And so, if there is no objection to that, I will call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motions—Mark Drakeford.

Motion NDM8866 Mark Drakeford

To propose that Senedd Cymru in accordance with Standing Order 26.11:

Agrees to the general principles of the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill.

Motion NDM8867 Mark Drakeford

To propose that Senedd Cymru, for the purposes of any provisions resulting from the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure of a kind referred to in Standing Order 26.69, arising in consequence of the Bill.

Motions moved.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I move the motions before the Senedd. I want to thank the Chair and members of the Finance Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their detailed scrutiny work on this Bill, and of course I welcome the recommendation of the Finance Committee that the Senedd should agree to the general principles of the Bill. I also want to thank everyone who's been having discussions with us and contributing to our ideas as we develop this legislation.

Clearly, there are details in the committee reports that need to be given careful consideration. I have written to the Finance Committee already, and I will be writing to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee following this afternoon's debate.

Today's debate asks the Senedd to agree the general principles of the Bill. I will focus on that first of all. My intention then is to respond to the main policy issues that were raised during Stage 1 scrutiny.

So, Llywydd, dealing with the principles behind the Bill, the first principle is that this is intended to be an enabling Bill. It allows local authorities to decide whether or not to introduce a visitor levy in their areas, reflecting local needs and circumstances. It delivers a commitment made in Welsh Labour's manifesto, reaffirmed in our programme for government. Participating councils will have the option, but of course not an obligation, to apply a levy on overnight stays in visitor accommodation.

In a second principle, the visitor levy before you is grounded in fairness, ensuring that the costs of maintaining the infrastructure and the services that help make Wales such a compelling destination are shared by those who benefit from them. Visitor levies are common across the world, with many destinations reaping the benefits from applying a small but fair charge, and this Bill allows Wales to join that global community.

Will you take an intervention, Cabinet Secretary? I appreciate that you're making progress with your speech. You made reference to the norm, with visitor levies being prevalent in some parts of the world. I don't dispute that. But do you also accept that it is the norm that value added tax levels tend to be significantly reduced for visitor accommodation, and therefore that offsets very significantly the visitor levies that are in place?

Llywydd, Wales will be the fiftieth country in the world to introduce a visitor levy, should this Bill proceed. Some of those countries have VAT, but many of them do not. It is one of the many variables, and it is not an argument. It is not a compelling argument against the measures in front of the Senedd.

Now, in Wales our local authorities will have an ability to ensure that visitors will contribute towards sustaining the very qualities that attracted them to an area in the first place. If all 22 local authorities were to implement a visitor levy, we estimate that it could generate up to £33 million in a full year, a significant investment in the future success of the industry.

Thirdly, Llywydd, the Bill is designed to meet the Welsh Government's core tax principles. It is simple, straightforward and fair. A flat rate levy, as we propose, is simple to understand, it's clear to visitors and providers alike. Moreover, it is straightforward to administer. Most small businesses will only be required to submit one annual return, and all businesses will have the choice of making that return through an agent.

And finally, it's fair. It’s fair because the levy is based on how many visitors are staying overnight and how many nights they stay, ensuring a proportionate contribution. And in a further effort to ensure the fairness of the levy, we have also provided for a lower rate—a lower rate that applies to stays in shared accommodation on campsite pitches, recognising that these are often provided on a more affordable basis. And, Llywydd, in any case, the broad base of the levy means that the proposed rates are lower than comparable levies applied in other destinations and represent a small percentage, and in most cases a very small percentage, of the overall cost of a visit.

In a fourth key principle, the Bill strikes a balance between national arrangements and local discretion. The Bill requires that the levy be applied to destination management and improvement wherever a visitor levy is implemented in Wales. Transparency is the tool that will ensure that this takes place. Any principal council that wishes to introduce a visitor levy must consult on that proposal, must keep the revenues in a separate account and must publish a report annually, demonstrating how those revenues have been spent in accordance with the requirements of the Bill.

Now, Llywydd, before turning to committee reports, I should say something about the new national register for which the Bill also makes provision. The register will record both visitor accommodation providers and the accommodation itself. The register will be an important foundation stone for multiple policy areas. It will support the efficient collection and administration of the levy, provide valuable data to inform tourism development and enable local authorities to better understand how accommodation in their area is used. The register will be set up and maintained by the Welsh Revenue Authority, bringing its well-established expertise to this new policy area. It will also bring its collaborative approach to working with the sector, helping providers know where and how to access information and support for registration and the levy itself.

Llywydd, I turn now to issues raised during Stage 1 scrutiny. A number of witnesses proposed that the Bill should require participating local authorities to establish a visitor levy forum to enable communities, businesses and organisations operating in the tourism sector to influence how revenue from the levy would be allocated. In their report, the Finance Committee endorsed that proposal. I hope to work with the committee so that an amendment can be brought forward at Stage 2 to ensure that there are effective partnership arrangements between principal councils, businesses and local communities in deciding how best to allocate visitor levy revenues. 

Secondly, I can confirm this afternoon that the regulation-making powers included in the Bill in relation to the registration provisions will be subject to a Government amendment at Stage 2, as indicated in my evidence to the Finance Committee. The Bill, as introduced in November 2024, included provisions for registration but also had significant regulation-making powers in Part 2, where further policy development was required. That development has now taken place and I will table amendments to replace or amend the regulation-making powers under Part 2(7) of the Bill. My officials are due to meet the Finance Committee on Thursday of this week to provide a briefing on the approach taken in the proposed amendments, and those amendments have been shared with the committee this afternoon.   

I turn now to the matter of principal council discretion in relation to the levy. The Finance Committee heard competing views about the power in the Bill for principal councils to levy an additional amount according to their local circumstances. At the final Finance Committee session in February, I committed to reviewing the flexibility of principal councils to apply such an additional amount. My conclusion is that the Bill should make such provision, but that the use of these powers should be delayed until the levy itself has been introduced and has had an opportunity to bed in. I will therefore introduce an additional regulation-making power at Stage 2 that will permit principal councils to levy an additional amount, but sequential to rather than contemporaneous with the introduction of the levy itself. 

