Aberdeen City Council is considering introducing a 7% visitor levy – one of the highest in Scotland. Industry experts are raising concerns about its potential impact on tourism, business travel, and the local economy. Fiona Campbell, CEO of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, has called for a fair and well-considered approach, warning against unintended consequences.
Fiona Campbell, CEO of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, said:
“Aberdeen City Council are putting the cart before the horse. If they desire to grow their tourism-related economy, this is precisely the wrong way to go about it. A punitive rate of 7% would be more than that envisaged by other cities like Glasgow or Edinburgh. Moreover, it is important to understand this is a tax on a tax: the 7% levy itself would be subject to 20% VAT, something unheard of in Europe. Other destinations have a reduced rate of VAT on tourism services, where Scotland does not.
The Council also need to be open about who will be paying. This is not an ‘international’ visitor levy paid only by foreign tourists with exemptions for residents, but one applicable to ordinary Scots staying overnight in Aberdeen, those who have already made a financial contribution to local services. Cruise ship passengers docking at Aberdeen harbour won’t be captured by it.
However, it will be a tax on those with overnight stays taking in a concert at the P&J Live or Music Hall; it will be a tax on those staying in accommodation while visiting a relative at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary; and it will be a tax on key workers in the energy industry requiring a stay before heading offshore. And as with all taxes, the only way is up, especially when councils are starved of funds. A rate of 7% smacks more of an easy revenue raiser rather than anything else.
Aberdeen Council must take stock, tread carefully and listen to the voice of business who will ultimately be responsible for administering this. Overall, any levy must be set fairly, have good governance and thoughtful implementation at its heart, and monies raised for tourist infrastructure only. Failure to take these steps could result in a policy that erodes the very industry it is supposedly intended to support.”