Official Report 480KB pdf
Item 2 is on recent events at VisitScotland relating to the post of the chief executive. I ask Dr Cantlay to make some opening remarks, after which we will have a brief opportunity for questions. Time for this session is very short indeed, so please keep questions very focused.
Regarding the situation with the chief executive, I hope that the committee will appreciate that, as discussions are continuing, I am limited in what I can say this morning. However, in a spirit of openness and transparency, I want to express as much as I can. I have prepared a statement for you that is relevant and which has been agreed by the entire board of VisitScotland. I hope that it will interpret both the current situation and the aspirations of the board going forward. On behalf of the entire board of VisitScotland, I would like to make it clear that Philip Riddle has successfully led the organisation on a journey of improvement and through a period of great change. During his tenure, VisitScotland has been transformed into a more efficient organisation, and he has overseen a major reorganisation of tourism structures and brought new approaches to visitor services.
Thank you for your opening statement. Can you clarify when decisions were taken in relation to Philip Riddle? When was it first considered that he was no longer the person to take forward VisitScotland?
I took up post on 1 April. I approach such jobs by taking time to work around board members on an individual basis; I go out to them in their location, speak to them in their environment and hear where they are and where they are from. When I was working around each and every VisitScotland board member, it became clear to me that there was anxiousness and concern about whether Philip Riddle was the best person to take forward the organisation from this point on. I communicated that to the minister when I met him on 22 April. At that meeting, I highlighted the fact that board members had concerns about whether Philip was the ideal person to take forward the organisation. I had several conversations with Philip, culminating in our meeting on 14 May. Ahead of the meeting, I told Philip that it was my intention to talk to the board about the issue and to raise it on 14 May. I spoke to him briefly subsequent to the meeting, on 14 May.
Which minister did you meet on 22 April?
Jim Mather.
What other discussions about the post did you have with Mr Mather or other ministers prior to or after 22 April?
The only conversations were between the Scottish Government and me. I met John Swinney for half an hour or so. If I remember rightly, the meeting was on 12 May, but it focused on how I saw the future direction of tourism and on his views. Beyond that, the conversation was with the Scottish Government, because I required some bits and pieces from civil servants.
I was struck by the precise wording that you used in your statement. You said:
The exact words that I used with Philip Riddle did not include the word “probably”. I expressed to him that it was the board’s view that now was the time for change. I did so after taking significant counsel on how to approach the matter. I was confident, having been advised by senior legal support, that the best way of approaching such a matter in a confident way was to use that phraseology.
In making decisions of this moment, you had conversations with board members. You described a meeting with Jim Mather on 22 April as one in which you expressed the views of other board members. Did you tell Mr Mather your view and did he tell you his view? If so, will you share those with us?
Mr Mather did not tell me his view and, to be fair, I do not think that I told him my view either. I was concerned on my arrival on the board by the clear anxiousness that I found across the board on how best the organisation should be led in future. I have been trying to galvanise action on that as best possible. I clearly support the decision that the board took and stand with my board over the actions that came out of the meeting of 14 May.
That seems a curious formulation—almost of the chairman following the board. Is that what you are telling us?
No. You have to bear in mind that the board members have been on the board significantly longer than I have. A key feature that you must put into context is that this is an unprecedented time for us. The industry may want VisitScotland to play a role that it has not played before, given the unprecedented unpredictability of air travel. Although the volcanic ash issue has eased, it has created instability in this tourism season that we will live through and, I hope, exploit. There are key opportunities. That is why we went out more aggressively with the marketing campaign to give the industry confidence. The board took the decision that it did in the context of those issues.
In addition to being chief executive, Philip Riddle is the accountable officer for VisitScotland. What is the current position with the accountability of VisitScotland?
That position is appointed not by me but by the Scottish Government. Malcolm Roughead, the chief executive, will be appointed as the accountable officer.
Who is currently the accountable officer?
My understanding is that a letter was on the way to that effect. I will have to check that it has arrived, but that is my understanding.
