Types of overnight accommodation included in the Bill

Types of overnight accommodation included in the Bill

The Bill would allow a levy to be added to the “chargeable transaction” which is defined as the purchase of overnight accommodation. In the Bill, "overnight accommodation" means a room or place where visitors stay temporarily. This definition applies to most forms of paid overnight accommodation but does not apply to cruise ships and motorhomes/camper vans. If you agree with the types of accommodation included in the Bill, rate it up (👍), if you disagree with the types of accommodation included, rate it down (👎). Please tell us why you agree or disagree using the comment boxes below. Are there types of accommodation that are included that you think should be removed?


It should apply to motor homes and camper vans and anyone staying at a camp site or wild camping as these types of visitors use local facilities as much as those staying at other accommodation. They have also caused significant issues in local areas in the last few years. It would be unfair to charge only those staying in hotels, BnBs, guest houses and self-catering simply because it is easier to collect the tax from providers. It would also be unfair to charge those travelling and staying over on business trips. Creating business opportunities is important for Scotland. However, determining the difference between a leisure stay and business stay may be administratively challenging.

Given the significant rise in the use of motorhomes particularly in the Highlands that you have chosen. to exclude this sector from any levy. Someone can. rent a vehicle in Edinburgh, drive to Skye, spend two weeks touring the island, parking wherever they want, putting pressure on local infrastructure is outrageous. Cruise ships already pay berthing fees in ports and this revenue invariably goes to local authorities but not to consider motorhome levies at this early stage is unforgivable.

In my view this potentially adversely impacts on Scots who need to travel for work, wish to visit relatives, who take their children around Scotland for competitive sport, need to holiday at home as they cannot afford to travel abroad. Are we going to have the added insult that some folks can in fact evade paying or penalties because they come from abroad like those who are effectively are exempt from Glasgow LEZ penalty and they can’t trace them or it’s too difficult to pursue them? So it’s the easy targets that need to pay to move around their own country. Government policy should focus on meaningful sophisticated integrated policies that blend together to improve all aspects of life. Not this pepper pot of abstract ideas just intended to bring in a few more pennies to the pot.

I'm not sure how this is going to work with club huts, used by climbing clubs etc. A Visitor Levy on these would be onerous to administer. Otherwise, I'm happy with the idea.

Living on the NC500 brings a heavy amount of "over-tourism". This means that campervans, and campers would not contribute anything, despite heavy use of our environment, which is unfair and not right. Why select one sector of the tourism industry to bear the burden? Day visitors would not contribute. (Visiting cruisers and sailors usually do pay harbour fees and so contribute to the local economy and infrastructure in this way.)

If you are an overnight visitor and this levy is introduced it should apply to all, no matter where they stay. I am not in agreement with the proposal however if introduced it should be equitable. If I stay in a motorhome my impact in terms of walking the streets, visiting galleries, using roads etc is surely the same as if I stayed in a hotel or guest house.

Why on earth would motorhomes and campervans be excluded?! They are precisely the main type of visitors we get coming to visit and travel the NC500! And indeed that cause the most damage with regards to illegal chemical waste disposal, campfires, and creating potholes due to the weight of the vehicles. What a ludicrous proposition to exclude them!

I reside in Scotland and holiday in Scotland pay taxes in Scotland and now the government want to tax me to visit other parts of the country I was born in, ludicrous idea, will stop people coming to Scotland why pay a levy to visit an area when you can go elsewhere in the UK and not pay this?

Although taxation would help fund and improve infrastructure it is grossly unfair to apply such a tax to fixed accommodation only. Negligent motor home users, camper vans and dirty campers should be the first in line to pay any form of tourist tax. Those who book accommodation are contributing more to the Scottish economy and causing less damage to our natural environment.

I agree with it all, aside from not including the levy on camper vans. They are a very popular way of enjoying Scotland these days but still use the roads (with more weight that cars too), still use car parks and guests still make use of local services and tourism area's. So, if a levy is to be added, it should perhaps be on all visitors, no matter how they travel. (Cannot speak to cruise ships as we don't get that many lumbering up Loch Linnhe...!)

It should not apply to this easily identified group just because it's easy for the Local Authority to shift all the burden of administering it onto the accommodation providers. The exclusion of campers and motorhome users makes no sense apart from it being more difficult to administer. The exclusion of cruise liner visitors, many of which are not overnight visitors, is the worst aspect of this proposed Bill, it is the one sector that this levy should apply to, possibly with the inclusion of motorhomes and camper vans as well, due to their massive impact on the waste facilities.

I disagree with this because accommodation providers have already been hit with increased costs - introduction of STL, increased electric & insulation costs, increased administration costs. In Orkney we only have tourists around 5-6 months of the year unlike the central belt and other cities. The government already take tax from accommodation providers including camp sites which include camper vans. Local authorities can surely already increase their charges for cruise liners and use money to improve facilities further. No toilets at Ring of Brodgar in Orkney! Imposing a levy on providers is only going to increase the cost to UK and overseas visitors. Islanders stay in accommodation in cities for essential travel, like visiting hospital or buying a car, we should not have extra charges for this as we already pay enough tax. Mind you if the Scottish government don't provide a budget for Island Ferries soon no one will be able to travel to Isles soon.

I am just a normal working man and i disagree because It will deter me from holidaying in Scotland, i work and stay and try to keep my money in scotland , i stay in holiday cottages in Scotland 4 or 5 weeks a year and pay my taxes , cottages and holidaying in Scotland is getting more and more expensive without the government eeking more money out of my hard earned wages,for more years than i can think of, i have always believed in keeping my money in Scotland, helping the economy, looks like i will be buying a new passport and giving my money to another country

Not included; dirty campers, cruise ships, motor homes, camper vans. It will also impact on the domestic market that make up the majority of tourists throughout the year. Domestic tourists are already taxed enough!

Seriously? How can this be fair? So if I bring my motorhome or camp wild I wouldn't pay anything additional? Cue a rise in wild camping...honestly is anyone at Scottish Government even listening or is it just yet another idea civil servants have drawn up during lockdown? There was considerable consulotation prior to the pandemic which I attended. At NONE of the engagement sessions I attended was anyone in favour outwith Edinburgh. This city was happy to welcome visitors, and benefit from the considerable economic boost they brought, but they just weren't happy to manage them responsibly.

It penalises and deters tourists. It unfairly adds to the tax bill of those who work away from home.

easy to collect

I feel motorhomes and caravans should be included in this bill as they use the roads and local facilities too.

