0 comments
A charge on overnight stays could give Britain’s cities more money to spend on the people who visit them. But with holidays already feeling like a luxury, is this really the moment to make them more expensive?
There are few things more reliably British than complaining about something we secretly love. Sure, the weather is one – but what about tourists? In a blinding bit of great news for crowd-haters, England’s regional mayors are being handed the chance to impose a tourist tax. But do we really want quieter cities?
Under government plans announced this week, mayors – and other local leaders – will be able to impose a levy on overnight stays in hotels, B&Bs and other accommodation. Unlike the flat-rate charges currently used in some places, the new levy could be a percentage of the cost of a stay, with no national cap.
The argument being that tourists use local infrastructure, from public transport and pavements to parks and public toilets, so why shouldn’t they contribute towards maintaining it? Critics of the tax, however, suggest that amidst a struggling economy, making family holidays an even greater expense will deter visitors – and negatively impact locals – in the long run.
For a generation that has grown accustomed to Ryanair price alerts, £7.50 airport sandwiches and the creeping realisation that a weekend in Europe can cost less than one in the UK, the debate is particularly relevant. So, what are the pros and cons?
The most obvious argument in favour of a tourist tax is that tourism costs money. Visitors arrive in a city, eat in its restaurants, use its transport, visit its attractions and, crucially, make demands on the public services that keep those places functioning. A contribution from people who are there temporarily could help pay for the infrastructure they use.
The money could also improve the destinations themselves, a bonus for tourists and residents alike. Liverpool City Region mayor Steve Rotheram estimates a levy could raise up to £18m a year there, with the money potentially going towards events, culture and infrastructure. Other mayors have suggested spending the revenue on everything from street cleaning to night buses.
And there is a certain logic to asking visitors to help fund the places they come to enjoy. If a city’s tourism economy depends on its streets being clean and its cultural scene thriving, investing in those things could ultimately make it a more attractive destination. In theory, at least, it is a virtuous circle. Tourists pay a little more, the city gets a little better, and everyone wins.
Tourist taxes are hardly a bold new concept. Cities like Amsterdam, New York and (perhaps most famously) Venice already charge visitors for overnight stays, while Edinburgh introduced a 5% visitor levy this summer. Scotland’s system is capped at five nights.
It’s easy to see the attraction for cash-strapped local authorities. If governments want mayors to have more control over their regions, giving them another way to raise money (and allowing them to decide where it goes) is arguably part of the deal.
The problem is that a ‘little tax’ adds up surprisingly quickly. UKHospitality has warned that the levy could add around £100 to £120 to the average family holiday. And because the proposed English system would be uncapped, there are concerns about what happens if local authorities become increasingly reliant on the money.
Seeing everyone crying about the tourist tax. Having travelled the UK visiting many seaside towns that are so desperately in need of investment, surely this tax puts money into the hands of local people? So bored of seeing people boohooing over tax.
— Mik Scarlet (@MikScarlet) September 10, 2026