Does that mean that, until such a letter is sent and received, Philip Riddle remains the accountable officer for VisitScotland?
No. My understanding is that, in these circumstances, that is not the case.
Does that mean that VisitScotland has no accountable officer in place today?
I do not have the correct phraseology to give you as to how these interim arrangements are made, but I understand that a common approach is taken to them. I will come back directly to the committee on that. It is a perfectly appropriate point.
Dr Cantlay, you have been very forthcoming about timelines, which I think is genuinely appreciated by the committee. You described the meeting of 22 April with the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism. At that point, you would have been in post for three weeks and you were talking to a minister who had been in post for over three years.
Yes.
Did you seek the minister’s opinion on a change of chief executive?
No. I did not at that point. I was being mind mapped at the time, if that makes sense to members. [Laughter.] We had a pretty wide-ranging discussion about the kind of aspects that we were talking about in the committee earlier today, such as the bigger aspirations and, in particular, the growth agenda. The whole process of the appointment of the chair focused on the growth agenda, the tourism framework for change, the 50 per cent growth target and so forth. The two-hour discussion with the minister focused on that. I can tell you categorically that Mr Mather did not express a view on the views that I was highlighting reflecting the anxiousness of board members.
I turn to the subsequent meeting of 12 May with John Swinney, who I assume was by then sighted on your discussions with Mr Mather. What did you tell Mr Swinney about the planned board meeting of 14 May?
I did not discuss the context of the meeting on 14 May. Again, the meeting with Mr Swinney was quite short. We had originally intended to combine the two ministers but, because volcanic ash was causing people difficulties in getting to Orkney, that was not possible, and I got a slightly less than 30-minute slot. I wanted to focus on the volcanic ash issues and some of the growth issues, and that is what we stuck to.
Was there any discussion of the chief executive at that meeting on 12 May?
No, and John Swinney did not give a view on—
There was no discussion of the chief executive.
That is correct.
How long had Mr Riddle’s contract to go at that point?
I must defer answering that question. I cannot give you an answer at the moment and, even if I had the information to hand, it is probably not appropriate for me to do so. That is a personal matter.
Philip Riddle is roughly the same age as me—I am 65. He joined the Open University roughly the same time as I did, back in the late 1960s. It seems to me that the logic of your position is reinforced by the notion that it is a good idea to have someone in post for a longish period of time to carry out the changes that you have been speaking of—I can certainly appreciate the seriousness of those changes, given the various economic movements of the past couple of years. I presume that that was uppermost in your mind when you were thinking about planning.
I can say that Philip Riddle’s age is well documented elsewhere, and I will leave that with you. The age discrimination legislation that we now have in place means that people can work for however long they wish. It would be fair to highlight that, as you would expect an incoming chair to do, I spoke to Philip Riddle about his game plan, and he expressed no ambitions towards any sort of early retirement.
Was Mr Riddle on a fixed-term contract or a permanent contract?
Well—
It is on the public record, so we can go back and check, if you feel that you cannot say.
If it is a matter of public record, I will highlight the situation. Philip Riddle was employed in 2001, since when there have been changes to legislation.
That is helpful.
Had you told Scottish Government officials, prior to the board meeting on 14 May, that you thought that that was an appropriate occasion on which to deal with the matter of the chief executive? Was it on the agenda of the meeting? Were Scottish Government officials aware that the chief executive’s future would be on the agenda of that meeting?
I did not contact Scottish Government officials to tell them that. If you can imagine the situation, the scenario presents quite an awkward position for a chairman to be in. Someone in that position must be extremely careful about getting the information and advice that they require, not just practically but in terms of the wellbeing of their staff. I asked the Scottish Government for certain pieces of information about contracts and other bits and bobs, as you would expect. Although I did not tell the Scottish Government directly what my intentions were and what was happening at the board, there was a line of questions and information flowing back and forth, as you would expect.
Would any of that contact have involved you asking Scottish Government officials what the ministerial view would be on the course of action that you were taking?