I visited the Highlands recently and In principal I would be happy to pay a tourist tax as I can see the affect tourism is having on local infrastructure and I am happy to contribute to the upkeep of roads, toilets etc. However I’m against adding a fee to accommodation. By staying in hotels and eating in local restaurants, I am contributing to the local economy. Why should I pay when those who visit in motorhomes and staying for free in overnight parking spots or on verges don’t have to pay. Large vehicles cause more damage to the road than my car and some of them leave considerably more mess. Any fees need to be paid by roadside campers as well

Tourists already contribute hugely to the Scottish economy. The figures being bandied around of 4% are quite shocking actually, e.g. Take a family of 4.......... 2 adults, 2 children. Staying on a campsite (campsite not included yet, I know, but soon will be). £40 per night for tent + 4% each person tourist tax. That £40 stay is now £46.40, actual increase now 16%........... not 4%. Also, if you live in Scotland and pay Council Tax, why should you effectively pay twice. This will 100% discourage tourists and as a Scot I and I suspect many others will take my £3.000 annual holiday budget to England. Under no circumstances will I pay a tax to holiday in my own country where I already pay taxes. Scotland's loss😪

This will not just hit foreign tourists but Scottish residents taking a city break for work or leasure. This will put people off travelling or staying anywhere out of town if the costs increase further.

it works well in other parts of Europe

The Bill does not include cruise ship visitors to a local authority area. Cruise ship visitors are mass tourists and therefore they MUST be included in any levy.

I think that all these motorhomes/campervans visiting and often found abandoned all over the Highlands should pay towards maintaining and improving infrastructure somehow. It cant be difficult to introduce schemes similar to the ULEZ schemes being rolled out in cities, there by charging these people for visiting certain areas in these vehicles. Campsites could link to the database and if a vehicle stays in a campsite they would pay the visitor levy through the campsite. If not paying through a campsite they could pay a higher visitor levy to offset the damage to the communities they freeload in. I also believe that the cruise ship passengers should also be paying a visitors levy.

Most disruption in my area is caused by motorhomes, campervans and road side/roof tent campers. They absolutely must be captured by this bill.

Stop treating Scottish residents as tax cash cows. The fact that it does not apply to camper vans etc says it all. Irritation caused by camper vans up North will not be alleviated by this proposal. In fact, it could attract more camper vans who, traditionally, don't always use camping sites.

The tourist levy should also apply to motorhomes and campervans that stay on a paid-for pitch.

I would very much prefer if there were no levy, on any type of accommodation, but if it has to be charged, then motorhomes and campervans would be my first option. This is because it's possible to visit an area in such a vehicle and contribute absolutely nothing to the local economy

If a levy must be introduced, it should be aimed at visitors who don't make an economic contribution otherwise. So motorhomes would be top of the list (though I know many responsible motorhome owners go out of their way to shop locally and use restaurants etc when they visit an area)

If it is applying to one part of the tourism industry then it should apply to all of the tourist industry. (I don’t agree with it in the first place).

This new tax is just another way of government getting more money out of business. Tax on tourism needs to be decreased and not vice versa. With one stick, the government slates the tourism industry for not paying higher wages yet it removes the tools to increase pay but removing the means to invest in staff through high taxation.

It will make put people off using guest houses and hotels in Scotland - surely the aim should be encouragement not discouragement?! Segmenting the sector just adds to the bureaucracy.

Caravans, motorhomes & cruise ships should be included.

Should include motorhomes & caravans.

You glibly talk about 1% but ignore that fact that this is one night for a 14 night stay, sometimes more. For a family of four it could well be in the region of an extra £56 per stay. I cannot see a better disincentive to attracting visitors to Scotland. The fact you exempt campervans/mobile homes and cruise visitors makes a mockery of the whole idea as they contribute the least and cost the most to accommodate. What about cruising yachts' on the West Coast. We you improve their facilities from this income without a contribution.

bed and breakfast, small businesses that do not have card machines small campsites. Daft as millions raised on tourists by parking eg. at the old man of storr etc. WHy tax them more!

Caravan and motorhome parks should be included as their usage of infrastructure is vast in many areas and their impact is considerable,.

Motor homes/campervans are usually sited in parks where they have to pay fees. Why are they excluded?

But I think motorhomes/campervans should be incluced

I think cruise ships and camping vehicles should be included, they all use local services. Local authorities need more income to provide infrastructure.

Charge more to visitors and they will end up going elsewhere in the UK or abroad

We should look again at including cruise ships as these have a big impact on island communities.

The levy might drive more people to use camper vans or wild camp as there is no levy on these types on accommodation

Needs to apply to camper vans and motor homes too and needs to take account of those who stay outside of paid sites. It needs to apply to all overnight visitors to be fair.

Motorhomes parking up in lay bys and car parks overnight and to my experience longer using public facilities, such as water points, refuse disposal, toilets and chemical disposal areas which have to be maintained should not be excluded but how can you collect tax. Just because it is difficult does not mean they should be excluded and others should bare the burden.

It would seem slightly unfair to exclude caravan and motorhome parks as they still generate many of the same overuses of local infrastructure as fixed accommodation does. For example they still create increased use of use local roads and require connections to the local water supplies and sewerage supplies, all be it under business rates. It is common practice for campsites in Europe to charge tourist tax, and this should also be considered here.

Don't understand why it excludes motorhomes/campervans but includes tourers and static caravans. On caravan parks, Council rates are calculated based on the amount of income from caravan owners already ie the Council takes into account income and profitability before working out rates.

camper vans and tents (wild camping) currently contribute absolutely nothing and should be included

of the section on motorhomes/campervans. As a campervan owner myself, I see no reason why we should be treated differently from other tourists. It would be easy to collect the levy from paying sites, and I imagine most users will be happy to pay this - it will be a very small part of the overall cost of a stay. Hired vehicles could be charged along with the hire fee....surely a very straightforward means can be found of deducting the canpsite fee if a proof of payment to the hire company can be shown. A for those who choose to travel the country and never pay for any facilities: I think some means should be found of covering this - perhaps taxing the use of grey water dumping facilities would be a start. Otherwise I wholly agree with what is proposed.I assume tent campers on sites would also pay the tax?