Llywydd, probably the most common theme debated during the committee's Stage 1 scrutiny was whether it is fair to apply the levy to children and young people. This is, of course, an entirely proper debate and I've been grateful to the Finance Committee for its careful consideration of this issue. I'm glad to have been able to respond positively to the committee's recommendation to provide the Senedd with data on this matter. However, I can inform Members this afternoon that, having read the committee's report and having considered again the evidence presented to it, I have decided to go further than the recommendation itself. At Stage 2, I will bring forward a Government amendment to exempt under-18-year-olds staying at lower rated accommodation from the levy altogether. This will add to the progressive nature of the Bill and will, I believe, go a long way to respond to the case made by youth organisations and others to amend the Bill in this way. But, Llywydd, I must emphasise that any reduction in the broad base of the levy has to be made up by higher charges on those visits that remain in scope. The Stage 2 amendment will therefore also increase the levy on those on whom it will be charged from the 75p originally proposed to 80p, and from £1.25 to £1.30 per night for the higher rate.

Llywydd, during Stage 1, many suggestions have been made for exemptions from the levy. The changes to the treatment of children are the only ones I intend to introduce. Exemptions inevitably cause complexity. They erode the principle of simplicity, they add administrative costs to those who provide accommodation, they reduce the revenue raised by local authorities, or, as I've illustrated this afternoon, cause the levy to be increased for remaining payers. For all those reasons, the Government does not intend to go beyond the changes I have just indicated, and I note that the Finance Committee made no recommendation that I should do so.

Llywydd, the Bill before the Senedd today has benefited from the advice and support of many individuals and organisations, including local authorities and the tourism industry. I am grateful for their assistance, and I look forward to working with them in coming years. I am particularly grateful to colleagues here in the Senedd who have participated in the scrutiny process. I have said on several occasions over the years that I have never seen a Bill that hasn’t been improved by the scrutiny process in this place, and that is certainly true about the visitor levy Bill, and I urge the Senedd to support it.

The Chair of the Finance Committee, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to speak in today’s debate as Chair of the Finance Committee, which has undertaken Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to start by thanking all those who contributed to our inquiry, including everyone who provided written evidence and attended oral evidence sessions. We heard a broad range of views, and they were instrumental in shaping our recommendations and our conclusions. I would also like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his engagement and subsequent response to our report, and I'm pleased to see that he has accepted all of our recommendations, either fully or in principle.

I’ll begin with our views on the general principles. Although the Cabinet Secretary told us that the idea of a tourism levy had been in train for some time, witnesses told us about the cumulative effect of Government policies on the tourism sector, as well as the challenges being faced following the pandemic, and questioned whether the proposed levy could deter visitors and result in a detrimental impact on the tourism industry. To ensure the levy’s success, it will be essential to gain the trust of these stakeholders, and our report seeks to take this into account throughout its recommendations.

We did not reach a unanimous decision on the Bill’s general principles, with three of four Members supporting them. The majority of the committee agreed that the introduction of the levy has the potential to improve infrastructure and services within local areas, to the benefit of both tourists and the local economy. Sam Rowlands did not support the Bill progressing beyond Stage 1, and I’m sure he’ll outline the reasons for this in his contribution. Nevertheless, we agreed on a number of areas where improvements should be made to the Bill, which I will outline today.

A key element for the long-term success of this policy will be understanding the impact of mandatory registration of visitor accommodation providers and the effectiveness of any initial visitor levy schemes. For this reason, we call on the Welsh Government to amend the Bill to commit to undertaking a review of the operation and effect of the whole Act, and for this review to take place no later than four years after Part 2 of the Act comes into force. I welcome the assurances from the Cabinet Secretary, in response to our recommendations, that the Welsh Government are considering how such a review should be undertaken.

We recognise that the Bill may present challenges for organisations seeking to establish whether its provisions would apply to their specific arrangements. That is why the Welsh Government and the Welsh Revenue Authority must ensure that guidance for accommodation providers is appropriately targeted, and we recommend that the Welsh Government should clarify the applicability of the registration requirements.

We agree that the establishment of a register, as provided for in Part 2 of the Bill, has the potential to improve the data available and better inform future assessments of its impact. However, we believe that this could be strengthened further, and have called for the Welsh Government to amend the Bill to commit to publishing periodic reports, including such data as the number and types of providers and accommodation across local authorities, in order to shape future policy decisions. I note the Cabinet Secretary's commitment to publishing reports on data and welcome this as a step in the right direction. However, I am disappointed that this is not going to be enshrined in the legislation. We also note that the work is still to be done on the Welsh Revenue Authority's approach to enforcement and compliance, and look forward to hearing more from the Welsh Government about how this is progressing.

A recurring concern raised during our scrutiny was that the Bill would create an additional administrative burden for Welsh businesses, particularly as a number of accommodation providers are often microbusinesses, who often manage without additional administrative support. The Cabinet Secretary told us that the Bill creates a system for operating the levy that is proportionate. Nonetheless, we call on the Welsh Government to take proactive steps to ensure that providers are aware of the support and the guidance available to them.

Turning now to section 14, which enables a principal council to add a premium to the lower and/or the higher rate of the levy, some witnesses suggested that the premium could add complexity, and that further information was needed. We welcome the Cabinet Secretary's commitment to consider a stronger framework for this element of the Bill, and ask him to provide further details on his intentions. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's further clarification on this section and his commitment to work with stakeholders to ensure that any amendments made at Stage 2 are evidence-based.

We heard support throughout the evidence for various exemptions to the levy, particularly for children and young people, education trips and charitable organisations. The Cabinet Secretary told us that the decision on any potential exemption would be a trade-off, and that if the base is narrowed, as he explained earlier, the levy would need to be raised. While we accept this argument, it was apparent that the Welsh Government had already carried out some modelling, particularly in the case of potential exemptions for children. We have asked the Welsh Government to share this analysis with the Senedd, and I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for agreeing to this, and for his comments earlier. I look forward to working on that, or looking at that amendment, at Stage 2.

I'll move on now, with the levy to be used by principal councils. We heard a range of views on the list of areas in the Bill where the proceeds of the levy can be spent, and concluded that the approach allows for the necessary flexibility to deliver the policy intention. However, we also heard repeated concerns that the levy could be used to displace existing funding by local authorities. While we note the assurances provided by the Cabinet Secretary that the proceeds of the levy will provide additional funding, we agree with views that bringing local industry representatives together on this issue would be an effective and positive way to garner trust.

The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 provides for the mandatory establishment of visitor levy forums where principal councils decide to introduce the levy, and, having listened to some of the strong views expressed during scrutiny, we believe that such an approach could be beneficial in Wales. This would allow for a collaborative and constructive approach to agreeing levy spending priorities, which would, in turn, strengthen relationships between principal councils and their stakeholders and shine a light on the decisions being made. I'm pleased that the Cabinet Secretary will work with the committee to bring forward amendments to provide for the creation of visitor forums, and look forward to working on the detail of these amendments in due course.