It has always been clear to me, and it has always been the view of officials, that this is a matter for the board to progress. My frustration is that I had barely started the process when the leak appeared. I want to stress the concept of the leak and the damage that was associated with it. When an individual member of staff is talking with their line manager about a confidential personnel matter, it is terrible to find oneself in a situation in which there is a leak, especially if it occurs at the start of such a delicate conversation. A leak of this sort is quite an unusual occurrence. It has been most unfortunate, and I regret it hugely.
As there are no further questions, I thank you for your attendance this morning. We will see you frequently over the coming months as, after the summer recess, we will be conducting our review of the success or otherwise of the year of homecoming and considering how the Scottish tourism industry in general is progressing.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and Richard Arnott, from the tourism section of the Scottish Government.
I have no opening statement to make today, convener.
When were you or anyone else in the Scottish Government first aware that VisitScotland was considering replacing its chief executive?
I became aware of the issue when I read the Sunday Herald on the morning of 30 May. That was when the matter became relevant, from my perspective. As you have just heard, in advance of that date, Dr Cantlay sought some information from Scottish Government officials and raised with Jim Mather the view that was formulating within his board. On that basis, Mr Mather expressed no opinion on the matter. As Mr Mather made clear in Parliament, this was fully and properly a matter for the board of VisitScotland to consider.
Just to be absolutely clear, Mr Mather had a discussion with Dr Cantlay on 22 April and was made aware that there were concerns within the board about Philip Riddle, but he did not advise you that there were such concerns at that point. Is that correct?
Yes.
When VisitScotland’s board was in contact with officials regarding legal issues around the position of the chief executive, those officials did not advise you, as the minister with overall responsibility for the department, that those discussions were under way.
As I understand it—and as Dr Cantlay has just explained to the committee—Dr Cantlay was seeking various pieces of information from Scottish Government officials in relation to what we all appreciate is a delicate matter. Certainly, no proposal was made to Scottish Government officials by the board of VisitScotland of which Mr Mather and I would have to be advised or in relation to which our opinions would have to be sought.
The board had already decided, on 14 May, that it was going to have discussions with the chief executive to terminate his contract, so the matter was not
From what Dr Cantlay has said on the record, that was a discussion that was designed to raise the board’s concerns with Philip Riddle. As I said, it was not a proposal that had come to the Government for us to express a view about or to comment on. I can only refer you to Dr Cantlay’s earlier statement that the discussions had barely begun when a leak led to press speculation.
Were you aware of any concerns on the part of the board of VisitScotland regarding the direction in which Philip Riddle was taking the organisation prior to Dr Cantlay’s appointment as chair on 1 April? Did the previous chair, Peter Lederer, raise any concerns about Philip Riddle?
Peter Lederer raised no such concerns with me during his tenure as the chair of VisitScotland, and neither did any individual board members. However, it is important to say that my proximity to the operation of VisitScotland is not as close as that of Mr Mather, who is the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and has a close working relationship with VisitScotland.
It is slightly strange that, as the cabinet secretary with overall responsibility, you seem relatively relaxed about the fact that no concerns were raised about the chief executive, Philip Riddle, before 1 April but, within 22 days of the new chairman’s appointment, he raised concerns with the tourism minister and, within six weeks of his appointment, the board opened negotiations with the chief executive for him to leave his post. That strikes me as being a sudden change from a period in which Philip Riddle had been lauded for his direction of VisitScotland during a difficult time.
In a sense, I should not comment on that, because employment of the chief executive of VisitScotland is entirely a matter for the chair and board of VisitScotland: that appointment is not a ministerial matter.
Dr Cantlay told us this morning that the board’s unanimous view was that now is
I understand that there was a board meeting on 14 May. I was not there and I do not have a detailed account of it. I heard Dr Cantlay say that to the committee, and I have no information to the contrary.
As far as you are aware as the minister responsible for the agency, it was a formal board view.