To exclude those overnighting in vehicles would be grossly unfair, visitors using proper accomodation already contribute via business rates and staff wages etc, etc. The hundreds of people parking overnight at the roadside and in car parks and laye-byes are using waste facilities, the roads themselves as well as public toilets (often improperly) etc, and at present contribute very little, in fact many advertise this via social media as the point of choosing this mode of transport. The presence of these unsightly and unsanitary collections of vans, hogging car parks and viewpoints is in fact damaging to tourism, as those paying for accomodation are put off visiting such places by those whose sole intention is to pay for as little as possible. The solution to this issue is to use the "Icelandic" approach and ban the overnight occupation of leisure vehicles from anywhere other than registered sites, (call them what you like), where it would be possible to levy a fee, thereby EVERYONE visiting would be contributing in the same way. Existing legislation such as the Trespass (scotland ) and the Caravans and Control of Development Acst make so -called "wild camping" when based on the use of a vehicle illegal, including roadside camping in tents, as the vehicle is often parked on private land, and the ever increasing abuse of this so called "right"warrants clarificaton of the SOAC, and much stricter enforcement. To impose a levy on those already paying, and specifically exclude those who are not, would simply increase the problem. Many vehicles are rented from hundreds of miles away from Scotland, let alone the Highlands, and those who benefit from this trade are paying tax/business rates in Essex, or Germany, etc. Whilst the propsed levy would require those businesses in the Highlands already paying into the local economy to charge their customers extra, the visitors using moblle accomodation from outwith the area will apparently not be charged a penny., how can this possibly be fair? How long will it be before the motorhome rental companies, many of which already make the misleading claim that you can "wildcamp" for free in Scotland start advertising their vehicles as the perfect way to avoid the visitor levy, as well as avoiding paying for anything else. Those using vehicles as accomodation are a large proportion of our"visitors", and if the authorities lack the will or consider it too difficult to collect a levy from them, then it is fundamentally unfair to collect it from anyone else.

The visitors number should be restricted and a levy is one way of doing it. I live in the Highlands. Things have got so bad, we don’t go out in the summer unless we have to, but it’s becoming a 365 day problem since the pandemic. Camper Vans park in the entrance to our driveway and people wild camp on our land. They leave behind a mess including human excrement. I’d personally tax all visitors that head to the Highlands and Islands by use of an ANPR camera. The same sort of system that is used to alleviate congestion in many major cities. That would ensure all people irrespective of where they are staying actually are taxed for holidaying here. As for the amount that’s charged, I don’t think £100 per night is unreasonable and the income generated should be ploughed back into the local communities.

as someone who lives in a beautiful and remote part of Scotland I would strongly point out that if the gov want to charge a levy to improve facilities for tourists then it is wrong on every level not to include caravans, motor home etc...they cause the worst kind of mess with their "wild camping" which usually amounts to nothing more than stepping out of their plush home from home and leaving litter and faeces on our doorstep. Not all do this but since covid there has been an increase and the councils won't even address it properly.

I don’t understand why motor homes and camper vans are excluded. Obviously it would not be possible to recoup any money from those that do not use official paid sites - unfortunately. However they all put a similar strain on local authorities as hotel and self catering accommodation users. Cruise ships are probably more in the category of day ‘trippers’.

Why exclude motorhomes? If they are rented then add the levy to the rental. If they are privately owned then they are already paying road tax but we already know that accommodation is also already being taxed (VAT at 20% - way higher than anywhere else in Europe) so why should any of us have to pay twice! And for goodness sake take community owned and operated visitor moorings out of this - we are trying to encourage marine tourism in Scotland!

Excluding motor homes is a mistake - including community owned and operated visitor moorings is a mistake. In my view the whole thing is a mistake but you’ve asked for specifics and these anomalies defy sense. The levy (fixed fee NOT a percentage charge) could easily be added to hire/rental costs for a motor home or charter yacht. Why would motorhomes be exempt? It makes no sense - you’re actually encouraging folk to break the law and park up in lay-bys. If you’re going to apply an UNFAIR tax then at least apply it fairly.

Of course it should include cruise ships and camper vans! Why should us accommodation providers carry all the burden?! Camper vans do vast damage to Highland infrastructure; they're dangerously driven and inconsiderately parked. They contribute almost nothing to the local economy; all we get is their exhaust, their waste dumped in our watercourses and blocking our public toilets, and the deleterious effect they have on our road surfaces.

Why not motor homes, camper vans, tents - anywhere visitors pay for a bit of Scottish soil to rest their weary heads. Just batter on and grab as much money as you can.

Motorhomes and campervans staying outwith campsites must be included due to the large numbers free camping on the NC500 and elsewhere around rural Scotland. Not charging these vehicles will result in more people choosing to free camp, undermining official facilities and business, and causing further issues for residents.

The levy if it goes a head should be a full UK not Scotland. It should be collected at airports and ferry terminals from overseas visitors as they enter or a departure tax (a UK conservation tax) If its collected that way everyone pays, whether they are in campervans, tents hotels etc. Accommodation providers have enough to do running their own business. British resident’s should be exempt.

Its the most practical solution. Cruise ship passengers should be targetted through port fees if they aren't already. And motorhomes need to be encouraged to use paid for facilities rather than stopping in the wild so taxing them could be counter-productive. As an alternative perhaps campervan rentals could have a per night levy added which is then used centrally to help fund road maintenance?

What about motor homes, day trippers and moored vessels?

Visitors booking into accomodation be it hotels, b&b, rentals or campsites already contribute to the local economy by supporting a businessl A charge should be levied on motorhomes, campervans and those sleeping in unconverted vans and cars camping in laybys and other places outwith campsites or designated overnight parking areas. These people contribute little or nothing to the local economy and are basically 'stealing'. Legislation needs to be in place to fine those using these vehicles and move them onto sites.

It costs visitors and tourists quite enough to not only travel to Shetland and then pay for often overpriced accommodation. It's an affront that's an abuse to tourists who bring in enough income to local businesses in the first place. Raising tax in this manner is just another cash cow for local councils.

Cruise ships need to be in scope as this income could be utilised to revitalise areas of the country that have had decades of decline.

1. It is unclear whether camping sites are included within the list of levied locations. 2. There needs to be great care that local authorities are not motivated, by the levy, to exacerbate the current increasing proliferation of 'no overnight staying' signs which drive motoring tourists to 'stay' elsewhere (indoors, or at a camp site) when they would otherwise 'wild' camp, responsibly, in a tent, or in a motorhome, or in a campervan, because unecessarily 'moving on' responsible campers, in this way, means increased combustion of fossil fuel and hence an increase in carbon discharge into the atmosphere - these types of responsible visitors may very well wish to return, the next day, to the same place thay they were intimidated to 'move on' from, by these signs,, thus unnecessarily putting kgs of CO2 into the atmosphere. 3. As to other contributors' comments about 'travellers' defaecatic in other than public conveniences, that is an issue for the local authorities to provde sufficient facilities (instead of selling them off aka Ayreshire), keep them open in Winter, and to cease the blanket ban on disposal of waste from on-board chemical toilets (blue chemicals) - because there are now (green) chemicals for on-board toilets which are compatible with public conveniences - 'travellers' would not get into the situation of a full on-board toilet if they could dispose of these compatible (green) chemicals via public conveniences - it is a case of provide the infrastructure, or suffer the consequences - responsible 'travellers' will be content to pay a small fee (not the typical, excessive, £6 which it currently costs to use a formal 'blue' chemical disposal point), if it enables them to dispose of their (green) waste, responsibly.