In line with our usual approach to Bill scrutiny, we considered its financial implications. While we were broadly content with the Bill’s financial impact as set out in the regulatory impact assessment, we agreed that the lack of immediate data in informing cost estimates is disappointing. We noted in particular the financial impact on local authorities, and we recommend that the Cabinet Secretary should provide an update on discussions with local authorities relating to additional ongoing costs, with revisions made to the RIA thereafter.

Finally, we considered the costs falling on the Welsh Revenue Authority arising from the Bill, particularly as the impact on its services remains unclear, and we call for further details on whether it has sufficient capacity to deal with these additional responsibilities. I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary will update the RIA ahead of Stage 3, with revisions to the identified costs in response to our recommendations, and I ask him to update the committee regarding progress in this area.

I look forward now to hearing the views of other Members here this afternoon. Thank you.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee—Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's report drew four conclusions and made 16 recommendations. It's the committee's view that Welsh Government was not ready to introduce the Bill to the Senedd when it did. The committee has acknowledged the spirit in which draft provisions for Stage 2 amendments have been shared with committees, and has welcomed the Cabinet Secretary's good intentions.

The committee has concluded that the regulation-making powers in sections 2(5) and 9(5) are significant powers, changing the meaning of 'visitor accommodation', and changing the circumstances in which an overnight stay in visitor accommodation takes place and whether the levy is chargeable. Both have the potential to extend taxpayer liability under the Bill. As such, recommendations 5 and 9 asked the Cabinet Secretary to confirm whether the Government considered making the regulation-making powers subject to a superaffirmative procedure.

The committee believes that section 7 represents a clear illustration of the difficulties for the Senedd when considering legislation that is still actively under development by the Government at Stage 1. The Government's intention regarding a registration system has been confused by releasing indicative drafting for new provisions shortly after Stage 1 scrutiny began. As such, in recommendation 6, the committee has said that the Cabinet Secretary should explain any additional proposed powers the Government intends to bring forward at Stage 2 regarding the registration of visitor accommodation providers and associated data.

As regards the coming into force of Part 2 of the Bill, the committee has noted that it is the Cabinet Secretary's intention to commence Part 2 by principal council areas on a phased basis. The committee believes there should be certainty in law as to when the register will be operational. Recommendation 8 states that section 44 of the Bill should be amended so that Part 2 of the Bill comes into force no later than 31 December 2029, and the Welsh Ministers should retain the ability to bring Part 2 into force at an earlier date by Order.

The Cabinet Secretary has described the power in section 37 to impose advertising and billing requirements on visitor accommodation providers as an intentionally wide power. The committee has concluded that it is inappropriate to seek such an intentionally wide power with no intention to use it.

The committee also has concerns with the justification provided that section 40 is needed for futureproofing reasons. Futureproofing in this way, which would enable any Government in the future to act in a manner that has received no consideration by this Senedd, falls below the standard of what many would consider to be constitutionally appropriate. Should section 40 remain in the Bill, recommendation 15 states it should be amended so the regulation-making power is subject, again, to a superaffirmative scrutiny procedure.

Can I move on to my view on the Bill now, as opposed to LJCC's? I very much support the visitor levy. Tourist taxes are introduced by Governments to battle the issues that come with overtourism and ensure people visiting the country are keeping its economy thriving and paying the additional costs that they create. The question is: why have we waited so long? In the UK, Edinburgh is set to introduce its inaugural tourism tax for the visitor levy. This charge will be added to any accommodation booked in the city for trips reserved after 1 October 2025 and taking place from 24 July 2026. It will apply to all visitors, including Scottish and UK citizens. Manchester has one, the Peak District is proposing one. I expect more in Britain to follow. Many countries and cities introduced a tourism tax in 2023, and many more are due to launch theirs in 2024. Tourism tax is not a new thing. We have probably paid one before, tied with the cost of a plane ticket or the tax paid in your hotel. We know that France has had one for over 100 years.

We also know what happens when we have major events. Hotels are charging over double the regular rate for Oasis concert nights. Cardiff hotels are at least three times more expensive for the first reunion gig—

Will you take an intervention?

Can I just finish this sentence? Of the 25 hotels analysed, the Parkgate Hotel in Cardiff led the price surge, increasing rates by 319 per cent for the 4 July opening leg of the tour. Certainly.

Thank you. I was at the National Tourism Awards for Wales on Thursday, and a professor was there who had spoken on stage during that summit, mentioning exactly what you have mentioned, Cabinet Secretary, that 50 countries have imposed this. I asked him, 'Which one of those 50 countries has the same rate of VAT as we do here in this country?' Not one. Would you not say that this is just a further burden of tax collecting on these businesses for the Welsh Government, and it's not going to help our tourism industry one little bit?

But they all have substantially lower income tax—sorry, substantially higher income tax. We are substantially lower in income tax; they're substantially higher. [Interruption.] You can't just look at one tax or two taxes. They vary. They vary from country to country.

Fans were shocked at how much the prices had increased. One person on the social media blogging site X wrote:

'the @oasis tour madness kicked in already one night a hotel in Cardiff for the first gig £424 !!'

Another person said that if you check the hotels, the location and the dates of the Oasis tour, they are all either mysteriously sold out, or the prices have tripled. One chimed in that within five minutes of Oasis announcing their gigs, at a very ordinary hotel in Swansea, prices increased ridiculously. This is not just hotels; Airbnbs and guest houses increased their prices. Whilst the increase was not of same size, many hotels in between Newport and Swansea also increased their prices.

There was also the Taylor Swift effect. The luxury hotel, the Parkgate, which is very close to the Principality Stadium, hugely increased their prices for June 2024 when Taylor Swift was there. Comparing the price, one room for one adult was £115 on the cheapest date I could find; for Taylor Swift, it was £588. These major events cost the local council money—a considerable amount of money. Additional portable toilets are needed to be installed and removed. A major street cleaning exercise is needed to clear up after a major concert. These are expensive.

And finally, I'm not going to run through them all, because you won't let me, Presiding Officer, but there's a long list of countries throughout Europe who have this tax. It's normal. Why do we want to be different?

