Found at: http://www.anguillaguide.com/article/articleprint/3564/-1/140/
|
HOUSE APPROVES LEVY FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT Visitors To Pay US$1 Per Occupied Room
|
Afew years ago, the Anguilla Hotel and Tourism Association, backed by the Tourist Board, came up with a suggestion that all AHTA members should volunteer to collect a dollar a day from visitors to contribute to the marketing of Anguilla as a tourist destination and the development of the industry. That undertaking was not as successful as planned and now Government has legislated to make the levy mandatory.
|
|
Honourable Victor Banks
|
The enabling legislation is The Anguilla Tourist Board (Amendment) Bill, 2006, which was passed in the House of Assembly on May 8.
The Bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance, Economic Development and Tourism, Victor Banks.
First Nominated Member in the House, and Special Adviser in the Ministry of Tourism, said: “The ultimate objective is that not only will the owners of accommodation facilities have to contribute to the levy, but also providers of all the ancillary services, all the beneficiaries from the tourism industry. These include the car rentals, restaurants, shops, boutiques etc but the start right now is with the property owners.”
Ms. Banks explained that the tax was a matching fund. It is a dollar per occupied room per day. “This levy, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for product development purposes, for the development of our distribution channels and also for promotion of tourism,” she said.
|
|
Honourable Donna Banks
|
She spoke of several initiatives to promote Anguilla in the past by using such “tag lines” as The Best Kept Secret and Tranquillity Wrapped in Blue now changed to the new positioning statement of The Anguilla Experience: Feeling is Believing which addresses the various qualities that make Anguilla so unique.
Ms. Banks said that changing the marketing focus of the island would therefore come with a cost. The new “tag line” would ensure that the Anguilla experience could be enjoyed “whether at a five-star property or at a charming escapes collection property.”
She explained that the Charming Escapes Collection was “a group of budget and mid-market properties receiving special attention from the Government of Anguilla, through the Anguilla Tourist Board, having recognised that this segment of the market has over 300 rooms. They are primarily Anguillian-owned, their performance in the past has not been exceptional, and we need to do something about them in terms of product development and promotion.”
She argued that competition in the tourism market was now intense and if Anguilla was to play its part well in the international marketplace, it had to pay its way. “The Tourism Development Levy, Mr. Speaker, I believe allows Anguilla, as a destination, to play,” she stated. “We may not be able to play as sophisticated a game as some of the other destinations but at least we can play. I believe that all of us on Anguilla who benefit from the tourism industry must enable the Government of Anguilla, through the Anguilla Tourist Board, to play.
“We all must pay, so that the Government of Anguilla and ATB can play…The levy does not only take care of our budget and mid-market properties which do not have the individual marketing budgets to promote themselves overseas. It goes beyond that. The idea is that we need to get persons, when they hear about Anguilla, to think about a particular experience as opposed to equating the name Anguilla with a particular type of accommodation or name…When we talk about Anguilla, we want persons to think about that unique experience that includes our accommodation, cuisine, beaches, people, safety, security and tranquility.”
Opposition Member, Hubert Hughes, suggested that the term of “tourism development levy” could be misconstrued and thought that “tourism promotion levy” was more appropriate. He noted that “attracting tourists and attracting developers” were different matters and the time had come to consider how the island’s tourism product should be promoted. He was of the view that “the type of development that has taken place in recent times has overtaken the original concept in some ways.”
Mr. Hughes added: “I can’t see how the Government of Anguilla can classify an entity for tourism development. The Government of Anguilla, through the Ministry of Tourism and the Tourist Board, should be involved in finding funds exclusively for tourism promotion… We have to be very cautious about money and the people will not be satisfied if they are required on a moral obligation basis to pay monies towards this effort and then to be dissatisfied that that money is not properly spent because, ultimately, the general public would have to pay.”
The Opposition Member said he did not see in the Bill that the tourism levy would be put into a special fund other than the general accounts at the Treasury. He thought the levy could have a somewhat negative effect as it would appear that “we are taxing the tourist industry and the tourist more and creating a situation where they could complain.”
He noted that many visitors were staying in villas which were making a lot of money and competing with the hotels. “We have to be very vigilant in the collection of the levy. We have to find a method whereby nobody escapes because people who stayed in the private villas in the past, have go away scot-free, and we hope that the same situation does not happen when this new levy is introduced that tourists who stay in hotels will pay and those who stay in other places will not get away.”
Mr. Hughes added: Mr. Speaker, I said those few words because I too will be scrutinizing how this extra money is going to be used. I giver my support to the issue that there are genuine concerns about the limited funds available for promotion, and I urge that we be objective in not only collecting the money, but to ensure that it is properly utilised and produce maximum effect.”
Responding, Mr. Banks assured Mr. Hughes that there was no reason for concern as the levy was not only applicable to hotels but to villas as well which were a new part and trend of the hotel industry today.
Mr. Banks continued: “Mr. Speaker, I think he made reference to the term: ‘Tourism Development Levy.’ It is a very broad term but it means basically the same thing as tourism promotion and marketing levy. But it is a more holistic term which deals with other aspects of promotion – not only promotion overseas, but also inland promotion to clarify the development of our new brand as the Honourable First Nominated Member explained in her presentation. So the Member for Road South needs not be concerned about the use of the word ‘development’ which generalizes what is being intended and that is the overall enhancement of our tourism plant and the development of the Anguilla brand.”
The amending Bill was passed with the support of all the members of the House of Assembly.