← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Proposed Visitor Levy — [Clive Efford in the Chair]
25 March 2026
Lead MP
Damian Hinds
East Hampshire
Con
Responding Minister
Alison McGovern
Tags
EconomyTaxationEmploymentCulture, Media & SportBusiness & TradeLocal Government
Word Count: 13913
Other Contributors: 18
At a Glance
Damian Hinds raised concerns about proposed visitor levy — [clive efford in the chair] in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
Hinds asks the Government to commit to writing any ring-fencing requirements for visitor levies into primary legislation, ensuring that funds are used exclusively for incremental activities in the tourism sector. He also requests that the Minister address the issue of structural changes needed to avoid further job losses and economic downturns.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Damian Hinds is concerned about the potential negative impact of a proposed visitor levy on inbound international tourism, youth unemployment, local economies, and job creation. He points out that Britain scores highly in terms of cultural attractions but poorly in value compared to other countries, which could lead to a loss in market share. The levy would push up costs for visitors, potentially reducing domestic tourism, and already struggling sectors like hospitality would face additional burdens due to business rates and national insurance contributions.
Chris Webb
Lab
Blackpool South
Chris Webb, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, expressed concerns about the proposed visitor levies, citing their impact on businesses in Blackpool. He highlighted that a modest levy of £2 per night would widen competitiveness gaps with Europe. Additionally, he stressed the importance of reviewing VAT rates to match European levels and ensuring any new revenue from levies is retained locally to benefit tourism infrastructure.
Danny Beales
Lab
Uxbridge and South Ruislip
He questioned whether a tourist levy would reduce tourism in much-visited cities such as Paris and Rome, suggesting it could fund cultural activities and policing investments.
West Dunbartonshire
Mr. McAllister noted that the visitor levy is set to bring in £1.7 million annually in his constituency, advocating for investment consultation with local businesses and trade.
Emma Lewell
Lab
South Shields
Questions why there is no requirement for mayors to consult with local MPs before making decisions, suggesting that local MPs have better knowledge of their constituencies.
Emma Lewell-Buck
Lab
South Shields
South Shields is heavily reliant on tourism with nearly 6 million visitors annually. Rising costs such as energy and VAT make a tourist tax unfeasible at this time, potentially leading to job losses and economic downturn in the area. The tax seems out of line with the Government's goals for youth employment and local economy revival.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Tourist infrastructure is crucial in Strangford, a coastal and rural area. Concerned about the impact of tourism levies on local businesses like family B&Bs and Airbnbs. The levy would make Northern Ireland more expensive compared to the Republic of Ireland, potentially harming the region's economy.
Joe Powell
Lab
Kensington and Bayswater
He emphasised the impact of short-term lets like Airbnbs on antisocial behaviour and property issues in Kensington and Bayswater, welcoming the introduction of a levy to collect contributions from such rentals.
Jonathan Brash
Lab
Hartlepool
He argued that the proposed holiday tax would drive investment away from areas like Hartlepool, which struggle to attract tourists compared with other regions.
Julian Smith
Con
Skipton and Ripon
Mr. Smith expressed concern over entrepreneurs struggling with post-covid issues, national insurance rates, and other factors, suggesting the levy should be paused until businesses recover. Mr Julian Smith expressed concern that a visitor tax proposed by the Mayor of York would negatively impact businesses in rural North Yorkshire, despite potential benefits for urban areas like York.
Nigel Huddleston
Con
Droitwich and Evesham
Questions the Labour Government's stance on the tourism industry, citing over 200,000 job losses since the Chancellor's first Budget, with more than half in tourism and hospitality. Expresses concerns about additional taxes on an already taxed sector generating £147 billion annually and employing over 2 million people. Criticises the impact of increased national insurance, business rates changes, and above-inflation increases in minimum wage. Raises practical questions about implementation details such as who is covered by the tax (e.g., B&Bs, caravans) and potential exceptions for groups like Guides.
Peter Fortune
Con
Bromley and Biggin Hill
He stated that the proposed tourist levy was not in the Government's manifesto and had caught businesses off guard due to a lack of consultation, making an already difficult situation worse for them.