Dr Cantlay told the committee this morning that—if Mr Macdonald will give me a moment—he wanted the committee to
So the critical decision had been taken before you first read about the matter in the newspapers. As you will be aware, VisitScotland’s management statement requires the board to
The difficulty here is that the committee is considering—I quite understand why, and I have no issue with its doing so, but I must make this observation—an issue that relates to the employment of an individual. Quite understandably, there are a huge range of privacy and contractual issues that are involved in that process. As a consequence, the committee does not and cannot have—because the issues simply cannot be put in the public domain—a detailed account either of the nature of all the discussions that took place between the chair and chief executive of VisitScotland, or of the position of the board.
As the cabinet secretary will appreciate, the private affairs of Mr Riddle and the contractual issues are not our primary concern, but we have very significant concerns. This morning, Dr Cantlay told us that the reason for the board reaching that decision was in part a view that there was a need for a “fundamental change” of strategy and direction. I think that those were the very words that he used in his statement to us this morning. If the motivation for those discussions was in part to achieve a fundamental review of strategy and direction, does not that come within the ambit of the requirement on the board to keep ministers informed of changes in strategy and direction? In other words, is not the critical point in terms of strategy and direction not when the discussions are concluded but when the board determines that a change of strategy and direction is required? Should you not have been told at that point?
Let me just pick up Mr Macdonald on one issue on which we perhaps have a fundamental difference. Mr Macdonald has suggested that ministers should be told only when discussions are concluded—
No. I said that it is not the case that ministers should be told only when discussions are concluded. Ministers should be told at the point at which a change in strategy and direction is decided upon.
Perhaps Mr Macdonald and I are more in agreement than we think we are. I certainly do not believe that ministers should be advised only when the proposals are concluded. I think that ministers should be advised when there is an appropriate point of formulation of the proposition. As Dr Cantlay said to the committee,
Nonetheless, I presume that the critical point at which the board came to the view that a fundamental review of strategy and direction was required was on 14 May. Is not it remarkable that that was not communicated to ministers in line with the management statement?
No, because that gets us into the issue that I highlighted to the committee about the sensitivity of the discussions. For example, an outcome of that conversation could well have been that Mr Riddle just took the view, “Well, I’d be quite interested in moving on”. I am about to go into a terribly sensitive area here. At that stage, Mr Riddle might have clearly said to the chairman, “I want to move on and do something else in my working life” and the issue could have been concluded in one very brief conversation. I do not know whether that was the case, but I think that Mr Macdonald’s assumption is that discussions had reached a sufficiently developed stage for a proposition to be put to advise ministers. That was not the case.
You have referred to the appointment and the discussions with Mr Riddle as being simply a personnel matter for VisitScotland. As you will appreciate, the chief executive of VisitScotland is not just another member of staff, but the agency’s accountable officer. Who, today, is VisitScotland’s accountable officer?
The accountable officer is Malcolm Roughead.
So, as Dr Cantlay described in his evidence, that is a matter not for him but for you.
It is not actually a matter for me. It is a matter for the permanent secretary.
At what point did the permanent secretary indicate that Mr Roughead would replace Mr Riddle as VisitScotland’s accountable officer?
I understand that the permanent secretary issued a letter yesterday deeming Mr Roughead to be accountable officer with effect from 3 June.
In effect, it is a retrospective appointment of accountability.
Mr Roughead was appointed acting chief executive officer on 3 June and was carrying out the functions of the chief executive, who was the then accountable officer. The permanent secretary has provided formal confirmation of the assumption of responsibility as accountable officer, which is carried with the existing responsibilities of the chief executive that Mr Roughead inherited on 3 June.
He took over those responsibilities on an interim basis on 3 June.
Yes—he took over as acting chief executive.
This is an important point. I presume that, in law, Philip Riddle remains VisitScotland’s chief executive, even though he is not acting in that role.
Mr Macdonald is absolutely correct to point out that Malcolm Roughead is the acting chief executive and that, in law, Philip Riddle remains the chief executive of VisitScotland.