It is unclear whether (youth) hostels are included. SYHA has had to sell off some of its hostels to remain financially viable. Whilst there has been an increase in independent hostels, these struggle, finacially, to stay open - this levy will only add to their financial challenges

Motorhomes incur significant need for infrastructure and should pay their share like everyone else.

If such a levy to be introduced, then all types of accommodation should be included, including motorhomes.

It's infrastructure for campervans we need, and you're suggesting those visitors in self catering cottages and hotels should pay for them - nah

somehow those free campers need to contribute, not just those booked into formal accommodation

Anyone who has studied economics will know that introducing a tax will have a detrimental effect on tourism. Taxes are levied by governments on behaviour these wish to curtail such as levying heavy tax on cigarettes/alcohol/sugary soft drinks/polluting vehicles. Why on earth is it a good idea to tax tourists when they inject capital into the economy? This seems like a very backward step for a country which relies on tourism not just for the accommodation sector but also the many spin off benefits for restaurants/bars/ tourist attractions/transport/ shopping/ sporting facilities/theatres/concerts etc.

Caravans, Boats and Campervans may generally be stored out-of-use (either commissioned or not commissioned) in specified areas for safe-keeping without the primary intention of overnight stays. As a matter of practicality, not all of these may be stored at the owner's residential address. The proposal includes within its definion of 'accommodation' those places where there is the RIGHT to an overnight stay such as caravan parks, camp sites, moorings and boat berthings. Section 4.2 f,g,h and i. but that does not necessarily mean that the vehicle is occupied throughout its stay in that location. Very often, there will be no overnight stays of relevant visitor or tourist activity. There is a signifciamt risk that the storage and safeguarding elements of such services associated with such vehicles could be caught by the levy. The definition of 'Accomodation Portion' in 5.2 does not recognise or exclude the storage and safeguarding elements associated with such transactions. For the avoidance of doubt that includes the right for the vehicle to occupy the designated space or location. The proposed Bill will fail in its objectives to ensure Proportionality, Effectiveness and Efficiency as set out in the Policy Memorandum. It will inadvertently attach the levy to vehicles on those nights where there is no visitor or tourist stays.

it should include ALL visitors - especially campers and motorhomes, who presently represent a huge problem across the country. it also does not address the problem of residential properties taken out of the market for people who actually need to live in the area - planning permission should be required before a house can be let for holidays. Especially when they are on what is otherwise a residential street.

It should not be attached to accommodation as there are far more day visitors than overnight guests. All visitors including day trippers should contribute. An conjestion charge would work much better

I think camper vans should be charged a levy

I do not agree with government/councils trying to profiteer from tourists by bringing in this levy. Accommodation businesses already pay substantial business rates that pay for additional wear & tear in local community. However if the levy is introduced, it must be applied equally across all types of tourist accommodation - especially cruise liners and camper vans/caravans both of which make the most impact on the local environment. Camper van wild camping must be included as well perhaps using a paid permit system

I believe motorhomes and vans should be included as well as cruise ships who have a land stop in Scotland

I am part of a hillwalking club that owns 2 properties. These are let out to members at minimum cost and are purely for hillwakers. Club Members Volunteer to maintain and run the bookings and this would add an extra burden to manage the paperwork etc on volunteers who are not being paid. The club charge for the property is minimum to cover costs of maintinaining the properties. Any additional income is put into club funds to help with subsidising transport for hill walking day meets and donations to restore hillwalking paths etc Properties like this I feel should be excempt from the bill.

Scottish Community Tourism Network held a Zoom meeting to hear views. 14 people attended. 3 people agreed and 11 disagreed with this point. Breakout 1 • (An example from a small island). The biggest problem for many rural areas is day trippers, wild campers and camper vans. They have the biggest impact on our visitor services - those staying with accommodation providers are less likely to use public loos, litter bins, empty chemical waste toilets in farmers’ fields etc. Our ranger must sort it out and our community trust has to pay for it. These people won’t have to pay a levy. • On an island, which already has wild campers (who contribute little to local economies), increasing the cost of accommodation will lead to more wild campers. • A suggestion was made – It needs to come from everyone who comes to visit. If we could charge a £1 for everyone who comes to the island. What about a disembarking fee for people who came of the boat /an entrance fee. Boats and campers could just choose to go elsewhere, save twice on the fee for campsite and levy, risk that we lose income. Breakout 2 • Motor homes are an issue, it is a huge problem. It upsets the community and there are big issues around litter, waste, pollution of rivers etc when they don’t park at official sites – could VL actually exacerbate the problem by deterring people from using official sites? Same for wild camping too (Loch Lomond National Park has already introduced wild camping bylaws). • Types of accommodation covered seem fair, but motorhomes are a major problem and should be included. Needs to be addressed somehow, if not through this Bill. Other suggestions include road tolls and number plate recognition tech but recognise complexities/controversy around this approach too. • Same goes for Cruise ships but recognise that this would only impact relatively small number of councils. Breakout 3 • Concern that wild camping is not included. Any possibly income through a levy would not be being captured here as a result. A missed opportunity given the significant impact that it can have on communities without contributing anything to those communities. • There are very real concerns about the impact that motor homes have on communities. Keen to find a way to capture motor homes irrespective of whether they are at a campsite or not. • Could then apply the funds raised to mitigate the damage done by wild camping and specifically motor homes.

I have the responsibility of looking after a cottage for a hillwalking club, administering bookings, payments and organising maintenance. This is a voluntary role and members are charged a fee to cover costs and no profit is made. An extra tax will deter our members from visiting and the extra administration will further complictate and add to my workload. I feel a charge really needs to be made on those who currently overnight for free in laybys with roof top tents, old vans, campervans and motorhomes using nearby rocks and bushes as toilets.