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for outlining the proposal here for us today, and for his notification of intended amendments to come forward as well. I'm also thankful to the Chair of the Finance Committee for outlining the committee's view and my personal view in that committee as well. I'm grateful for the work of the committee in terms of the number of witnesses we had during those sessions over the last few months.

The context of this proposal here today, though, is really important to understand. These are difficult times for our economy in the UK, and certainly here in Wales. After 26 years of Welsh Labour, Welsh workers are taking home the lightest pay packets in the United Kingdom. Wales also has the lowest employment rate of any part of the UK, and the lowest levels of gross disposable income per head. And what's the answer to these problems? Well, for Welsh Labour, as ever, it's a desire to introduce a new tax, and this one is aimed at people who actually put money into the Welsh economy.

Now, there is a basic principle truth of taxation, which is, whatever you tax, you get less of, and that's why we tax things like smoking, because we want less of it to happen. Whatever you tax, you get less of. This tax will cause tourism levels to reduce. This proposal today is the very definition of biting the hand that feeds. [Interruption.] Certainly.

You've just pointed out that in Wales there are many people on low wages. Do you think then that it's acceptable that they pay the council tax to provide for visitors, rather than the other way around?

I'm not entirely sure what the point of that was. 

There is a point.

Council tax is for domestic rates for people living in a home. We're talking about a taxation on visitors coming into our area. 

Tourism providers up and down Wales are deeply worried about this tourism tax. It's clear that tourism is a core part of our economy in Wales and supports a large number of jobs, particularly in north and west Wales. Data from 2022 shows that the tourism sector accounted for about one in eight jobs and a significant proportion of GVA. It employs people across the whole of Wales, providing jobs at a time when far too many people in Wales aren't working. Even the Welsh Government's own figures highlighted the multi-million-pound risk to the economy as a result of the tourism tax, and the figures show the potential for significant job losses as well. An annual economic hit of around £47.5 million is something that the Welsh economy can ill afford, particularly when tourism is one of the areas that has been a real success story for Wales. I think it's brilliant that people want to come to visit Wales and take in our breathtaking scenery or epic historical and cultural sites. I want more people to enjoy Wales rather than trying to push them away with a tourism tax.

We've already heard from the parties here opposite that this type of tax is used in other countries around the world, and colleagues on this side of the Chamber have highlighted that Wales is already amongst the highest taxed countries in the world when it comes to this sector. Indeed, of the 115 top-destination countries in the world, the UK is number 113 in terms of the tax level paid by the tourism and hospitality sector. We've heard comments already that sound as though this sector does not pay into the system. It pays significantly into the system, through VAT, through national insurance, through corporation tax, through non-domestic rates—every tax going. This sector is paying into it and should expect the services in their areas to reflect this contribution.

We've also heard from parties opposite today that this is just a few pounds, a small proportion or a small percentage of a family's or an individual's holiday. This is a completely misunderstood perspective. The truth is that this is going to hit people from all sorts of backgrounds going on holiday. I'm grateful that the Cabinet Secretary recognised the impact on under 18s in particular. It's family holidays on those pitches. The Caravan and Motorhome Club, of which I am a member, have shared that, for a family of four, under the initial proposals, on a £30 pitch, the tax would mean a 12 per cent increase to the cost of their holiday. And the Professional Association of Self Caterers estimates that, for an October half-term, it would equate to 17 per cent of the cost of a family visit. So, I'm grateful that the Cabinet Secretary has listened to the impact on families, and I'll be interested to see the proposals for the amendments as they come forward, because this is a significant proportion of some families' costs for their holiday.

There are a multitude of specific concerns detailed in the Bill that I will be raising as we go through this process: the lack of flexibility is one; there still continues to be a charge for children, although an element of that has been adjusted, as we've heard here today; I'm concerned that educational and voluntary institutions are being hit with this tax; the potential issues around the premium, which the Cabinet Secretary again has acknowledged here today, which was not part of the consultation that went out in respect of this legislation; and the added burden on small accommodation providers, who are already overstretched in terms of the additional administration that this will impose.

So, in closing, Llywydd, the Welsh Conservatives are clear that we oppose this tourism tax, because we believe that the Welsh tourism sector needs encouragement and support. It needs a Welsh Government that welcomes visitors to Wales and the money that they spend in our hotels, our restaurants, our cafes and attractions, supporting jobs, supporting our communities, making Wales an even more vibrant place to be. So, I would call on Labour and Plaid Cymru here today to actually listen to tourism and hospitality businesses. Stand with us as Welsh Conservatives, as we want to axe the tax and oppose the general principles of the Bill today. We make no apologies in opposing the Welsh Government's assault on our tourism sector. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

We support the general principles of the Bill. The Conservative spokesperson—[Interruption.]

Can I please hear what Luke Fletcher has just started to say? Can we have some silence, please, for that? Diolch, Luke.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Conservative spokesperson was completely right, we need to listen to the voices of the people in the industry. There are, of course, two voices that need to be listened to, though: those in the industry and those of our local communities. And the reality is that the current way in which we do tourism isn't sustainable in the long term. There really does need to be a balance between visitor experience and then the experience of local people, because for too long, we have seen an extractive model that places unsustainable pressures on our communities, particularly in those areas, of course, where tourism is at its most intense. Essentially, what we want to see is an economy in which tourism is a sustainable and value-added feature, and that can only happen if we look to get the balance that I mentioned earlier, and that that balance is struck.

There's no escaping this, and I know it's difficult to accept, but this kind of measure is standard practice across much of the world. Cities in countries across Europe and beyond have long operated visitor levies without any detrimental impact on their tourism sectors, so it can be argued that this is a trend that highlights a growing recognition of visitor levies as a sustainable way to support local economies and tourism infrastructure. And guess what? In Scotland, all local authorities now have the power to introduce a visitor levy. Some will progress with that, some will choose not to. It will be the same situation here in Wales. Manchester has implemented a city visitor charge and London is actively considering a similar approach. So, Wales isn't acting in isolation here, but is moving in step with many places both in and outside of the UK.

But implementation matters. A fair, effective levy must be introduced in collaboration with the industry, as I said, and with due consideration for any unintended consequences, and I look forward to working with the Cabinet Secretary as we work through some of those amendments that he mentioned earlier. I would particularly welcome the exemption for those under 18. I'd be interested just to understand how that would interact with educational trips in the long term, and whether or not that also means that educational trips themselves are exempt. If not, that would be something that I'd be very interested in exploring with the Cabinet Secretary.

