As Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram pushes for a ‘tourist tax’, Liverpool BID Company insists its current £2-a-night levy is better than a ‘politically-led project’ that ‘risks unpicking the good work done by the private sector’. Tony McDonough reports
Liverpool BID Company has come out against Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram’s plans to levy a ‘tourist tax’ on overnight stays in Liverpool city region.
In early June Mr Rotheram joined other Metro Mayors in seeking devolved powers allowing them to introduce a ‘visitor levy’ on people visiting their regions. He claims a Liverpool city region visitor levy could raise almost £11m a year.
However, a £2-a-night levy has already been introduced in Liverpool this month administered by the city’s Accommodation BID (ABID), one of the BID run by Liverpool BID Company.
Hoteliers and accommodation providers who are members of the ABID voted in favour of the levy earlier this year.
Now Liverpool BID Company has joined other UK business leaders and hospitality associations to write a letter to Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy.
Signed by representatives of the private sector in locations such as Chester, Manchester and Birmingham, the letter insists the private sector-led levies are preferable to a tourist tax, which it calls a “politically-led project”.
The letter states: “We come together with a shared and purposeful voice with a need to raise key and critical issues here that could pose a serious threat to the health, vibrancy and economic stability of our major cities and specifically the fragile hospitality industry.
“…There are two English cities with successful visitor levies in place – Liverpool and Manchester. Both visitor levies are in place through well-established ABIDS. Visitor levies are not a tourist tax. A tax can only be implemented by a local government or central government.
“The overnight visitor levies are instead administered by the hotels who have, collectively, put individual systems in place to manage the collection. They are invested into a pot with a clear and transparent business plan that has been voted for.”
Their letter counters the Metro Mayors’ assertion that there is “currently no dedicated income stream to reinvest in the tourism sector’s long term growth” saying the ABIDs currently raise more than £6m a year.
“These funds are entirely focused on supporting the visitor economy in city centres and dedicated to developing tourism offers. Both ABIDs attract visitor numbers in their tens of millions annually and bring hundreds of millions to their city in total economic impact,” it added.
This letter goes on to say that the cash raised is “managed and administered by independent, industry-led boards”. It explains: “A transparent and democratic process implements a BID, and the administration after implementation is equally rigorous.
It goes on: “The role that the private sector plays in cities and towns is critical. It is the hotel industry that has led on the implementation of the visitor levy, and that continues to push for it.
“…The ABID is now a proven working model. It is a specific model that focuses on driving forward a sustainable visitor economy and fundamentally increasing visits, not dissuading them, as exemplified by the tourist taxes in Venice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.”
READ MORE: Chancellor offers cash for Liverpool-Manchester rail and Southport Pier
In conclusion the letter says: “While there is support within the hotel industry for a visitor levy under the current successful model, there is little support for it as a politically-led project.
“It threatens that a private sector-led initiative will be undermined by another tax system that creates further division between the public and private sector.
“It risks unpicking all of the good work done by the private sector in building a flourishing and thriving visitor economy among some of our hardest hit communities, and we would appeal to the government to not introduce these powers without detailed consultation with the sector and consideration of the likely negative impact of any new powers.”