Camper vans are out of control ithe Highlands. It must apply to them as it's them that require more facilities

Mountaineering huts run by charitable donations, and other charitable accommodation should not be included

Those staying overnight in caravans, motor homes and certainly cruise ships should be included in the proposed levy.

Should include motor homes etc as they also generate work for local authorities (roads, refuse, toilets etc)

All accommodation should be removed. This tax should be removed .The costs of infrastructure should be covered by ever increasing rates, taxes, licensing costs. Any vanity projects that council's decide to get involved with should be commercially funded.

Cruise ships and campers should most definitely be included in the levy, as they are contributing greatly to the general deterioration of quality of life for residents during the busy season, as well as contributing to damage to the infrastructure which residents are expected to pay for.

If it's to be applied surety it could be to all visitors, even those using campervans etc. They use the infrastructure as much or more than those using hotels, B&B, self catering etc.

It should include all forms of accommodation provision. Not sure why some are excluded, they all use the roads, need litter / sewerage facilities.

If it is going to be brought in, it should include all accommodation. A lot of camper vans park anywhere and dont pay for a site or shop and eat locally. But they use public toilets and other local tourist amenties. And why should cruise ships be excluded when they come ashore and use local amenities.

If a bednight tax is levied it will impact on outdoor centres and school pupils . This will add extra cost to a trip which is already under pressure due to rises in the cost of living. The number of centres in Scotland have decreased by 50% over 40 years and they are marginal in terms of finance and many are subsidized

...this type of accommodation levy has been in place in France and Switzerland, and it doesn't seem to affect tourists wishing to travel to these countries. Here this tax is a relatively small proportion, and is relative to the total cost for one overnight stay, varying from campsites and mountain huts to gites and hotels. This approach seems fairer compared to charging the same amount per person irrespective of overnight cost. With regard to camper vans/motorhomes and cruise ships, I think both these directions of concern need to be looked at separately. I don't want to discourage the spontaneity of camper vans but where these vans are being parked up, as well as where some people are 'car-camping', using their tent next to their car in inconsiderate locations, these are both issues that would benefit from extra funding that could create more spaces like 'camping and camper van management zones'. These are zones that are created in the Loch Lomond & Trossachs NP where they have reasonably priced permits that can be purchased and booked online. Whether this scheme can work for a greater area such as the Highlands would take a bit of work, but its a system that would encourage greater responsibility that was accessible to those with mobile phone connection at a reasonable cost. With regard to cruise ships, I am less familiar with this industry. However, if these visitors and the ships themselves do incur costs that exceed their benefits on local and regional economies, then it would be helpful to discuss this separately further.

visitors who are staying on campsites or camper- type laybys are using the facilities provided by the local authority, so should also pay the same levy. More facilities are needed for camper vans etc in many parts of Scotland, and a levy would help fund the provision of these. I do know that when cruise ships visit a port, the cruisers come ashore and still need toilets, litter bins etc, so they should also pay the levy.

I understand sailboats are included. If you keep your boat in a harbour on the Firth of Forth what would you be charged! Even visiting somewhere like Aberdour or Anstruther would find it difficult to administer the levy. It would just mean people anchoring more to avoid it.

I disagree with the reasoning behind the bill - its tax on those who support Scotland's grass roots tourism industry when they already pay tax on the profits they derive from their activities; corporation tax, income tax, rates etc Why should so many parts of the industry not be taxed; cruise ships, motor homes, camper vans, camping sites be excluded?

if cruise ships and motorhomes are excluded, then other mobile accommodation (eg boats using pontoons and temporary moorings, caravan sites, tents/camping) should also be excluded the definition for accommodation should start with a better definition/ principle to be followed and then examples to illustrate

Travelling to Inverness for various hospital appointments over the years it has sometimes been necessary to stay both the night before and the night after in hotel accommodation. Inverness hotels are extremely expensive anyway, without an added “ hospital tax”

Cruise ship passengers and motorhome users should also be taxed (although how on earth you could possibly facilitate that in a practical manner with motorhomes I have no idea!)

campervans, motorhomes, campers staying in a campsite or campervan- type layby/ charging area are all using the local amenities same as other visitors and locals, and should be charged. In many areas of Scotland there is a great need for more campervan type facilities which this levy could help provide.

Campervans use the same facilities as other tourists but charging them in caravan parks may lead to them clogging up laybys to avoid the charge. Likewise cruise ship passengers coming ashore will also use facilities and therefore shouldn't be exempt but it may lead to less passengers coming ashore.

Cruise ships that stay overnight should be added as well. Aren’t they overnight visitors too? In fact, all cruise ship calls should incur the Visitor Tax Levy. They maybe day visitors, but 30 tour buses a day cause an impact on the environment and roads, as well as using toilet facilities.

Cruise ships and motor homes should also be included.

Unless ALL types of accomodation is included then I think it's unfair to let caravan/motorhomes off but difficult to enforce.

You have not included motorhomes, caravans, van conversions and roof tents which are destroying communities and parking up in inappropriate locates. They clog up roads, are wild shitting everywhere, do not stop at local businesses and are frankly a pain in the arse. So many people are now moving away as they are sick to death of these freezers on wheels being everywhere. Get a grip with the numbers or watch the population of Scotland decrease. You can easily pick up these vehicles with number plate recognition. London manages it, so come on Scotland, move with the times and come out of the dark ages.

This appears to be an obvious definition, but for the avoidance of doubt, it must provide for short term lets (as with Airbnb) to be included.

This right here is why even the Scots don't holiday in their own country. The Council and Government has to stop seeing everything as a cash cow and take a step back and think what is the strategy they put forward not long ago: ‘Scotland Outlook 2030: Responsible Tourism For A Sustainable Future’, was launched in March 2020 with a bold new vision to be ‘the world leader in 21st century tourism’ and I can assure you this levy is not the way to go. I'm wondering if the government even wants visitors here? You can't even manage your budgets from your local residence, imposing a tax on tourists isn't going to sort that out. I pay so much in parking going to the shops (as well as hundreds of other on that same day), how much is coming in from that? Most of the roads need to be retarred every 3 months because you could loose your whole car in the potholes - its worse than deepest darkest Africa, and now you think imposing this levy miraculously will get you to spend money regenerating area's you've neglected or upgrading infrastructure again that you've neglected? Honestly sort out Budgets and then look at imposing penalties on the only lifeline we will have by 2030.