We heard today that Mr Mather was informed on 22 April of the board’s views in relation to Mr Riddle and the agency’s leadership. Is the cabinet secretary able to enlighten us as to why Mr Mather did not feel it appropriate to include that information in his recent statement to Parliament?
What Mr Mather made clear was the fundamental distinction at the heart of the matter: its handling, consideration and direction have been for the chairman and board of VisitScotland. That is where responsibility rightly and properly rests, in accordance with the operation of VisitScotland’s management statement.
Cabinet secretary, you said that all matters surrounding the chief executive are matters for the board alone. What is your basis for saying that?
My basis for saying that is, in essence, the contents of the management statement.
In the tourism minister’s statement to the Parliament, he referred to the documents that govern the relationship between the Government and VisitScotland and he expressed that same view—that personnel matters are purely a matter for the board. However, in the document that governs the relationship, the chief executive is treated entirely separately. As Mr Macdonald pointed out, the chief executive is also the accountable officer, which is of some consequence. I am going from memory but, in the section on the chief executive, the document states that even things such as setting objectives for the chief executive are for the board to do in consultation with the sponsoring department. Given all that information in the document, do you genuinely think that it is absolutely clear that something as significant as the removal of the chief executive is a matter for the board alone?
Yes it is, in terms of arriving at that decision and deciding to pursue the issue. There will be wider consequences of the removal of a chief executive and ministers will be involved in some of the succession arrangements. However, my reading of the management statement supports my position.
Does it not seem to be a bit strange that although even setting an objective for a chief executive must be done in consultation, removal is a matter for the board alone? Does that strike you as odd?
No—it strikes me as being entirely consistent with the management statement.
Have you sought legal advice on that specific point?
Mr Brown will appreciate that ministers of all Administrations never disclose whether they have taken legal advice on any particular issue.
I am not sure that that is true. They do not disclose legal advice.
We heard from Dr Cantlay that he met Jim Mather on 22 April and at that point shared with the minister the anxieties that he had heard round the board table. We also heard that Dr Cantlay met you on 12 May, 48 hours in advance of the critical board meeting. In advance of that meeting with Dr Cantlay on 12 May, had your officials made you aware of concerns in the VisitScotland board about the chief executive?
They had not.
Were you aware that the issue of the chief executive was to be discussed at the board meeting on 14 May?
I was not aware of that.
So sponsoring officials were aware of widespread concerns on the board about the chief executive, but your officials did not tell you that in the intervening two weeks following the ministerial meeting.
That is correct.
Do you have anxieties about not being kept informed, given that you are the minister for the sponsoring department?
That does not give me concern because, to return to the point that I have concentrated on with the committee, as Dr Cantlay said in his statement, the discussions had “barely begun”. That is the difficulty with which we are wrestling. The issue had hardly formulated itself before it was in the media. With the greatest of respect, if the issue had not been in the media, the committee would not be questioning me about it today. Clearly, I have to be properly advised on different issues as they develop. On this issue, it would have been very difficult for my officials to advise me of the concrete detail of the course that the issue was taking.
I am asking not whether they informed you of the concrete detail but whether, when you met Dr Cantlay on 12 May, your officials had informed you of the concerns about the chief executive—concerns that the chairman and the junior minister had discussed at the meeting of 22 April.
No. I had not been informed of that. It is also important to say that that was essentially my introductory meeting with Dr Cantlay as chairman of VisitScotland. Unfortunately, I had had to cancel a previous arrangement for us to meet because of another commitment. I cannot recall the circumstances of that, but—
Volcanic ash—
How could I have forgotten that? [Interruption.] I am advised that it was the convention of the Highlands and Islands that thwarted me. Essentially, the meeting was an introductory meeting for Dr Cantlay and I to consider these questions.
Following the meeting of 14 May, at which we now know that the future of the chief executive was discussed at board level, were you briefed by officials that such a discussion had taken place?
No. That is why I was surprised to read the Sunday Herald article on 30 May.
