22-07-2025
Angela Rayner has got one thing right. Britain needs a tourism tax
I never imagined saying this but I agree with Angela. The Deputy Prime Minister wants cities to have more autonomy to run themselves as they do on the continent, where they thrive largely free of national government diktat.
When their economic performance is rated against their European counterparts, English cities fall well short. In a league table measured by GDP per head and headed by Munich, only London and Manchester (just) make the top 40 from England.
German cities have by some distance out-performed British cities since 2007. Key factors in their success have been supportive state governments and high levels of autonomy. In France, the 14 'communautés urbaines'' mainly perform better, with Lyons, Toulouse, Nice and Marseille all in the top 40. They exercise substantial delegated powers over waste, water, public transport, roads, economic development and the environment. Spanish and Italian cities do the same.
Ours, by contrast, have undergone political reform, with elected mayors, but have not got much in the way of economic autonomy. England is the most centralised country in Europe and its great cities are prey to Treasury cheeseparing and ineptitude. They should be able to run their own affairs and be accountable to local voters for their actions.
But the Treasury has never liked relinquishing its all-encompassing power and Ms Rayner's muscle-flexing has predictably been fought off by a Chancellor who can see someone after her job.
This latest spat between the Cabinet duo was ostensibly over whether mayors should be able to impose tourist taxes, a suggestion that has roused howls of fury from predictable quarters. Usually I might have joined them; but actually a tourist tax is not a bad idea, albeit not for the reasons Big Ange gives. She sees the revenues as a way of topping up town hall coffers where they would no doubt be diverted into employing diversity officers and staging pride events.
But there is a very good use to which the proceeds can be put, which is to support the continued free entry to museums and galleries. One of the few great achievements of the New Labour government was to remove charges in 2001.
It has since been possible to visit the British Museum or the National Gallery for nothing. In New York you will pay $30 to go to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and in Paris a ticket to enter the Louvre will set you back 22 euros. It is 25 euros for the Uffizi in Florence and 15 euros for the Prado in Madrid. If you have been to any of these recently you will not have noticed a dearth of visitors. In some of them you can hardly move.
One of the arguments against reimposing museum charges is that it will put people off going yet this has not been seen elsewhere. Moreover, the heads of the great national institutions say they are getting increasingly into financial difficulties and cannot rely on a Government struggling with massive debt to bail them out.
Nor is this just about London. The English Civic Museums Network says institutions across the country are in financial difficulties because of budget cuts and at risk of closure. The recent spending review allocated another £270m to the country's galleries but this is seen as inadequate to the task.
Sir Mark Jones, a former director of the British Museum and the V&A, has proposed a £20 entrance fee to enter publicly funded museums across the UK, though they would remain free to British taxpayers (though how that would work without ID cards I am not sure).
'It would make sense for us to charge overseas visitors for admission to museums as they charge us when we visit their museums,' said Jones.
Indeed, this country has everything back to front. You can get into the Tate for free but it costs £26 for an adult ticket to St Paul's Cathedral, and £10 for children, setting back a family of four more than £70 to visit a church. In Paris you can go to Notre Dame for nothing.
The point is we should not want to charge for museums and galleries but the economic exigencies may prove overwhelming for a Chancellor looking to cut costs anywhere she can. Since most taxpayers don't visit a museum from one year to the next, why would they mind?
The hospitality industry is said to be against a tourist tax; but if it was a hypothecated levy designed to support the museums and galleries would there be objections? If enough is raised it could be used to pay for more police, not detectives but dedicated beat officers.
It is a bit odd calling for cuts in benefits because they are unaffordable while expecting taxpayers who never go near an art gallery to subsidise free entry for tourists. Is it seriously being suggested that a room tax of £5 a night, or one per cent on the total bill, would put off visitors to London where a West End show can set a family of four back at least £500? Does anyone say they are not going to Barcelona because it has a tourist tax?
The reality for those working themselves into a fury about tourist charges is that their own taxes are paying for things they hardly use but which visitors, almost by definition, use all the time. That's why they come to cities like London or Bath or Oxford.
The pressure for admission fees to meet high operations costs like maintaining buildings and conserving collections will only grow. The money comes from the taxpayer or generous philanthropists, but for how much longer? It could cost as much as £500m to restore the British Museum's buildings and create new facilities so that more of its eight million objects could go on permanent display.
To raise funds, the galleries run regular 'blockbuster' exhibitions for which they charge exorbitant sums, often using works they already possess as the centrepieces. They also ask for voluntary donations at the door.
Is it really such a bad idea to seek a contribution from tourists by way of a hotel room levy specifically earmarked for museum and gallery upkeep, especially if the alternative is to pay £20 to go in?
For now Rayner seems to have lost the argument with the Chancellor but no doubt will be back.
