Tourism in the Scottish Highlands is a major, but fragile industry.

The biggest private employemnt sector in the region, but highly seasonal and subject to local and national travel trends, economic conditions and remarkably heavily taxed and regulated, causing it to be a regular political football.

Following a change in legislation by the Scottish Government, local authorities were empowered to implement various levies, one of which was a tourist tax, officially called Transient Visitor Levy and as such a consultation was launched.  Our reponse follows below.  Due to the structure of the consultation, I have summariased the questions, but the responses are a direct copy and paste:

The levy will apply to purchases of overnight accommodation throughout the whole of the Highland Council (THC) area.

The tourism industry is currently in an extremely precarious position. It’s popularity is declining, the effects of seasonality are increasing and the running costs of staying in businesses are extreme.  In our case, which I’m sure is relective of many similar consumer facing businesses, approximately 60% of our turnover is a tax or duty in some form. As one of the already most taxed sectors, an additional burden is unfair and unacceptable.

However, my truly fundamental disagreement with proposal is that it is offensive to the Highland culture.  The Highland culture and traditions of hospitality and welcome are so important to the people of this region, and to degrade that with an arbitrary levy in order to compensate for local and National financial mismanagement, is truly offensive.

While I accept that certain regions suffering from lack of investement such as Skye, may benefit from a locally administered fee, the rest of the region should not suffer for the benefit of few.

The Visitor Levy Scheme will come into force by the Highland Council at the earliest practicable date as permitted by law, giving due regard to the Act and the Council’s decision-making processes. The Council anticipates introducing the Visitor Levy Scheme in Highland by Autumn 2026.

Firstly a timeline of 2026 is ridiculous. The time required to restructure our businesses by reducing staff to cope with the downturn in buisiness and reforming our business model to cope with additional administration will take time to allow for staff consulations and future planning for them to retrain for alternative employment.

If Autumn is genuinely the preferred time of year for the implentation, as we decend in to our long quiet period, where many businesses close for the winter anyway, will just be a costly administrative burden for THC.

It will put the region at a significant competative disadvantage to our neighbouring regions, which may not implement the levy, at a time when we need revenue most.

Following its introduction in Highland by Autumn 2026, the Visitor Levy Scheme will remain in force until further notice (indefinitely).

If trialled at all, it should be reviewed at the next election cycle in order that those narrowminded enough to think this is a good idea can be removed from decision making positions.

The justification statement above is verging on comical.  The “financial pressures on the council” would be better served by putting council assets to better use.  Hundreds of properties sitting idle, not generating any revenue at all while others are still massively under-utilised, wasteful spending on IT, pointless legal cases, repairing roads that have been torn up by utility companies and not reinstated adequately. resurfacing roads which don’t need it while others are dangerous.  The list goes on and on.  The point is, there is no doubt that a village would rather lose it’s public toilets than it’s pub. don’t jeopardise our communities and our life’s work for the sake of a budget adjustment or a minor renegotiation of your central funding settlement.

The Visitor Levy will apply every day of the year without variation.

Of course the levy would have to remain constant, but there should be no levy on this already over taxed sector.

The levy rate will be 5% in respect of the accommodation portion of the chargeable transaction.

5%!!  So for someone from Fort William, who wanted to celebrate an anniversary weekend in Torridon, for example. That would be an additional £125, directly in to their own local authorities coffers. Crazy.  That should be spent on enjoying a visitor attraction, or lunch at a local cafe or buying local crafts and produce.  This supports local employment and sustainable communities far better than being lost in the council budgets.

5%!! So for someone from Perth who wants to go skiing in Aviemore on one of the rare weekends the snow is good, the weather is, well reasonable, and they book a B&B for a couple of nights, that extra £20 on top of their ski pass, train fair, ski hire etc. may be enough to say, actually we’ll just go to Glenshee or maybe do it as a day trip.

Please consider the wider implications of your actions.

To begin with this consultation was frustrating, in the middle verging on comical (if it wasn’t so serious) but now I’m genuinely worried about the elected officials and council officers involved.  The damage this would do to the Highland economy at 5% is significant, proposing a higher levy is just (please forgive my bluntness) idiotic.

 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the Visitor Levy Scheme objectives?

• SUSTAIN public services and infrastructure used by businesses, communities and visitors to ensure the impacts of visitors are strategically and sustainably managed.
• SUPPORT the delivery of a thriving tourism sector offering a wide range of visitor experiences by working together, in partnership, with businesses, visitors and communities.
• DEVELOP innovative approaches to balance strategic demands and opportunities ensuring that Highland achieves its full potential as a highly positioned destination for visitors.