It excludes campers/vans/motor homes etc and these users put a strain on ferries, roads, local services. Site owners should add the levy to overnight charges

I disagree with this because there is already a threat to revenue in the form of a license for self-catering businesses. Local authorities will have additional income from that source. In recent years water rates were imposed on small businesses. How many more taxes are we to suffer?

it should include other visitors as well. There needs to be charges to unprecedented vehicle traffic to the North of Scotland. The influx of camper vans and motorhomes is untenable. Many who cause significant damage through wilfulness and ignorance

This should absolutely apply to motor homes/ camper vans and cruise ships as well.

The levy should be applied to hired motorhomes and campervans. It could be applied at the time of booking and apply for each night of the hire period.

Visitor levy should apply to all visitors, including cruise ships/motor homes/campers vans. All of whom have impact on the local area.

Cruise ships should be included as the tourists coming into Edinburgh from these ships place additional demands on local services in just the same way as those staying in hotels, B & Bs and AirBNBs.

I don't believe any accommodation providers should be included in this bill but if a small B&B is included why should a camper van that uses and in some cases abuses local facilities be excluded. ANSWER: because it would be too difficult to police them whereas a small B&B is static and an easy target for council monitoring. This is another example of govt. doing what is easy rather than what is right.

Motorhomes/campervans/roof-top tents & those car "camping" are excluded from this bill. Living in the Highlands as I do, it is clearly apparent that this group of visitors make up a significant proportion of tourists. To exclude them would be grossly unfair & particularly as these visitors bring the most environmental impact & contribute the least if anything.

Whilst I agree the practicalities of charging wild campers and motor home owners would be challenging. I fail to see why they should not be charged. Wild campers often leave landowners with expensive clear up jobs - I will leave the details to the imagination! Motor home owners rarely use campsites instead parking in lay-bys and on private land again often leaving the landowners with expensive clear up jobs. Owners of motor homes often do not contribute to the local economy in the places they visit, they come loaded with food for the week or two weeks and so often the only money they spend is on fuel. They clog up the roads and are a menace to all other vehicle drivers. Why could hired motor homes not be charged the levy easy enough to do and at least it would mean some revenue is made from them.

Campervans/ motor homes should definitely be included

It should absolutely apply to motorhomes/camper vans, this is massively growing industry in Scotland, they use local facilities like any other tourist, they have also had specific infrastructure added for their sole use, like grey waste disposal stations. (Unfortunately not all motorhomes/camper vans use the disposal facilities, and some deficate in lay-bys, on footpaths and in public carparks).

Motorhomes and campervans should pay a visitor levy as well.

Needs also to include caravan & camp parks at least, but also the cruise ships which disgorge their passengers in small and medium ports.

The Highland council have not had to create dozens of jobs to clean after people staying in B&Bs, there has been no extra bin collections at laybys for people staying in self catering, no rangers picking up poop from hotel guests and covering fire pits at beauty spots for those paying to stay - but this parliament in it's wisdom has decided to turn responsible owners of responsible business' into tax collectors to help pay for the damage being done by the one group they exclude? Sheer lunacy! More accurately a committee in Edinburgh addressing an issue in a manner that only really benefits the central belt - as a Highlander I am now questioning whether an Edinburgh government working for the central belt only is every bit as useless as a Westminster government who only work for the Southeast of England. If motor vehicles used for overnight are excluded, then this will create huge resentment in the Highlands (and I am sure other parts of the country). A vote loser if I ever saw one.

Motorhomes/camper vans cause the majority of the infrastructure damage and bring in the least money to the local economy. The only reason they are exempt is because it is unenforceable however with STL you know where we live and having our historic bookings means you know how much we make.

The extra cost should be shared evenly

• This should also include cruise ships and campervans

How much is visitor economy expenditure spent in Arran? A visitor management plan may identify. Currently challenging to answer questions in the Bill without this kind of information. Cost of doing business higher in Arran than elsewhere Needs to be a definition between ‘tourist’ and those who might be visiting to work Does this include campsites? How do you define ‘tourist’?

It should include a wild camping daily levy on motorhomes/camper vans hired in Scotland charged by the hire company at the point of hire minus all nights where the levy is paid at a campsite (which is collecting the levy). It should also include vehicles entering the UK by tunnel or ferry. This would encourage visitors to use the campsites. It would have a very positive impact by cutting down "wild" camping in laybys and turn-offs; flat parking areas in cities etc etc - this has become a significant problem in Edinburgh and on the NC500 route. It would ensure the correct processes for waste disposal and recycling of all types if vans are encouraged by the levy to use campsites - i.e. it's cheaper to pay the levy at campsites than the wild camping levy.

If being forced upon overnight accommodation providers who welcome locals into their accommodation, it should be applied to Tourists in campervans/motor homes and cruise ships - it would appear, they are the 'Tourists'.

It should apply to all the groups you want to exclude. Do we get the credit card processing fee back for all these transactions?

It should be all accommodation or none, otherwise it will just encourage more motorhomes etc, who I believe spend less money in the areas they visit because they bring everything with them. Plus cleaning up after them who wild camp is more of a burden on local areas.

The additional costs being piled onto accommodation will mean that, what have traditionally been affordable holidays for those who cannot afford hotel accommodation, will soon be out of the reach of many.

A visitor levy should be just that - an additional small charge to all tourist related activities. This is an accommodation levy (not the same thing!). The exclusion of cruise ships & campervans is a complete oversight as these are the tourists that can have the most significant negative impact on rural tourist locations with very little positive value adding to the local economy. Those who actually stay in overnight accommodation tend to be the same people who spend locally and provide a substantial boost to rural economies. Perhaps a visitor levy could be better targeted at vehicular visits and through existing tourist businesses. Also this levy will result in residents being charged a 'visitor levy' if they decide to overnight in say Inverness for medical or other purposes or even if we just decide to holiday local instead of visiting elsewhere - seems a tad unjust :-(

It will be tricky to charge motorhomes but i think it needs more thought. If one is being rented then perhaps the tax could be applied by the company (who would know how many nights it was being used). Cruise ships who berth overnight should be charged, or a different form of tax applied to them.

It is not at all clear why this should not apply to campervans or cruise ships which are using local infrastructure and placing demand on local resources. The wording in the bill is also unclear around "berths or moorings". A mooring (essentially a heavy bouyed anchor) would often be a chargeable transaction, as for cruise ships there is no intention to charge yachts visiting on passage, so who are the moorings or berths with overnight accomodation on a charged basis you are trying to capture? e.g. that reads as though someone in a rural area with their "own" mooring leased from the crown estate / local mooring assoc / boat yard is liable even if it is vacant, or the boat is not being used for accomodation but the visiting yacht is not? That doesn't appear to have been thought through.

