Cruise Ship Levy: consultation analysis

15. Conclusions

A range of individuals and organisations with varied and detailed knowledge and experiences participated in this consultation, sharing their views on a cruise ship levy. This report provides a high-level summary of the consultation responses. For more detail, readers are encouraged to read individual responses, where permission was given for publication, via the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Overall, 62% of those answering supported granting local authorities the power to implement a cruise ship levy, 34% were opposed, and 5% unsure. Views differed considerably between individuals (73% in favour) and organisations (39% in favour), with strong opposition from harbours and ports (94%) and cruise industry respondents (92%). Supporters highlighted a levy’s potential to mitigate the impact of cruise tourism and improve the infrastructure in affected communities. Conversely, opponents raised concerns about the negative economic impact of a levy, arising from potential reductions in cruise ship visits, competitive disadvantages, and administrative burdens.

There was no clear consensus on many consultation questions. While a preferred approach was sometimes evident at the total sample level, this often masked opposing views between individuals and organisations or between different types of organisation. Similarly, respondents often used their open comments to outline the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches. In summary, however, among those answering:

• Most support was recorded for basing the levy on the number of passengers disembarking a ship (25%), closely followed by the number on board (20%).
• Local authorities are seen as best placed to calculate and collect any levy (35%), followed by port operators (24%) and cruise ship operators (11%).
• Local authorities deciding the levy rate was supported by 57%; this was preferred by organisations and individuals, with stronger support among individuals (63% compared to 46% of organisations).
• While 56% felt that revenue raised by a cruise ship levy should be spent on cruise-related facilities and services, 39% felt that a local authority should be able to use revenue raised by a cruise ship levy in any way it wishes.
• Views on exemptions were varied; crew members received the highest support (68%), while support for exempting disabled passengers (35%), paid carers (41%), and those under 18 (38%) was more limited.

Regardless of their preferred approach or which parties they felt should be responsible, respondents highlighted concerns about the ease of administering any levy, the cost-effectiveness of the proposed mechanisms and the importance of finding an approach which is fair to cruise ship passengers and local communities. Perhaps reflecting this, there was broad support (68%) for an implementation period, especially from organisations (91%), though views were again mixed on how long an implementation period should last. The need for transparent mechanisms for collecting the levy and accountability over how any revenue is spent was also noted.

Respondents consistently called for more information and clarity on the rationale for introducing any cruise ship levy to ensure alignment between its aims and implementation, and for robust impact assessments, including consideration of island communities.

Giving local authorities with islands the power to create a broader ‘point of entry’ levy was supported by half (50%) of those answering, with stronger backing from individuals (60%) than organisations (31%). This approach was seen by some as a fairer and more effective approach to addressing tourism-related challenges, particularly those unique to islands.

By exploring the range of possible approaches to introducing a cruise ship levy, the consultation allowed respondents to describe a range of both positive and negative impacts and highlight multiple issues they feel need to be considered if the proposals are progressed. These responses will provide a valuable evidence base for the Scottish Government when developing the policy and engaging with key stakeholders.