We're also interested as well in discussions around a potential amendment about how we can ensure that persons using emergency and temporary accommodation are exempted on arrival to that accommodation, rather than being required to apply for a refund. There are lots of concerns there around, potentially, those people not applying for that refund and therefore spending money when really they shouldn't have to.

And I'd also be interested, actually, in having that discussion with the Cabinet Secretary around how we might be able to look at a tiered approach to the levy, so considering differentiating between small independent accommodation providers and larger accommodation chains, which I accept would be complicated. As the Cabinet Secretary outlined, the way in which the current levy would operate, as proposed, is a simpler way of doing things, but a lower levy for local businesses would incentivise tourists to support independent establishments, and then help to retain wealth within our communities, ensuring that the economic benefits of tourism remain in Wales rather than being extracted by some of the larger cross-border providers.

Ultimately, the success of this Bill will be in how it supports sustainable tourism while benefiting local people. So, the funds raised must be used transparently, as the Cabinet Secretary rightly argues, and effectively to invest in destination management, improve that infrastructure and enhance the visitor experience in a way that aligns with our communities' needs. That must be the bottom line.

I just want to come back to the difficulty that Sam Rowlands was having about understanding the link between residents paying domestic rates and the cost of clearing up after visitors. In Cardiff, we have to pay for the additional cost of policing these very large events that occur either at the Millennium stadium or at the Motorpoint arena, where there are large concerts, or indeed down here at the Wales Millennium Centre. There is no additional money coming to the police service in south Wales because of Cardiff being a capital city where we have regular large events as well as large numbers of demonstrations; that's something that does occur in London and in Manchester and in Edinburgh.

Thank you for taking the intervention. I don't have difficulty in understanding what it is you're trying to explain; what I'm outlining is that these businesses already pay significantly into the tax pot, and therefore, it's an issue of the funding formula then, not of them paying tax. They pay multiple amounts of taxation, which I've already outlined, which needs to come back to the areas to be redistributed appropriately to deliver the services that they deserve.

Well, good luck talking to the UK Treasury. Of course, everybody's paying VAT when they're buying meals or anything, just like the rest of us, but that money doesn't necessarily come back to Wales. But this is enabling us to pay for the clear-ups that have to take place, because we don't want our city to be an eyesore.

In addition to that, let's look at rural areas where we haven't got the large numbers of people who live in Cardiff who possibly can more easily absorb the cost of having visitors. Let's just look at what happens at the Eryri national park. They have 5 million visitors a year, and it's worth quite a lot of money, the tourism industry, to the area, but the money for the clean-up of the mountains where people chuck their litter, that isn't paid for by the people who are providing the accommodation and restaurants. It's being done by volunteers at the moment, because it's a very difficult task and—

Will you take an intervention, just on these issues?

Yes.

Look, I accept that there are challenges with some irresponsible people who drop litter. Many of those are irresponsible residents of Wales who drop litter and go to our national park, not people who necessarily always come and stay overnight and spend a lot of money in the local economy. What you've described in terms of national parks is—. Many of those individuals will be day-trippers who are not going to be making any contribution whatsoever for the clean-up costs of their sandwiches, packed lunches or whatever they're taking. We know that the most lucrative part of the tourism industry is those people who stay overnight in Wales. That's what puts money into our economy more than anything else, especially more than day-trippers. So, why do you think it's a good idea to penalise people who stay overnight, rather than those people who actually do drop the litter, who might be day-trippers, or in the main will be day-trippers?

I wouldn't disagree with you. We need to penalise anybody who drops litter, because, obviously, it's an absolute eyesore as well as environmental damage that's created by the plastics that are going into the rivers, et cetera. But it's not really a penalty to make a contribution towards the footprint that visitors are making, and, yes, it would be nice to be able to charge day-trippers, but, as the Cabinet Secretary has already pointed out in the Finance Committee, that's practically not possible. Yes, Trash Free Trails are talking about a deposit-return scheme, and I agree, but we haven't got a deposit-return scheme at the moment to enable those polluters, i.e. those companies who produce these drinks, to pay for them to be cleared up.

My point is that we absolutely have to see businesses making a tiny contribution. We're talking about 80p a day. For 10 nights, that's £8, or 14 nights, £11.32, I think, is the correct figure. And so this is not a substantial sum of money in the overall cost of the accommodation. There is no way that I can find that we could charge day-trippers, unless we put some money on the petrol that's being sold in Wales or something like that. But this is a simple way of having a very small sum of money contributed by visitors to the costs of the environmental thing. So, I support the principle.

Can I say at the start that I and we as a group are absolutely, totally in support of our hospitality businesses, our retailers, and we are totally against this? Well, to be honest, it's quite disgusting. We haven't yet come out of COVID, and businesses really are—. And I say, 'Shame on you, other Members.' I'm really proud to represent a constituency that has some fantastic tourism. It's practically the only industry we've got, and there are many Members I see around here who also have several tourism businesses within your constituencies, and you are letting them down.

We know that this proposed visitor accommodation levy Bill—

Will the Member give way?

I certainly will for you. [Laughter.]

Sometimes I feel like I'm on Candid Camera. You often tell us about localism and the importance of local democracy. This is a choice for local authorities to opt into if they choose to, for which they'll be accountable to their local voters. This is not an imposition on anybody; it's up to local people to choose it or not.

Just like your second home council tax premium that, actually, most of the local authorities have implemented, and is now seeing people who bring strength to our local economy saying that Wales is a no-go area for tourists. And that's nothing to be proud of.

So, this is going to be detrimental to Welsh tourism businesses, such as self-catering businesses. We've noticed already a decrease in the number of days that people are staying. It will also affect our retailers who, as a result of fewer people staying overnight, will have fewer people going over their doorsteps. And I have to be honest with you, you're quite brave standing up and challenging me. You were the man who brought in 20 mph. It is a fact that, when people, visitors are asked why would they come to Wales or why would they not, your 20 mph policy is actually detracting—[Interruption.] Yes, of course it is. I mean, you couldn't be more anti-business and anti-tourism if you tried. So, as you put it, Jenny, about adding a proposed 75p or 80p to £1.25 per night—with the added VAT, remember—'Oh, that’s not a lot of money', well, I'm sorry, but not everybody is on the same salary as you or me, as a Member of this Senedd.

