Wales Visitor Levy Bill nears Royal Assent

7 Jul 2025

Tourist taxes in Wales moved a step closer this week as Members of the Senedd (MS’s) debated the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill. A total of 98 amendments were proposed, with some of the key issues discussed including flexibility for local authorities, exemption for various groups and the timeline for the levy’s implementation.

The Bill would give local authorities in Wales the power to charge a levy on overnight visitors staying in visitor accommodation in their area. The levy would be a per-person per-night charge.

Group 1: Power to extend the Act to berths and moorings (Amendments 67, 104, 108)

The first group of amendments focused on the power to extend the Act to berths and moorings. The lead amendment in this group, amendment 67, was introduced by Sam Rowlands (Con), with the aim of removing these from the scope of the Bill. Rowlands said these should not be considered visitor or fixed accommodations. He also said that boaters placed minimal strain on local services.  Rowlands voiced concern that the levy may “drive people away” and cited the economic significance of tourism to Wales, where it is responsible for 1 in 8 jobs.

Mark Drakeford, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, said berths and moorings should be included in the levy but that “there are complexities in the marine sector that need further exploration and resolution, so the Bill takes a power to return to this issue in the future”.

Drakeford also highlighted that Scotland was considering the taxation of cruise ships, which the government was closely following.

Amendments 67 and 104 were rejected.

Group 2: Review of Act (Amendments 65, 66, 105)

Peredur Owen Griffiths, chair of the Welsh Finance Committee, introduced the lead amendment 65, which would require a review of the Act within five years.

The amendment was supported by Sam Rowlands (Con), who withdrew his party’s amendment (105), which would have done the same, albeit to a shorter timeframe.

The minister welcomed amendments 65 and 66, calling them “more practicable” than amendment 105.

Amendments 65 and 66 were agreed. Amendment 105 was withdrawn.

Group 3: Partnerships and unincorporated bodies (Amendments 1, 53, 19, 20, 60, 38, 39, 40, 51)

These were technical amendments, which the Cabinet Secretary said ensured that tax obligations and legal responsibilities are correctly applied in cases where a business is run by a group of individuals rather than a single person or a company.

Amendments 1, 51, and 53 were agreed.

Group 4: Register of visitor accommodation providers (Amendments 2, 3, 116, 68, 106, 109, 110, 111)

Mark Drakeford explained that these amendments focused on the operation of a register of accommodation providers, setting out the information that can and cannot be published. He said that lead amendment 3 would prevent the WRA from publishing the names of individuals in partnerships/unincorporated bodies without consent, ensuring privacy while maintaining transparency.

The government rejected amendment 116, which could require councils to notify the WRA of non-registration and 106, which allows flexibility across the country. Drakeford committed the government providing councils with guidance on the operation of the levy and noted that an amendment similar to 106 had previously been rejected.

Sam Rowlands (Con) said amendments 68 and 109 would require a simultaneous, Wales-wide levy registration. While Rowlands argued this would give the government a clearer understanding of the impact of the legislation across Wales, Drakeford warned they may delay implementation of the levy.

Amendments 2 and 3 were agreed.

All Conservative amendments were rejected.

Group 5: Penalties (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 54, 55)

These were additional technical amendments that Mark Drakeford said were essential to ensure that penalties in the Bill operate correctly. They include provisions to ensure individuals remain liable for penalties even after they stop being a visitor accommodation provider.

Amendments 4–18 and 54-55 were agreed.


Group 6: Rates of the levy (Amendments 69, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85)

The amendments proposed by Sam Rowlands (Con) were aimed at increasing flexibility in how the visitor levy is applied, including the lead amendment 69, which provides principal councils with the power to introduce one rate of the levy without the other. He said: “I believe that it would be beneficial to councils to have flexibility as to whether they choose to introduce the levy into one of these groups, another of the groups, to all of the groups, or to none at all”.

Rowlands also introduced amendment 79, which proposed replacing the fixed per-person, per night charge with a percentage rate of the accommodation cost, suggesting that it is ‘fairer’ and more proportional to different types of stays.

The government rejected amendment 69, arguing that it would erode the viability of the tax and amendment 79, with Drakeford arguing that a percentage-based levy would be harder to administer.

Amendments 69 and 79 were not agreed.

