No plans for England tourism tax, No 10 insists, after claims Rayner backed one
Rachel Reeves, however, is said to have blocked the move for fear it would reduce revenues for businesses struggling with higher national insurance contributions and a rise in the minimum wage already brought in by the Government.
The Prime Minister's official spokesman would not be drawn into saying whether there were plans for such a tax.
'We have previously said there's no plans to introduce a tourism tax in England,' the spokesman said.
He added: 'Places can already choose to introduce a levy on overnight stays through working with their local tourism sector, using the accommodation Business Improvement District model.
'Tourism obviously plays an important role in the UK's economy. Inbound tourism is the UK's third largest service export.
'The UK is the seventh most-visited country in the world, and we're committed to continuing to support the sector.'
Pressed again whether a tourism tax had been shelved after an intervention from the Treasury, the spokesman said: 'Well, there's no plans to introduce it.'
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is reported to have blocked plans for a tourism tax in England (Yui Mok/PA)
Chancellor Rachel Reeves earlier sidestepped a question about Ms Rayner's call for a tourist tax.
Asked for her response, Ms Reeves said she had made decisions on tax in last year's 'once-in-a-generation budget' which was intended to 'fix the mess' left by the Conservatives.
She added: 'We'll have another budget later this year, and I'll be setting out our tax policy there.'
A similar levy already exists in Scotland, and the Welsh Government is also in the process of introducing a tourism tax.
Tourists staying in countries across Europe are required to pay local taxes aimed at offsetting the impact of large numbers of visitors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
What car finance ruling means for YOU - and why you could still get compensation
The Supreme Court has largely sided with banks in a ruling involving a car finance scandal - but the issue is far from over, with huge implications for more than 20 million drivers The Supreme Court has partially overturned a landmark ruling on car finance commissions. The move will have huge implications for banks that may have faced tens of billions of pounds in compensation payouts. However, experts are poring over the ruling to assess what it means for the up to 23 million drivers who were expecting a payout. The Treasury said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Like all these things, the ruling was far from straightforward and is still being pored over in detail. But essentially the judges largely sided with the finance firms in the case, with all other banks breathing a sigh of relief because of what it could have meant for them too. It centred on commissions that were paid by finance firms to dealers when selling, in these cases, second hand cars. As the ruling said, there was 'either no disclosure to the customer of the existence of the commission or partial disclosure to the effect that a commission (of unspecified amount) might be paid'. The three customers involved claimed that the commissions amounted to 'bribes', or to 'secret profits' received by the dealers. Essentially, the Supreme Court was looking at whether hidden commission payments to dealers - even when the interest rate on the finance deal was set in advance - were unlawful. It could have seen compensation paid to almost all people who had bought a car on finance. Some estimates had put the potential bill at up to £45billion. However, in one of the cases the court did decide the level of commission was unfair, with all the interest to be paid back. So is that the end of it? Yes, and no. It reduces the number of people who could have potentially received compensation, and lowers the possible bill to banks and finance houses. But there is a separate - though linked - issue around how some dealers were paid bigger rewards if buyers were charged higher interest rates. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements were banned by regulators in 2021. Around 40% of all car finance deals arranged between 2007 and 2021 had this discretionary - rather than fixed - element to them. It is these cases that first led to concerns by regulators and which will now be of focus. What happens next? The Financial Conduct Authority launched an investigation into discretionary commission arrangements early last year. It had put the matter on ice until the outcome of the Supreme Court cases. It has acted swiftly by announcing it will confirm over the weekend if it will launch a scheme for victims of car finance mis-selling to get compensation. Whether there will be such a redress scheme and how it will work will be part of any consultation that takes place. How might it work, and what might I get back? These are key questions for any consultation, if such a scheme is announced. One option is for banks to go back through their records to assess which customers were affected, although this industry-led approach may well be seen as flawed. Another is almost like the PPI scandal, where firms would be forced to pay out to anyone where the discretionary commission applied. There is a good chance it will be automatic - and free - which is why people are being warned about using claims management firms that may end up taking a big chunk of any payout. Then there is the question of how much the compensation would be. It could that customers receive back the same amount as the dealer got in commission. Alternatively, it could be that the interest rate charged is compared with what it would have been had the commission not applied. The customer could then receive the over-payment, in other words the additional interest that was charged. Or it could be all the interest is paid back. Consumer champion Martin Lewis, founder of estimated the level of refunds could now be anything from £5billion to £15billion, but 'rather than the up to £45billion if the Supreme Court had upheld all of it.' He added: "My biggest message is while we wait is, don't do anything. Don't sign up to a claims form. You don't need to do anything right now. Take you hands, sit on them."