People working in an area or relocating temporarily due to damage to their own home would be caught in this. This could add considerable costs to stays that can be weeks to months in duration. They are not really transient visitors.

Cruise ships and motorhomes/campervans should be charged as well. They account for the majority of visitor numbers in my area, bring in the least money and use all facilities for free right now. Most motorhomes/campervans do not stay on a campsite, but in laybys.

Boat moorings (Section 4(2)(h)) need different handling. Boats have to be moored even when they are not in use as overnight accommodation. Moorings already incur a levy paid to the Crown Estate, payable whether the mooring is in use, not in use, used for an overnight stay or used for storage. Generally, the approach of the Scottish Government to tourism appears to be extremely negative, despite this sector contributing about 5% to national GDP (https://www.gov.scot/publications/tourism-scotland-economic-contribution-sector/pages/5/). Not only have the government introduced strict, wide-ranging, costly and onerous controls on small businesses providing tourist accommodation (almost 70% of all tourism businesses) it now proposes to add a further charge imposing further costs on businesses which, paradoxically, have been identified as a critical growth sector. It is sobering to note that some 60% of accommodation providers are planning to close in 2023 because of the implementation of the Licencing of Short Term Lets Order (2022).

No visitors should be charged

Caravan parks and motorhome parks encourage tourism to Scotland and as such provide much needed income for communities. Any additional tax would in my opinion discourage tourists from using these facilities and encourage overseas travel where visitors are welcomed.

It should not be implemented at all. Sort out government spending the way every Scottish tourism business owner has to and budget accordingly - taxing visitors is not a positive strategy.

International Hotel chains may be able to cope with the bureaucracy of collecting this tax however small business owners will find this very expensive and onerous and accordingly it should only be levied by large businesses and small businesses should not have to levy the tax. The costs for the government of auditing several thousand small businesses would cost more than the tax would raise.

We are currently wading through red tape and expense for a license. This is another burden and won’t do anything to encourage tourism which brings so much money to Scotland’s economy.

The main problem we have is campervans - this does nothing to ameliorate this problem and could very possibly encourage more people away from bricks and mortar accommodation and towards campervans and other 'wild camping'.

It should apply across the board, and possibly to visitor attra ctions too

The “types of accommodation” listed should be amended as “boat moorings or berthings” are not typically recognised under normal definitions of accommodation, as they are primarily a safe haven for the vessel. I strongly support the considered viewpoint of RYA Scotland to this bill

There should be a way of charging Camper vans and motorhomes as they are using the roads, toilets, car park, bins etc. Many Apps that these visitors use tell them where to park for free so they contribute very little to the regions. Having seen the mess left on the NC500 route there must be some way to collect this. Is the levy per night eg a selfcatering is let for av 7 nights for pay 7 times levy?

My issue with this is it is only being aimed at people who already bring money to the area. It should not just apply to those who are paying for accommodation. Campers and motorhomes cause far more problems and arent being included. Utter madness

"overnight accommodation" should ONLY apply to cruise ships and motorhomes/camper vans. These forms of tourism are utterly destructive of our land, our communities, or environment and our infrastructure. And they destroy the planetary climate too. On no account should it apply to B7B providers who are the keystone of a rural economy.

You have completely ignored the major source of contention among people living and working in the Highlands; those who " wild camp " in motorhomes and campervans. They soil the landscape, threaten the flora and fauna and contribute next to nothing to the local economy. These people should shoulder the majority of the burden of any visitor tax.

It should not be applied to moorings for visiting yachts - the amount of money collected would be small compared to the cost/administration of collection and it would discourage on a point of principle visiting boats from the UK and abroad

I disagree strongly with the visitor levy being charged ONLY to tourists staying in hotels/B&Bs/self-catering houses. Much of the negative impact of over-tourism comes from the hordes of visitors who come to my area (the Highlands) in motorhomes, campervans and other vehicles. These tourists clog the roads, often making life difficult for local residents during the tourist season, and many park and camp irresponsibly and cause damage to the natural environment by ignoring the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and/or disposing of their waste irresponsibly. Whether or not they stick to the rules, they need to pay the Visitor Levy and contribute to the provision of the infrastructure they use. there is even an argument for them paying a higher levy, because people in motorhomes tend to stock up on supplies in city supermarkets and put less into the local economy than those who are paying for accommodation provided by local businesses.

All visitors should pay, including cruise ships. 5000 people on a boat and 150 boats visiting each year one tax Pound would pay for a few toilets in the Highlands.

Why should camper vans who wear out our roads and pollute our environment be allowed to visit for free when they use most of roads and public toilets anyway?

If Scotland has to have a visitors tax then it should apply to ALL visitors. This idea to exclude cruise ships and camper vans is ludicrous and makes a mockery of the whole thing. All tourists use the infrastructure of Scotland not just those that stay in accommodation.

The visitors you could be charging are the cruise liner passengers and the day trippers as they may not necessarily contribute to Orkney's economy while they are in Orkney. Also, the campervan and caravan visitors as they often take their provisions with them and do not necessarily pay to stay on a site either and so could avoid the levy.

Cruise liner passengers have started to use the service buses, leaving locals without transport as the buses are full. You are not intending to put a levy on this type of tourism but we have to tolerate the cost of road repairs and the well documented lack of toilets as well as the threat to our hotel and short term let tourism.

Overnight accommodation should not be the criteria.

The visitors who stay for a week or longer pay to see visitor sites when they can get near them whereas day trippers often go to the places that are free such as Yesnaby, the Standing Stones etc. Tour buses are now going down narrow roads such as the Bigswell road. These places are not suitable for buses and in consequences the verges are suffering.

There should be no more taxes in the tourism sector, least of all in struggling, depopulating areas becoming more difficult to access. It would be a further burden on an industry already hit by STL, the effects of which are currently unknown and only to be guessed at. I don’t think providers should shoulder the burden of tax collecting for local government.

The proposal to charge a levy on boat moorings and berthings (Section 5(2)h) has potential safety implications. The widely accepted alternative is to anchor a vessel but a properly rated mooring or berth will provide additional security to the vessel and if appropriate its occupants, particularly in rough seas or extreme weather conditions. Furthermore, berthing provides a safer means for personnel to access the shore or go on board. It is more appropriate for provisioning or loading equipment. It avoids the need to make possibly multiple transfers in small dinghies. Imposition of visitor levies as set out in the proposed Bill will result in a reduction in the use of moorings and berthing in favour of anchoring. This will inevitably result in fatalities, injury and damage to property. In assessing the Effectiveness of the proposed levy, the Scottish Ministers will wish to be informed of the behavioural responses that such a levy will trigger and consider these in the context of the Framework for Tax 2021, incorporated in their Policy Memorandum.

