The Economy, Culture and Skills Committee met on Monday 20 July 2026 to discuss the potential introduction of an Overnight Visitor Levy and the financial and operational status of the London Stadium. Key decisions included noting the reports on both topics and delegating authority to the Chair to agree any output from the discussions.

Overnight Visitor Levy

The committee heard from a panel of experts, including Howard Dawber OBE, Deputy Mayor for Business Growth; Anthony Breach, Director of Policy and Research at the Centre for Cities; Matthew Fell, Director of Competitiveness at BusinessLDN; and Kate Nicholls OBE, Chair of UKHospitality, regarding the proposed Overnight Visitor Levy.

There was a broad consensus that London, as a major global city, is an outlier in not having such a levy, with many comparable cities already implementing similar charges. Deputy Mayor Howard Dawber expressed support for the principle of the levy, seeing it as a potential source of income to support growth in the visitor economy. He noted that the government's consultation response was still awaited, which would influence the details of any potential levy, such as whether it would be a flat rate or a percentage, and what exceptions might apply. He indicated that the earliest a levy could come into force would be the end of 2028, though there is a desire to expedite this.

Business representatives, Matthew Fell and Kate Nicholls, while acknowledging the principle of fiscal devolution, expressed significant concerns about the timing and potential impact of the levy. They argued that the current economic climate is particularly challenging for the hospitality sector, which has already faced substantial tax increases. Nicholls stated, it's the wrong tax at the wrong time, highlighting that any additional tax on visitors would inevitably be passed on to consumers, impacting London's competitiveness. She cited research suggesting a potential £2 billion hit to GDP and the loss of 28,000 jobs nationally if a levy were introduced. Both Nicholls and Fell emphasised the need for simplicity, transparency, and a clear ring-fencing of any proceeds for tourism growth and promotion. They also stressed the importance of considering the UK's high VAT rates and other business taxes when making international comparisons.

Anthony Breach of the Centre for Cities argued strongly for fiscal devolution, stating that London is fiscally centralised compared to other G7 nations. He saw the visitor levy as a crucial first step in demonstrating that cities can be trusted with their own tax bases to fund local services and growth. He advocated for a percentage-based rate over a flat rate, deeming it more progressive.

Discussions also covered the operational aspects of the levy, including collection from platforms like Airbnb, the potential for a national framework for consistency, and the need for robust economic impact assessments. There was a debate between a flat rate versus a percentage rate, with the Deputy Mayor and Anthony Breach favouring a percentage rate for fairness and progressiveness, while Matthew Fell and Kate Nicholls leaned towards a flat rate for simplicity and ease of administration for businesses. Concerns were also raised about potential exemptions, particularly for voluntary groups and children, and the possibility of the levy being used to fund general council services rather than being ring-fenced for tourism growth.

London Stadium

The committee also discussed the financial position and operational challenges of the London Stadium, hearing from Lyn Garner, Chair of London Stadium LLP.

Ms Garner described the stadium's financial situation as challenging, with current projections indicating an annual operating loss of around £1.8 million, though this could rise to £2.5 million depending on commercial rights. This is despite a deal with LED advertising around the pitch, which brought in unexpected income. She confirmed that the stadium is projected to have a £19 million operating loss in 2025-26, a figure that has been consistent for some time, varying with the number of summer events. While efficiencies have been made in areas like seat replacement and utilities, the significant overheads and maintenance costs for the large venue remain a major driver of the loss.

Ms Garner stated unequivocally that if the current deal with West Ham United Football Club were put before her board now, she would absolutely not recommend signing it, highlighting that the contract is very favourable to the club. She noted that the relationship with the club has historically been tense due to contractual interpretations, but welcomed a recent loosening of that relationship under new club leadership, with more regular meetings and discussions about joint commercial deals.

The relegation of West Ham United from the Premier League was discussed, with Ms Garner explaining that while the contract includes provisions for revenue reduction in such an event, the projected £1.8 million loss is still significant. She also touched upon the contract's terms regarding cup competitions, noting that while the Europa Conference League win brought in £180,000, the additional operational costs for more games made a very small dent in the overall losses.

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the naming rights for the stadium. Ms Garner explained that the naming rights are split between the club and the stadium operator, making a unilateral sale impossible. She revealed that there had been three offers on the table in the past, with one in 2024 coming closest to a deal, but it ultimately failed due to the club not agreeing to the terms, particularly regarding the IP value of the club. She expressed pessimism about securing a deal quickly, citing the club's relegation and the hard bargaining historically. However, she acknowledged that the club's new leadership is now open to working on a joint deal, though she believes it is not the right time to sell while the club is in the Championship.

The committee also explored the potential for hosting the 2029 World Athletics Championships. Ms Garner sees it as a fantastic opportunity for London, bringing significant economic benefit. However, a key challenge is the timing, as UK Athletics wishes to hold the event in September, which conflicts with West Ham's football season. Under the contract, the football club has an overriding priority principle, meaning their explicit agreement is required for any other events during their season. This gives West Ham a veto power over such activities. Ms Garner is hopeful that the new leadership at West Ham will be more open-minded about this, but no decision has been made.

Finally, Ms Garner discussed potential improvements to the stadium's look and feel to make it more appealing to West Ham fans, including the costly option of changing all seats to claret. She also highlighted plans for commercial development around the stadium, including food and beverage offerings and leisure anchors, and a desire to increase the number of licensed events, which is currently capped at 10 per year, compared to Tottenham's 50.