Cruise Ship Levy: consultation analysis

12. Title of a cruise ship levy

The term ‘cruise ship levy’ was used throughout the consultation paper to describe the proposed levy. Respondents were asked about the suitability of the term in a closed question, and an open text space was available for them to comment on the name.

Q17. Would the name ‘cruise ship levy’ be appropriate for a potential levy as explored in this consultation paper? If you believe another name would be more appropriate, please suggest it below

Among those answering Q17, over half (55%) felt the name ‘cruise ship levy’ is appropriate, 26% did not and 18% were unsure. Two thirds (68%) of individuals who answered agreed the name was suitable. However, opinion was mixed among organisations who answered, with 30% agreeing, 31% disagreeing and 39% unsure. There was little consistency in organisations’ views; while 57% of tourism-related organisations felt the name was appropriate, 50% of harbours and ports and cruise industry respondents did not.

Two fifths of respondents left an open comment at Q17. The most common themes were the need to decide on the name once the aims and approach are confirmed, general disagreement with the levy, and suggested alternative names. Respondents also used Q17 to suggest how the levy should be implemented and other forms of levies to consider instead, such as a point of entry levy; these comments have been included in the analysis of the most relevant question.

Decide on the name once the approach is confirmed

Several respondents noted that it is difficult to comment on or provide suggestions for the name when the aims and approach to implementing the levy have not been finalised. They noted that the terms used in the name will depend on these factors and should be clarified following their confirmation.

“The name of any levy must be appropriate to who it is applied to or what it intends to fund. For example, if it is a ‘cruise passenger levy’, it should be called such and applied to all passengers transported into Scotland by any means. If it is meant to cover infrastructure, it should be called a 'port or cruise infrastructure levy'.” – Cruise Britain

General disagreement

A range of negative comments disagreeing with the proposed levy were made by several respondents. These varied from comments opposing a proposed levy, comments expressing the view that the levy is a tax and should be named as such, and unsuitable suggestions that reflect respondents' disapproval of the approach, e.g. ‘cash grab’. One respondent suggested that ‘levy’ may have been used to prevent it from sounding less negative than using the term ‘tax’.

Suggested alternative names

Specific alternative names for a cruise ship levy were suggested by some respondents. These were varied, singular suggestions, including:

• Cruise ship tariff/duty/payment/tax
• Port levy
• Harbour sustainability charge
• Local authority cruise ship levy

Some respondents suggested including terms relating to visitors, passengers, tourists, or arrivals within the name, with suggestions that the levy will be paid by said visitors either directly or passed on in some form (such as by cruise ship companies). This included specifying that they are visitors arriving by cruise ship or by sea.

Support for ‘cruise ship levy’

Support for the term ‘cruise ship levy’ as used within the consultation paper was expressed by some respondents. This term was felt to be clear, easily understood, accurately describes the levy, well-known, and consistent with other terms such as the visitor levy. A few respondents left general comments of support.

Positive framing

Some respondents suggested using a term with positive or neutral connotations and framing, as opposed to terms such as ‘levy’ and ‘tax’. They thought this would help people understand the aim of the levy and how it will be used, be more welcoming, and detail the resulting benefits to local communities, sustainability, and infrastructure.

“I think a more positive name showing the positive impacts would be more appropriate, e.g. 'cruise destinations investment fund'.” – Individual

“That name feels very negatively position - a levy is not something many people will view in a positive light. A more neutral term such as “visitor infrastructure contribution” or “tourism sustainability fund” would better reflect the intended use and reduce the impression that cruise passengers are being penalised.” – 8 Doors Distillery