With ScoutsCymru in an evidence session with the Finance Committee noting the lack of exemptions and considerations for non-profit, volunteer-led accommodation providers, where overnight stays are not their primary purpose, I'd like a little bit more information from the Cabinet Secretary. On top of this, as I say, tourism in Wales is still struggling. I interviewed some people—we had a fantastic policy forum on Saturday in Llandudno and, along with my colleague, the leader of our party in Wales, Darren Millar, we interviewed people and the stark reality is that they said, 'This is the final nail that could be in our coffin now, of remaining in business'. The Wales Tourism Alliance commented that—[Interruption.] Do you want to ask me for an intervention?

I'm just simply pointing out that Darren is not the leader of the Welsh Conservatives.

Well, in my eyes he is. [Laughter.]

The Wales Tourism Alliance commented to the Finance Committee that Welsh tourism provision is more fragile than it has been for many years, and the timing of this proposal—the visitor levy—is adding to the pressure rather than being a small part of relieving it. It's further emphasised by the Federation of Small Businesses. They've said that Wales is the only UK nation not to recover visitor spending levels from 2019, according to the tourism barometer. It's just unacceptable, what you're doing. Instead of introducing a Bill that could support the Welsh tourism industry, you are now actually doing all you can to ruin it. By doing this, it will naturally deter any significant economic benefit to our Welsh economy. If this Bill progresses, in the first 10 years of operation, the levy and the registration scheme are forecast to cost from £313 million to £576 million. And it's interesting, First Minister, who has just sat down, you said to my colleague over there, Rhun, this morning, 'You're not listening'. Well, you're not listening, First Minister. On the actual surveys that have been done on this, you have had overwhelming results that say, 'We do not want a tourism levy in Wales', yet you have completely ridden roughshod and actually ignored them. So, you're the one who's not listening.

There's a potential loss of £250 billion in the worst-case scenario. The Bill is not the best way to support our tourism businesses, as we all know. And anybody watching this, tell your friends, tell your family that we, the Welsh Conservatives, will support businesses across Wales in whatever they do. As we've seen from the start the impact this Bill will have, and the potential it has to act as a factor for families, couples and even lone travellers when deciding on coming to Wales for a visit, it is for these reasons that we will not be supporting this. At what stage, Cabinet Secretary, will you realise that if you make your private sector businesses stronger, they employ more staff, they pay more tax and we have better services? At what point will the Welsh Labour Government, both here and in the UK, understand that quite simple and fundamental process?

As the Member for Arfon, I'm fully aware of the economic benefits stemming from tourism, but I also know about the challenges and pressures that are created. Caernarfon castle is one of the principal tourist attractions in Wales, with over 200,000 people visiting each year. Yr Wyddfa is in my constituency too, and it attracts over 600,000 visitors every year. We, as local people, are very proud of these attractions, and we are ready to share them with people from all over the world, but they do create major problems, especially during the summer period. Giving the council the power to raise a small levy would lead to improving the experience of visitors and the experiences of those people who live here all year round. That money could be spent on improving services that are under great pressure at times, from emptying public bins to improving parking and the infrastructure in general.

I do wish to pay tribute to Mark Drakeford's leadership. Thank you very much for pressing ahead with this Bill and for understanding the importance of the principle of developing sustainable tourism. As we discuss the next steps, it's important that we keep our eyes on the prize, without putting process considerations above the key principle underpinning what this Bill is trying to achieve—I think that's a message for Mike Hedges and the legislation committee, principally.

I think it's also important that there is certainty that the provisions will be implemented. So, I'd like to ask what consideration is being given to the need for some sort of backstop on the face of the Bill—for example, that the registration of all holiday accommodation must be completed by a certain date.

In terms of the specific recommendations made by the committees, I'm also concerned about some of the issues that have arisen. For example, I do believe that there is a need for clarity regarding the legal powers that the Welsh Revenue Authority will have to deal with allegations that an accommodation provider has not registered. So, I hope that this can be rectified at Stage 2.

We've been discussing the levy this afternoon, but the register is vital, as it will play an important role in securing useful information about the nature of holiday accommodation and its effect on the local housing stock. I'm extremely pleased to see a commitment from the Government to introduce a Bill to implement the licensing of visitor accommodation in Wales, in accordance with the co-operation agreement with my party. In response to recommendation 4 from the Finance Committee, you do confirm that holiday accommodation providers will need to be licensed to enable them to operate. I see that you want to focus on self-catering accommodation providers, namely short-term lets, in the first instance. That is sensible and certainly would lead to improving the experience of visitors and ensuring that they are safe. I do look forward to seeing the details and the action plans when the second Bill is published later this year. I accept that that is for the future, but in the meantime it's my pleasure to support the principles of the visitor levy Bill this afternoon. Thank you.

My job, of course, is to represent the best interests of Mid and West Wales's residents, so this is a straightforward one for me. The Bill will do that and support the development of one of our key sectors.

We know that visitor levies—and we've heard it here multiple times today—are used very successfully in over 40 countries around the world and other parts of the UK. We would be the twenty-fifth country in Europe to implement such a scheme. We know it'll be up to local authorities to implement that, and also to decide on that spending, because the money raised will be ring-fenced. It will be invested back into the local community to deliver better services for visitors and residents alike.

There's no surprise that, from the opposition, I hear the echoes of the minimum wage debate of decades ago. The Tories seem to be locked in a doom-monger approach to absolutely everything. They do live up to their name as being the party of opposition. They oppose just about everything, including the budget, which would have actually given an awful lot of money to each one of their communities. I wonder how you sell that back to those communities.

I fully support this. It's a small broad-based tax. It is a nominal amount for individuals, but it has the potential of raising millions of pounds. It won't affect the businesses, because the businesses aren't paying it, as you would have believed from Janet Finch-Saunders's contribution. [Interruption.] In a minute. If this is properly implemented in collaboration with businesses and local stakeholders, it will enhance the appeal of the destinations by tackling the challenges of tourism. Who wanted an intervention? 

Joyce, I spoke to many businesses in my constituency that are going to be impacted by this tax, and they tell me quite clearly that this tax is going to have a detrimental effect on their businesses, and they're not quite sure that any of this money raised is actually going to improve the visitor experience either. It could be swallowed up into other council services and not reinvested into the communities. So, what do you say to those businesses in Brecon and Radnorshire, which you also represent? Are you saying that they're lying and the Government is right?