As a former occupant of a similar post, I find it extraordinary that Scottish Enterprise, HIE or VisitScotland could have a board-level discussion on the performance of its chief executive and that the sponsoring department officials were not aware that that discussion had taken place. I find it equally inconceivable that those sponsoring department officials would not at least alert the minister that such a discussion had taken place. I am not making mischief; I simply find the proposition an extraordinary one.
Regrettably, there is an inaccuracy in what Wendy Alexander has just said. Sponsoring officials were aware that a discussion had taken place. As Dr Cantlay said to the committee earlier, the discussions with Philip Riddle had barely begun when this appeared in the press. There is a clear distinction between the issue arising and when officials think it appropriate to brief ministers. Officials have to make a judgment on this. Obviously, the fact that Mr Mather had been aware of the board’s concerns at the discussion on 22 April is one matter. I would not have expected to have heard details of that unless the issue was in a more developed form than Dr Cantlay has told the committee it was in.
Officials were aware that a discussion had taken place on 14 May about the chief executive, but they did not brief ministers.
That is what Dr Cantlay confirmed this morning.
You were not briefed by officials following the board meeting of 14 May.
No. I was not.
Was Mr Mather briefed?
I do not think so. [Interruption.] I am advised that the answer is no.
I was in the minister’s position at the time of some controversy when Philip Riddle became chief executive of VisitScotland. I am aware of the complexities of the relationship between a sponsoring department and an organisation. We heard today from Dr Cantlay that he had, understandably, sought details of the chief executive’s contractual position because, as others have mentioned, the management statement allows for the chief executive to be in a different position from other employees. Dr Cantlay told us that he had sought legal advice. Did officials from your department tell you that the chairman of VisitScotland had sought advice, in general terms, on those matters?
No.
You were unaware that the chairman of VisitScotland had sought advice from sponsoring department officials on the contractual terms of the chief executive of VisitScotland.
That is correct, yes.
Was Mr Mather informed that details had been sought from the sponsoring department’s officials about the terms and conditions of the chief executive?
Mr Mather was advised that Dr Cantlay had asked officials about those questions.
What was the timing of that?
From what Dr Cantlay said this morning, I think that that was in advance of 14 May.
In conclusion, would it not have been wise to reveal in the statement to Parliament all those details: that the future of the chief executive had been the subject of discussion on 22 April between the new chairman, who had been in post for three weeks, and the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, who had been in post for three years; that you had had a meeting about the future of tourism on 12 May; that your officials were aware that there was an issue with the future of the chief executive, although that had not been discussed with you; that legal and contractual advice had, understandably, been sought from the sponsoring department and that the minister had been informed of that; that all of that took place in May because due process demanded it; and that, yes, it was unfortunate that the details were subsequently leaked? All that seems to me to be in the nature of the business of government and in the nature of relationships between a sponsoring department and a major executive agency. I just think that it would have been helpful if those details had been shared in the ministerial statement.
I think that Mr Mather gave a very full statement to Parliament. He certainly made the fundamental point, which is at the heart of the issue, that there are matters that non-departmental public bodies such as VisitScotland are empowered to take forward. I can foresee other circumstances—I am sure that Wendy Alexander will appreciate this point given her experience as a minister—in which ministers might be criticised for being unduly close and involved in what happens within non-departmental public bodies. I can remember howls of protest at different stages at ministers being too closely involved in the running of non-departmental public bodies. The relationship is difficult and complex, which is why judgment needs to be applied on when is the right time for ministers to be involved. The management statement gives VisitScotland a very significant level of autonomy, and rightly so. If ministers do not observe and respect the distance that is implicit in that relationship, they will readily be criticised for being far too close to what is essentially the operational management of non-departmental public bodies.
Convener, in the interests of time, I will leave it there.
I ask Marilyn Livingstone to be brief, if possible.
I am trying to get an understanding of the issue. It would have been helpful to have had a written copy of Dr Cantlay’s statement today, as we have had to go on memory and on what we managed to write down in our pads.