Sustain

Already paid for by our non domestic rates.

Support

Generally, this is a private sector reponsibility, with the exception of other major bodies such as NTS, Forestry & Land Scotland and HES.  Experiences such as leisure centres, libraries etc have wider community benefits, rather than tourism specific.  Supporting the private sector is supporting local employment.  Supporting by keeping the roads accessible, car parks maintained (many of which are self funding) refuse collected (for which business have to pay extra on top of business rates), is already a statutory duty.

Develop.

A visitor levy runs contrary to this mission.  Creating a welcoming, well planned business environment. encouraging investment and continuous improvement from the existing buisness community should not and could not evolve from repelling potential customers.  The PR from a visitor levy is essentially hanging a sign on the A82 and A9 saying, “Go home, you’re not welcome here.”

Annual reports will be prepared for the Visitor Levy Scheme and will include a range of information, for example, how the net proceeds have been used and progress on achieving the Scheme objectives. These reports will be presented to the relevant Strategic Committee or a meeting of the Highland Council.

At least every 3 years a review of the Scheme will be undertaken, and a report of the findings will be presented to the relevant Strategic Committee or a meeting of the Highland Council.

The Council will share and engage with the Visitor Levy Forum regarding these reports and will seek advice from the Forum on relevant matters, including operation of the Visitor Levy Scheme in Highland.

Regular review of all public income and expenditure is of course necessary.  Even though this is a levy rather than a tax, the population must know the gross income and corresponding surplus or deficit generated by the scheme and what it has been spent on.  There must also be thorough economic impact assessments to show what benefit or detriment the levy has.

I would suggest that the tourism levy forum is made up of no more than 50% public sector representatives.

To ensure the administration of the Scheme is kept to a minimum, and to maximise the revenues generated to sustain, support and develop the visitor economy, the Council will not exercise its discretion to apply local exemptions.

The Visitor Levy Scheme will be payable by all accommodation businesses, including those which have an annual turnover below the VAT threshold.

There already exists a problem in fragile Highland communities where accommodation providers open until the reach the VAT threshold, then close, essentially leaving large properties empty, economically inactive and depriving their local communities of year round sustainable employment.  This also has the effect of dramatically decreasing the economic benefits to other parts of the community such as retail, transport etc.

The point remains however, that while some of the tourist honeypots may wish to impose a seasonal, local visitor fee, many parts of the region are too economically fragile to suffer this policy.

If Inverness/Loch Ness DMOs or Skye Connect see a case for a local levy, that should be left to them, not imposed on entire region which is subject to very difficult trading conditions already.

11.1 To what extent do you agree or disagree with this position in relation to the administration of reimbursement for national exemptions?

Rather than putting the burden on the accommodation provider, a better idea would be to encourage visitors to pay in to the portal directly.  For example, a QR code for each local authorities page/account in the portal, in each registered property that the customer could scan and it would allow them to pay the levy directly to the local authority.  Far more cost effective and reliable.  While I understand this may be difficult for some members of society without mobile phones, it is likely that the loss of revenue vs the additional administration costs of the current proposal would be insignificant.

The Highland Council will establish a Visitor Levy Forum within 6-months of deciding to implement a Visitor Levy Scheme, with representation from Highland tourism businesses, communities and relevant tourism organisations. The Forum will have an important role in considering and advising on the use of the net proceeds. The Forum will be advisory, and its purpose will be to provide advice to the Council in a number of areas relating to the operation of a Visitor Levy Scheme.
The Council’s governance arrangements for decision-making will be used to make the decisions on the use of the net proceeds from the scheme. These decisions will be made by Strategic Committees or at meetings of the Highland Council.

The Scheme objectives together with the Council’s Sustainable Tourism Strategy will provide the strategic direction for making those decisions.

The decision making process should be arms length from the local authority, with a bias more to those who would benfit directly from or be impacted most by the levy.  There have been too many occassions where the normal democratic processes of the council have not been representative of the constituents.  But rather the agendas of individuals who have been elected at stage 4 or 5, but retained influence due to their history with THC rather than being a first choice of their electorate.

As such the power to use the funds generated shoiuld not be influenced by these individuals, instead, THC should apply for the funds to be released on a project by project basis.

As a tourism operator in both public and private sectors for 25 years, holding a degree in tourism and having contributed to various tourism commitees in my career, I truly hope that I have impressed the ridiculousness of this scheme.  Tourism, by it’s nature is driven by trends and fashion, and in such a fragile economy as the Highlands, which is so dependant on this income, to put the golden goose on the chopping block is an insult to all who have worked hard to share this special place.