Group 7: Exemptions and refunds (Amendments 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 22, 119, 120, 121, 122)

Sam Rowlands (Con) argued that exemptions should also apply to charities and voluntary groups such as the Scout Association and the Guide Association. He added that carers (amendment 71) and residents of Wales (amendment 121) should also be exempt.

Mark Drakeford rejected each amendment, saying there was “no policy rationale for the exemptions”. He considered exempting charities ‘unfair’, suggesting many operate as visitor accommodation providers, including the National Trust. He said: “I don't think it would be fair to advantage one sort of provider against others in the way that the amendment would require”

Amendments 70–74 were not agreed.

Group 8: Miscellaneous (Amendments 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 58, 61, 62, 63, 32, 33, 34, 41, 43, 49, 52)

Mark Drakeford described these as minor, technical changes.

All amendments were agreed.

Group 9: Adding an additional amount to the levy rate (Amendments 82, 86, 87, 118, 88, 113, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 107)

Sam Rowlands (Con) said his amendments were designed to limit levy increases that were ”not reflective of seasonality, not reflective of pressures such as concerts in Cardiff here and other pressures that would drive prices up.”

On amendment 113, Luke Fletcher (Plaid Cymru) said it would allow local authorities to vary amounts added on to the base levy rate based on the number of people employed at the relevant visitor accommodation.

While rejecting Rowland's amendments, Mark Drakeford acknowledged the intention behind the Plaid Cymru amendment. However, he said the “government's contention has always been that the small sums of money involved in the levy will not have a behavioural impact”. He did not believe that an additional rate locally would change people's behaviour.

Amendment 118 was not agreed.

Amendment 113 not moved.

Group 10: Accounting for, and payment of, the levy (Amendments 114, 89, 115, 90, 29, 56, 57, 59, 64)

Luke Fletcher (Plaid Cymru) proposed amendments 114 and 115. The former amendment shifts the annual return deadline from 30 April to 31 May, and the latter doubles the window for those eligible for exemptions to claim a refund, from 30 to 60 days.

Sam Rowlands (Con) supported these amendments and introduced his amendment 89, which sought to extend the accommodation providers’ filing window from 30 to 90 days.

The minister welcomed Fletcher’s amendments; however, he rejected amendment 89 as ‘disproportionate’, adding that a 90-day delay would undermine quarterly filing. He then introduced a number of government amendments in this group, including amendment 57, which ensures that the WRA cannot impose penalties on a person who has not indicated whether they will make a quarterly or an annual return.

Amendments 114 and 115 were agreed

Amendment 89 was not agreed.

Amendment 57 was agreed.

Group 11: Use of proceeds of the levy (Amendments 30, 31)

Mark Drakeford said that the amendments would remove ambiguity and clarify the reporting cycle for principal councils.

Amendments 30 and 31 were agreed.

Group 12: Functions of a principal council under Part 3 (Amendments 35, 36, 37, 50)

The minister explained that while the Bill originally required full council involvement for all decisions, at Stage 2, the government supported an amendment to require local authorities to operate a visitor levy partnership forum. He therefore introduced amendments 35, 36, and 37, which provide a mechanism that would allow that responsibility to be delegated in future.

Amendments 35, 36, and 37 were agreed.

Group 13: Change in persons that provide visitor accommodation (Amendments 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)

The minister reported that this group of technical amendments is essential for the “correct operation” of the Bill. They ensure that the responsibilities of visitor accommodation providers, especially in cases of death, incapacity, or insolvency, are included in the register under Part 2 and the levy.

 All Amendments were agreed.

Group 14: Coming into force (Amendments 117, 112)

As the debate reached a close, Luke Fletcher (Plaid Cymru) introduced amendment 117 that would set a date of 1 May 2026 for its introduction, so that the relevant provisions are implemented in time for the next Senedd election.

Sam Rowlands (Con) opposed the amendment, instead proposing his own amendment 112, which sought to delay implementation of the levy until comprehensive registration data could be collected. However, Mark Drakeford rejected amendment 112, stating that the levy would not come into effect until April 2027 at the very earliest.

Amendments 117 and 112 were not agreed.

What’s next

The Bill has now passed Stage 3, and a final vote on it will likely take place in the summer.

Further reading: full debate