It would be more appropriate for Dr Cantlay to comment on your final point. As I have insisted to the committee, questions about the chief executive’s role are properly for the board of VisitScotland, especially because of the management statement under which I am obliged to operate.
I just keep coming back to the fact that if we are all agreed that the decision was about strategic direction, the operating plan makes it clear that ministers should have been informed.
The issues around the notification to ministers are contained in Dr Cantlay’s comment this morning that the discussions had barely begun. That is the point. The debate was just beginning to be formulated.
I struggle with that argument. The board of VisitScotland’s decision to change chief executive because it wants to change direction was taken on 14 May. I accept that the detail of how that would be done was in the early stages of formulation, but the decision had been made to change the chief executive of VisitScotland and I am staggered that the sponsoring department had not informed you, as cabinet secretary with overall responsibility, that that was happening. That is staggering.
The difficulty here is in the nature of the issue with which we are wrestling, because it is caught up with employment law. You said, convener, that a decision was made on 14 May. I was not present at that board meeting, so I cannot give you an account of it. Perhaps Dr Cantlay can help you with the question about the nature of the conclusion that those discussions reached.
He made it clear in his statement that that was the decision that was made.
The essential point that Dr Cantlay made was that the board had taken the view that it was probably the right time for a change of chief executive, and the board delegated the communication of the board’s view to Dr Cantlay. An employment lawyer would have to consider very carefully the contents of that statement, and that is why I cannot shed any light on the nature of the board’s position.
Can Richard Arnott shed any light on the situation? Is it his understanding that a board decision was taken? Was the information that a decision had been taken to begin discussions with a view to achieving a change of strategic leadership and direction within VisitScotland available to him and his colleagues, as officials advising ministers?
Government officials were not at the board meeting either. We were informed that the board would discuss the chief executive’s position, that it had done so and that Dr Cantlay was then having a discussion with Mr Riddle. My understanding is that, because Mr Riddle went on holiday at that point, he did not give a reaction and, therefore, no final decision was taken at that point.
Will you confirm, as the cabinet secretary told us, that you were aware in advance of the meeting of 14 May that the matter would be on the agenda and after 14 May that the decision had been taken but that you did not so advise ministers?
That is correct.
I missed Dr Cantlay’s statement as I had to attend to other business. However, I am concerned about the line of the committee’s questioning, which seems to be interested in process—to what aim, I am not quite clear—rather than VisitScotland’s objectives under its new chairmanship.
The Government views tourism as a fundamental sector for Scotland’s economic future. It plays and can play a significant part in economic recovery in Scotland. The year of homecoming achieved a significant economic impact in Scotland and came at a time when the Scottish economy needed that economic impetus. The Government could not recognise more clearly the significant opportunity that exists for tourism to contribute to economic growth and that comes from the unfulfilled potential of the industry.
Those matters were being discussed when Peter Lederer was chair of VisitScotland.
In essence, those are the core elements of the relationship between ministers and VisitScotland that exists to ensure that the organisation contributes towards achieving Scotland’s tourism potential.
I will let Christopher Harvie ask a question if he is extremely brief, as we have to protect time for the next item.
I will be brief.
With universities, the distance is even greater, because universities are self-governing institutions.
I am conscious of time, but Stuart McMillan has indicated that he would like to ask a late question. If he can keep it to one line, I will allow him to ask it.
Bearing in mind what has happened, is there an argument for bringing non-departmental public bodies such as VisitScotland closer to the Government, to ensure that ministers have a more hands-on managerial approach to the organisations?
There are judgments to be made about whether the non-departmental public body structure is appropriate in certain circumstances. We have a number of non-departmental public bodies. The Government has embarked on a process of reducing that number, but we have no proposals in that respect for VisitScotland because there is a clear rationale for having such a body with a board that is led by individuals with a great deal of knowledge about and experience of the tourism industry, who are able to relate the organisation to the industry. That input is clearly beneficial.
I thank the cabinet secretary and Mr Arnott for their input. The committee will consider at a later date what action we wish to take.
Previous
International Trade Inquiry