I think that's a ridiculous word to use. What I will say to you is that you're misrepresenting them if you haven't pointed out that this money is ring-fenced to be used for tourism. You could have told them that and you could have asked them, because they will be asked by any authority that decides they're going to implement this. They will have to ask those businesses and local people how they want that money spent. But it will be ring-fenced, so they can only spend it to enhance the tourist industry. You will be coming back here with a shopping list asking for things, and, at the same time, not only did you oppose the budget, but you want to oppose this, living up to the name of opposition: 'We'll oppose anything.'

I'm a little bit disappointed, on behalf of the people you represent, that you don't want to boost the businesses, that you don't want to enhance the tourism experience for visitors and their host communities. The details have to be worked out, and if it's properly implemented, it will make a significant difference. I think that proper scrutiny—and we've heard a lot about that, as we're going through the different stages—proper monitoring and evaluation have to be at the forefront going forward to make sure that the levy is effective but also fair.

The proposed register for accommodation, I agree with Siân Gwenllian, is absolutely pivotal in all of this, because if you collect that data, it can inform policy, it can identify opportunities also for growth. Wales has an outstanding tourism offer, but there is room for improvement in terms of economic growth, employment and sustainable communities. This Bill represents an opportunity to deliver on all three counts.

I just want to put on the record to start that the Welsh Conservatives don't oppose everything. We're a low-tax party who oppose this tourism tax. We believe in lower taxes. We always have done. The Conservative Party are a low-tax party. Anybody who knows an iota about politics knows that the Conservative Party is a low-tax party and we support more money in people's pockets. It's no big mystery. Everybody seems to turn round with some element of excitement when the Conservatives say things that are conservative. We support businesses and we make no apology in doing that. 

This toxic tourism tax is symbolic of a Government that has grown complacent and more radical in its destructive policies. It's fair to say that this is another ideological policy cooked up with the Welsh nationalists that has overwhelming opposition amongst the sector. What's more, it is humiliating seeing the rest of the United Kingdom look on with astonishment as we prepare to inflict this bizarre act of self-harm. The tourism sector—

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

There are other parts of the United Kingdom that are implementing a tourism levy.

There are other parts of the United Kingdom, but they're also subject to the same party, under Labour metro mayors, who have done the same. So I go back to my original point that the Conservatives, as we do, oppose higher taxes in terms of what we're debating here today.

Nineteen per cent of tourist businesses—[Interruption.] I want to make some progress, Mike. I will come back to you.

I was going to say I'm glad Labour has now got control of the Peak district. That's probably the first time ever. 

I don't know the political landscape of all areas of the UK, but I'm sure that's a correct comment that you're making there in terms of its colour.

But 19 per cent of tourist businesses had more customers in 2024 than 2023, but 39 per cent had fewer. For self-catering accommodation providers these figures are worse, with 16 per cent of businesses seeing more customers but 45 per cent seeing fewer. In a PASC UK survey, businesses ranked Welsh Government policies as the fourth biggest reason for the downturn in trade. I suspect this will rank higher once this toxic tax is introduced.

One of the most harmful consequences of this tax is the message it sends to those thinking of booking a holiday in Wales. It sends the message that Wales is closed for business and tourists are not welcome, playing into harmful stereotypes the sector have worked hard to shake off for years. It signals a Welsh Labour Government more interested in indulging a radical anti-tourist minority rather than supporting the tourism sector, which employs over 11 per cent of people in Wales and pumps more than £3.8 billion into the Welsh economy.

It does sadden me that the Member for Ynys Môn is chattering away there against tourism—[Interruption.]—when he represents a constituency that is rife with tourism, and a very healthy tourism trade. What you're proposing and what you're going to be voting for tonight is exactly against your constituents. I hope you're proud of that, by the way.

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy—

Will you take another intervention?

Yes, I will.

I have a huge amount of optimism and faith in our tourism offer in Ynys Môn and the rest of Wales. I have confidence that people will still want to come and enjoy what is a massively important export for us in Wales. Where's your support for businesses on export in Wales? 

We'll have to see. Time will tell. But you’ve got many business operators on Ynys Môn who are probably at the far opposite of relishing these proposals. If I was a business who just struggled through the swells of COVID-19, the cost-of-living crisis and whatever else, I think I'd be very apprehensive about this Bill's proposal. When business owners in your constituency are reflecting on that, I'm sure they'll look at your voting record.

Yet the Welsh Government still wishes to tax when confidence among the sector is at its lowest ebb. The managing director of Seren, which operates several hotels and restaurants across the country, said that the introduction of the levy could, and I quote,

‘needlessly exacerbate existing pressures on the hospitality sector, which is already navigating significant economic challenges.’

Concerns were also raised by a variety of other organisations in the Finance Committee report, such as Scouts Cymru, the Wales Tourism Alliance and the Federation of Small Businesses. The timing of this Bill is staggering given the condition of the UK economy more broadly, and, indeed, the policies coming from Westminster with Rachel Reeves's latest spring statement, but particularly the Welsh economy, which is in a worse state.

The amount of money this tax will raise is also miniscule. If every local authority in Wales opted to impose the levy, it would only raise £35 million. To put that into perspective, the Vale of Glamorgan Council, which indicated it will not impose the levy, spent £25 million on the Welsh Government's nation of sanctuary scheme, another wasteful vanity project. If the Welsh Government are looking to find money, there's millions more it could raise by cutting the masses of taxpayers' money frittered away and wasted. 

The Bill is also estimated to cost between £313 million and £576 million. I know there's very little business experience on the other benches, but most Members in this Chamber recognise that a tax that costs over £300 million and, at best, will raise £35 million is a very poor deal. I'm pleased, however, that the Welsh Government are reviewing the 182-day rule, but I hope you go further and adopt the Welsh Conservatives' policy in reducing 182 days to 105 days. 

To conclude, Llywydd—I won't test your patience much more—the disruption caused by second home ownership is a legitimate concern and could be mitigated through other means. We will be shooting ourselves in the foot with this levy. It gives the impression of an inward-looking Wales that doesn't need or want tourism, which is the opposite to the truth. It also gives the impression of a Government out of ideas and kicking a sector that's already down. This tax will cause millions of pounds' worth of damage to the Welsh economy for a meagre return. I urge all Members to vote against this Bill tonight.    

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to reply to the debate. 

Llywydd, diolch yn fawr. Let me begin by thanking the Chairs of both committees that have studied the Bill. I look forward to continuing to work with the Finance Committee. We were able to accept all the recommendations and, as I say, there are ways in which the Bill will be improved as a result. I thank Mike Hedges for his powerful endorsement of the Bill. I think he asked the most sensible question of the whole evening: why has it taken so long to get to this very modest measure? 

