Cruise Ship Levy: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

On 28 May 2024, the Scottish Parliament passed The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, granting local authorities discretionary powers to introduce additional charges on visitors who pay for overnight accommodation. The Act provides a legislative framework for any local authority considering introducing a levy.

A 2019 consultation on visitor levies was conducted to inform the legislation, and respondents were also asked about extending levies to include cruise ships. Calls for a cruise ship levy stemmed from discussions where it was noted that while a visitor levy may introduce fees for overnight stays in an area, there was no mechanism to impose an equivalent levy on cruise ship visitors. Opinions in 2019 were mixed, with 64% favouring a cruise ship levy. Since then, cruise ship tourism in Scotland has grown further.

With the successful passage of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act in summer 2024, the Scottish Government began to advance work to explore a cruise ship levy in more detail. This was reflected in the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government 2024‑25, which committed to intensifying work on a potential cruise ship levy and undertaking a public consultation on the matter.

A public consultation seeking views on granting local authorities the ability to introduce a levy on cruise ship passengers arriving in their area opened on 27 February and closed on 30 May 2025. The consultation paper was published alongside a Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment and informed by roundtable events held around Scotland during Autumn 2024.

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.

Respondent profile

In total, 207 consultation responses were received. Almost all were submitted via the online consultation platform Citizen Space. Those received in an alternative format, such as an email or PDF document, were reviewed separately by the research team.

Individuals provided 132 responses to the consultation; the remaining 75 responses were from organisations. To aid analysis, organisations were grouped according to the nature of their work and breakdown by organisation type is presented in the appendix. Table 1 shows the number of each type of respondent.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of consultation analysis is to understand the full range of views expressed, and, where possible, using closed questions to quantify how many respondents hold particular views. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses based on the analysis approach outlined below.

Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it is impossible to detail every response in this report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where possible. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s consultation website.

Similarly, the technical nature of some of the proposals outlined in the consultation means it is impractical to fully repeat or explain these within this report. Further information on the proposals can be found in the consultation paper.

Quantitative analysis

The consultation included 17 closed questions. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each results table in the report shows:

• The number of respondents who answered each question out of the total sample of 207 (column “n=”).
• The percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by individual and organisation responses.

Appendix A provides a full breakdown for each question, including a breakdown by each type of organisation answering. Please note that the row percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes in responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. If additional themes emerged during the coding process, new codes were created and added the coding framework.

In a small number of instances where a response received via email or in a PDF document contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Where appropriate, quotes from a range of the 207 consultation responses are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

When reviewing the qualitative analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider the following:

• Many questions in the consultation included an open text box, which allowed respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who did providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis can therefore only be based on the information provided by those who commented.
• Where differences between the views of individuals and organisations were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted, then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents.
• Some respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgment about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.
• While there were no campaign responses to this consultation, there were multiple instances where some organisations responding on behalf of ports and harbours and cruise ship organisations submitted similarly worded responses. This is not unusual, where respondents in a sector may coordinate their responses in some way. Where identical or very similar wording was used by multiple respondents, this is highlighted in this report. However, for analysis purposes, each response was treated separately, and the full content of all responses was analysed.

Weight of opinion

In general, this report presents the themes identified in responses from most to least commonly mentioned. All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are covered; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority.

Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• Many respondents, 35 or more respondents, a prevalent theme.
• Several respondents, between 20 and 34 respondents, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents, between 10 and 19 respondents, another theme.
• A few / a small number, between 3 and 9 respondents, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in only one or two responses.

Most open questions in the consultation asked respondents to explain their answer to the corresponding closed question. When elaborating, however, respondents frequently described the advantages and disadvantages of multiple options in their open comments. For example, at Q3, respondents were presented with four options for the primary basis of a cruise ship levy and asked which would be their preferred approach. In open comments, however, respondents could describe the pros and cons of any or all of the four options.

In these instances, for ease of reading, the qualitative analysis is structured around the answers to the corresponding closed questions. We typically present the analysis from the most popular to the least popular closed question option, with reasons for selecting that option then presented from most to least prevalent. The framework above is used throughout to ensure the reader has a clear indication of how strongly each view is held. The report notes where the analysis is presented in this way.