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Today's Supreme Court ruling was a narrow miss for the economy
Britain is still, just about, a country in which it is possible to do business. The Supreme Court's decision today saw a drastic reduction in the scope of potential compensation claims against car finance lenders. To the extent that a 'scandal' existed in this field, it is the degree to which the British legal system had appeared prepared to rewrite the terms of loans made close to two decades ago in line with a vague sense that customers deserved a better deal. The direct losses to the financial sector (tens of billions of pounds in compensation claims) would have been significant on their own terms. The economic damage, however, could have been far more widespread. The effect of such a broad-ranging retrospective verdict would have had a chilling effect on the willingness of lenders to take risks in the British market. Who would want to lend money in a country where a court could decide years afterwards that compensation should be awarded to people who signed up to a loan knowing what they would pay and what they would get simply based on the salesman's commission? It is a testament to the sheer terror with which the Treasury would have viewed this prospect and the associated losses of growth and tax revenues that Chancellor Rachel Reeves was reportedly looking into legislative means to overturn a decision that went against the banks; it is hard to think of a stance less natural for this Labour Government to adopt. As things stand, there are still potential claims against those whose loans came with 'excessive' commissions. These should suffice as a warning shot against predatory practices, should any be needed. But it is worth saying that this may not be wholly desirable either. The principle of 'caveat emptor' may have fallen out of fashion, but it is far from clear that the compensation culture we have erected in its place is superior. Investing time and effort into understanding the terms and conditions of a purchase seems increasingly irrational: simply lay out your cash and should you subsequently have regrets, rest safe in the knowledge that the legal system will find a way to attempt to claw it back. This compensation does not materialise from the ether. When it is paid out, the cost is frequently borne by other consumers, who face higher prices or fewer options. This time around, we have at least arrived at a sensible conclusion. The Treasury and Ms Reeves can breathe a sigh of relief. Parliament, however, may wish to give serious thought as to the desirability of a legal structure that permits this sort of uncertainty to arise, and the incentives which it offers the public.
South Wales Guardian
an hour ago
- South Wales Guardian
New entry rules set for Brits travelling to parts of Europe
Instead of a paper stamp upon entering countries such as Spain and Italy, there will be a new digital scan. The changes will take place in Europe's Schengen zone within Europe, where passport controls have been largely eliminated at internal borders, allowing for free movement of people between member countries. This includes countries including France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, and more. 🚨 Traveling to Europe after Oct 2025? The EU's new biometric Entry/Exit System (EES) is coming! 👁️ Facial scan 🖐️ Fingerprints 📍 Logged in EU database No more passport stamps! 🎥 Watch Now👉 #EuropeTravel #VisaUpdates #Immigration Even if you're just transiting through a Schengen country, you'll still be registered digitally, meaning passport stamps will no longer be used. From October 12, 2025, the European Union's (EU) new Entry/Exit System (EES) will begin, the UK Government's foreign travel advice states. When travelling into and out of the Schengen area, for short stays, you may need to: The Government website says: 'EES may take each passenger a few extra minutes to complete so be prepared to wait longer than usual at the border once the system starts." The Entry/Exit System (EES) is an automated border system designed to digitally log your travel when you enter or exit the 29 Schengen countries. The EES is part of Europe's move to 'smart borders.' It's being rolled out alongside ETIAS (Europe's version of the US ESTA visa), which will become mandatory for visa-free travellers in 2026. Recommended Reading: All outbound flights from UK affected amid air traffic control issue Best aeroplane seats to book and how to sleep on a flight New hand luggage sizes for every airline - don't get caught out The Schengen Area comprises 29 European countries, that have officially abolished all passport and all other types of border control at their mutual borders. This includes the likes of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, among others. You can travel without a visa to the Schengen area for up to 90 days in any 180-day period.