Llywydd, I want to attend to a very small number of specific questions that I was asked. Luke Fletcher asked whether we might change the arrangement in which people arrive at emergency accommodation. I think it's a complex argument. On the whole, I'm persuaded that I do not want a woman fleeing domestic violence to have to declare that on her arrival at emergency accommodation. There may be many, many reasons why that would not be the right thing for that person to do, and if that's how this issue is to be navigated, I think we place the onus on the shoulders of the person who has been the victim of difficult circumstances, rather than allowing them to claim back the very modest amount of money that they might have to put upfront. But I understand the argument and it's not an easy one to resolve.  

Thank you to Siân Gwenllian for her comments. The intention is to have everyone on the register by 2028. So, we have a date in place for that. Of course, I look forward to the second Bill that will come before the Senedd and I look forward to Stage 2 when we can discuss some of the things that Siân has already raised. 

I understand that your intention is to have everyone registered by 2028, but that's not on the face of the Bill. 

It's not on the face of the Bill, but I am willing to provide Members with a timetable. We've discussed the issues with the WRA and they are confident that they can deliver that within the timescale that I have set out this afternoon. 

Can I also explain to Janet Finch-Saunders that the phrase she read out—? Maybe I should wait for her to be able to listen. Thank you. You quoted part of the Bill and asked me to explain it further. I'm happy to say that that is there directly in response to something that Darren Millar raised at the very start of the journey of the Bill when he asked me about church halls and faith tourism. I'm pleased that the phrase that you read out gives a guarantee that those are not captured by the Bill. 

Llywydd, only Conservative voices have been raised in opposition to the Bill. I tried, in this thing, as in all other things, to follow the advice of my leader when she quoted Saunders Lewis to us earlier this afternoon. I was trying to listen carefully. I started listening carefully to Gareth Davies, but when he said in his first sentence that the Conservative Party was a low-tax party, it took me several minutes of his contribution to recover from that and listen to the rest of what he said, given that his party raised taxes to a 70-year high across the whole of the United Kingdom. What a low-tax record that turned out to be.

I did listen carefully to what Janet Finch-Saunders said, and, of course, I noticed that not once in her whole contribution did she mention the word 'residents'. It was the first word that Joyce Watson raised. She came here to speak up for her residents; Janet Finch-Saunders came here to speak up for her businesses. Not once did she talk about those people in her constituency who, at the moment, have to bear all the costs that are associated with that industry in her locality.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Can I just tell you, in the 14 years I've been elected, I've never had a single resident ever complain to me about any overtourism or any effects of tourism? Many of our residents are employed in that tourism sector, and it's those residents who you will be now, probably, putting out of a job.

Well, I don't accept that, of course. What is absolutely clear, as others in the debate said, is that my constituents in Cardiff West have to pay for all the costs that those many tourists, who are absolutely welcome to Cardiff, who come for those special events that Mike Hedges referred to—. All those costs—. I see Cardiff Council doing an excellent job the morning after a major event—all those people out clearing up the rubbish, making sure that the streets are able to be used again. All the people who have visited Cardiff—they don't contribute a single penny to that, but my residents have to pay it all. And what this Bill does is it re-levels that playing field in a very modest way.

Now, Sam Rowlands was the main spokesperson for the opposition, and he offered us, I think, a series of misunderstandings of the Bill. He said that we should not be introducing a tax. Of course, the Bill does not introduce a tax, the Bill introduces a power for local authorities who choose to do it. Nobody in Wales is taxed as a result of this Bill, it is only where local authorities make that decision. And I think it was Lee Waters who said that, once upon a time, the Conservative Party claimed to be the party of localism—they believed the Government shouldn't make decisions on behalf of local people. That's exactly what this Bill does—it gives local people a decision. And maybe Labour-controlled Vale of Glamorgan will not introduce the tax, and that's fine, isn't it? Because they've made that decision on behalf of their residents.

I'm just interested to hear from you, Cabinet Secretary—. During the LJC report, it was raised about the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and actually, the Office for the Internal Market are looking at levies as an area that could actually be to the detriment of the UK in terms of the internal market Act. What sort of assessment have you made of the internal market Act and its impact on this levy, and if there was a challenge, do you expect there to be one?

For four years of Conservative Government, Llywydd, that Government knew that this Bill was coming in front of the Senedd; not one Government Minister of a Conservative hue ever raised the internal market Act in relation to this Bill, and neither has the Government elected in July of last year.

Sam Rowlands went on to say that the sector is heavily taxed, but, of course, this Bill doesn't tax the sector at all. No business pays any more money as a result of a local authority deciding to introduce the tax; the tax is paid by the visitor, not by the business.

I'm sorry, Cabinet Secretary, you're being unclear with that, because it's the business that's liable to make the payment of the tax to the WRA; it's not the visitor who's making that payment. The business can choose whether to charge the visitor for that or not, as you well know, and it's the business who's liable for making sure that the payment goes through to the WRA. Isn't that correct?

The clue is in the name, isn't it? It's a 'visitor' levy. The visitor will pay the business and the business will pay the WRA. That is what will happen in practice and that is clear to anybody.

And then Sam offered us this touching picture of visitors to Wales rushing out to eat at restaurants, enjoying tourism attractions in every part of Wales, and then saying to themselves, 'I'm not going to do that, because there's a visitor levy that will cost me less than a sausage roll. And because of that 80p, I'm not going to do all the things that Sam Rowlands said that I was planning to do. I've got to pay something that is less than half a cup of coffee, less than a bottle of water, and that is going to—'. [Interruption.] No, I've taken enough interventions from Conservative Members, and I don't think another one will help me very much.

Look, it's surely true this is the most modest contribution that people will pay to make sure that the tourism industry in the place that they have chosen to visit, for all the reasons we know why Wales is such a great place to visit—that that place goes on being attractive to them. I share Rhun ap Iorwerth's optimism about Wales and about the tourism industry. I don't believe for a single moment that paying this modest levy will put people off from everything that Wales has to offer. That's the bleak view of Wales that the Conservative Party has at its core, and you've heard it time after time this afternoon. This modest Bill will do good, it will offer choice to local people, it's right that it proceeds onto the statute book, and I hope that Members will support it this afternoon.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 8. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections, and therefore I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

As that vote on the general principles of the Bill has been deferred until voting time, I will also defer the vote on the financial resolution related to it. 

Voting deferred until voting time.