Rachael Maskell
Lab Co-op
York Central
Ms Rachael Maskell supported a visitor levy to address the financial strain on local services caused by tourism. She suggested that half of the collected funds should be reinvested in the community and proposed exemptions for certain forms of accommodation, advocating for a flat-rate fee benchmarked at £4 per tourist.
Rachel Blake
Lab Co-op
Cities of London and Westminster
She supported introducing an overnight visitor levy, stating that it would enable localities to reflect the particular needs of their neighbourhoods. Rachel Blake argued for a 50:50 split in London, allowing local authorities to keep part of the receipts. She mentioned that Westminster city council spent £31 million on street cleaning and £18.3 million on visitor and commuter services in 2023-24.
Rachel Gilmour
Lib Dem
Tiverton and Minehead
Tourism in Tiverton and Minehead supports around two thirds of all employment on Exmoor, generating £682 million annually. While Rachel supports localising power, she warns that introducing a visitor levy now could impose additional costs and complexity for hospitality businesses already facing challenges. She calls for clear assurances that any revenues would be ringfenced and reinvested locally to support the visitor economy without being absorbed into broader budgets unless clearly aligned with defined strategies.
Robbie Moore
Con
Keighley and Ilkley
Mr Robbie Moore expressed concern over the proposed tourist tax, citing a campaign by Toby Hammond to seek an exemption for under-18s and volunteer groups. He noted that West Yorkshire had secured a full exemption for Scouts, Brownies, and Girl Guides but criticized Mayor of West Yorkshire Tracy Brabin's dismissive attitude towards such concerns. Moore highlighted potential negative impacts on the hospitality sector, Scout leaders, and tourist groups in his constituency, suggesting it was another tax on British people rather than tourists.
Steffan Aquarone
Lib Dem
North Norfolk
He expressed support for a visitor contribution levy, estimating it could raise over £2 million annually for North Norfolk. Steffan Aquarone stressed the importance of reinvesting any income in local communities and criticised opponents who suggested that such a small additional cost would deter tourists from visiting North Norfolk.
Steve Darling
Lib Dem
Torbay
Mr. Darling highlighted the VAT rate disparity between the UK and European countries, suggesting that Labour's national insurance hikes have negatively impacted the hospitality industry across the country. Steve Darling noted that the levy should not be considered in isolation but as part of a larger tax system, referencing previous tax increases that have affected tourism negatively.
Tom Gordon
Lib Dem
Harrogate and Knaresborough
Tourism is vital for many local communities in North Yorkshire, but a proposed overnight visitor levy could be detrimental. Tom Gordon argues that the lack of funding and involvement from town and parish councils makes it impossible to ensure fair use of revenue raised by such levies. He raises concerns about the potential impact on day-trippers, short-term lets, and young people's activities like Scout camps. The MP calls for transparency in how the money is spent and insists that local communities should benefit directly from any levy imposed. Asks the Minister whether devolution is meaningful if local mayors do not have the necessary funding to implement policies, such as removing a time limit on disabled bus passes.
Government Response
Alison McGovern
Government Response
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing today's debate on the proposed visitor levy in England. The tourism industry plays an important part of our economy and the approach we are taking is based in the strengthening of devolution. Recent decades of devolution have begun to show a different story: when we give local leaders real powers, they can take better decisions, invest for the long term and change their fortunes. A modest levy can provide a reliable income stream that mayors can reinvest in local infrastructure, transport and the visitor economy itself. The consultation proposed that the levy would apply to commercially let short-term accommodation, not a main residence. We received more than 1,000 responses from mayors, local authorities, hospitality representatives, independent accommodation providers and many others. Those responses covered a wide range of views, and they will continue to inform our thinking about the design of this power. Any money raised through a visitor levy should be reinvested in those places where it is generated. The Government will set out their legislative priorities for the second Session of this Parliament in the King's Speech, which we expect to provide the framework for local leaders to introduce a visitor levy before the end of this Parliament.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.