I would like to see motorhomes and camper vans included in the Levy as they also have an impact on local facilities, but understand this could be difficult to introduce. Would camp sites/glamping be included? What about accommodation at Festivals and the Caledonian sleeper? These may need to be considered to either in or exclude.

This should include the camper van hordes, who all use/misuse local facilities but who would be exempt from charges under the bill. The over tourism on the so called NC500 is a blight on locals and leaves everyone, including Highland Council with the clean up costs. These tourists barely contribute to the local economy, with their widely publicised "freeloader camp sites", often illegal, but there isn't the money to pay for policing their poor behaviours. Charge the hire companies, have them pass on the costs to the people hiring the vans, then use the revenue generated to better police the poor behaviours. The so called "rallies" in everything from the scrap-head ready heaps of junk, to the high performance track focused cars should also be charged. Again, there seems to be an attitude of entitlement and a complete lack of respect for locals, so charging them or possibly fining them for not paying the tourist leavy, may be the first step in teaching these idiots some manners and road sense.

Home sharing should be exempt from this.

I am a member of a hillwalking club that owns two properties are let out to members and their guests. The properties are maintained and run by Club Members. This bill would increase the paperwork that the volunteers need to do and they aren't paid. Club members in effect are owners of the property through their membership. When they stay at any of the properties they pay a fee towards the upkeep of the properties. This is to prevent the financial burden of upkeep falling to those Club members who dont use the properties. The wording in this section of the bill means that any Club member who stays at the properties temporarily and will be taxed for staying at a property they own indirectly. Consideration needs to be given to properties that are owned by clubs and run and maintained by volunteers and do not make a profit.

As a Scottish tax payer why should I be taxed to spend an overnight in Scotland? Will we tax islanders who leave the island and stay on the mainland for an overnight stay

May be in Edinburgh but elsewhere it is just going to put some visitors off from coming, economic fact, so actually you may not raise any more money overall!

Another bureaucratic measure for businesses to have to sort out. They pay tax already and it's not a highly profitable industry. Excepting may be where demand is high such as Edinburgh.

This is completely unreasonable burden on small business owners who are working extremely hard to provide a high quality hospitality business which injects a great deal of money into the local economy as tourists all spend a lot of money on holiday on leisure activities, bars, restaurants, ferries. Self catering business owners are already more regulated than in any other country and it is beyond ridiculous to penalise them further by making them now tax gatherers for the local council. These are all generally extremely small businesses with limited skills and facilities to be able to gather taxes. I am utterly amazed at the Scottish Government’s desire to shoot itself in the foot in penalising this valuable sector. The costs associated with the new licensing scheme with this tax collection now on top will mean that the government will lose a huge number of self catering properties which will have a huge impact on the Scottish economy. This is a very self defeating policy for a government hoping to be able to finance an independent Scotland.

Why not campervans and motorhomes? They should be the first to pay for a levy. Using public services such as rubbish bins, roads, layby parkin, toilets etc. yet often using onboard catering facilities with shopping brought from home. Not contributing Same with cruise ships. People coming onshore and using facilities but not necessarily contributing anything to the local economy.

Not mountain huts as it discourages use of walking and the health benefits of being outdoors and infringes the right to roam through the Land Reform Act.

Cruise ships and motorhomes/campervans should be included as they are the ones causing the problems with infrastructure. The wild camping ethos is Scotland needs amended as most don't understand that it does not apply to motor vehicles. They are the ones who need more emptying points and parking places. Touristis/ visitors staying in proper accommodation are not the problem!

It is essential that the Bill apply to visitors that are not staying in paid accommodation - specifically, motorhomes, campervans, converted vans, vehicles with pop-up tents, even cars used for sleeping and tents beside the road. This group pays for nothing and many would argue that they cost communities the most.

Motohomes and cruise ships should be included because of the impact they have on the infrastructure of Scotland.

I disagree because it is important that clubs that own property where members can stay and pay a fee to cover running and maintenance costs should be exempt

the more you make the better the roads will be for every one

Camper vans and caravans SHOULD pay.This really needs addressed as it's a growing problem when you live in the Highlands.

The type of property must exclude properties owned by clubs where the property is only rented to members and the fee paid by members for using the property is to cover running and maintenance costs (ie - not for profit).

The Bill should exclude properties owned by clubs for the sole use of its members. I belong to a walking club that owns two properties and rental fees paid by members are used to maintain and run the property. The principle here is that club members should not have to pay a tax to use a property the club owns for use solely by its members.

Not for profit accommodation such a private club huts should be excluded

Huts owned by walking clubs should be excluded because they are run by volunteers on a non-profit basis. Such huts are mainly used by members of the club concerned.

I am a member of a club which owns 2 properties. These properties are managed by club members on a voluntary basis and are available for the use of club members throughout the year. The income all goes towards maintaining and improving the properties as well as funding and running the club on a not for profit basis. Why on earth should club members be taxed for the privilege of staying in properties owned by the club. Club properties must be exempted from such a levy.

The tourist levy is a small price to pay to help with the public costs of tourism. However, it is essential that any levy MUST include vehicles used for sleeping (motorhomes, caravans, converted vans, even cars).

8 people DISAGREE This should exclude a room in an occupied flat or home Camper vans should be included Cruise ships should also be considered (understand that this is underway) Agree but there should be more exclusions as above

The Visitor Levy Bill was discussed at our recent meeting where it was agreed that it should apply to all visitors, including cruise ship passengers.

In our Local Authority area one of the main pressures from tourists is campervans yet they are omitted from the definition of overnight accommodation. So either it is intended to collect revenue from one type of tourist stay to fund improvements for other types of tourist stay not covered by the Levy. This is however not equitable. Or not improve facilities desperately needed for campervans such as toilets, parking facilities, sewage disposal facilities etc. This makes this look as though the Visitor Levy Bill is a piece of legislation designed for the urban areas of central Scotland without addressing the issues of rural tourism in the remoter locations. We do understand that the answer may not be charging a Levy at caravan/camping sites as this might discourage people to stay at these sites, though at the level of taxation this is doubtful. But one thing is for sure this Bill should find a way to collect revenue from campervans so prevalent on the popular NC500 to help the communities on the route.

Back to group

This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation

Your Priorities on GitHub

Check out the Citizens Foundation website for more information