Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 19 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001

Official Report 175KB pdf

---

Tourism (Research)

Agenda item 3 is research into tourism. First of all, I would like to say that the article that appeared in business a.m. yesterday was not a leak from the committee. Somebody had obviously read our paper and was under the illusion that we were going to hold a tourism inquiry between now and the summer. That is not the case: our plan has always been to hold a tourism inquiry some time in the autumn once the new management team at the Scottish Tourist Board has had time to get its feet under the table and take whatever action is necessary to sort out the organisation and the industry.

To help inform our inquiry, we agreed in October to commission some research into the promotion of tourism in other countries. Members have before them a copy of a draft proposal. Murray McVicar from the Scottish Parliament information centre is here. He has been extremely helpful generally, and particularly helpful in preparing the proposal. Are there any comments on it? Is everyone happy with it?

I have one concern. One of the areas from which we draw most tourists is England, so we need to consider what comparable areas in England are doing in relation to tourism. That might be part of our inquiry. We should not consider only overseas visitors.

That is a fair point.

In considering Catalonia, Bavaria, the United States and Australia, it is important to consider state and federal interactions. It would be useful to know how Catalonia and Bavaria feed into the national tourism organisations. The paper covers the usual suspects at one end of the spectrum, but it would be interesting to have that other information as well.

I want to ask about the comparative element of the study. What criteria will be used to determine which other countries will be studied?

We can do that in two ways: we could specify the countries and areas that we want the researchers to examine, or we could ask the people whom we invite to bid to specify countries and to justify why those countries are comparable to Scotland.

If the committee wants to steer the study toward a particular line of research, elements such as climate, landscape, heritage, resources and the extent of niche, rather than broad-based, marketing are the factors that would identify a comparable profile.

My only comment is to highlight the points that impact on the success or otherwise of the tourist industry that are not the result of tourist actions. I am not sure that they will be covered in the study. For example, if we examine the macroeconomic picture and find that the exchange rate is disadvantageous, a tourism minister could not necessarily change that. Can the remit of the study be changed to involve factors such as that?

We could ask the researchers whether it is possible to examine that.

The tourist industry would find it odd if we did not examine one of the biggest problems that its members raised with us.

The study will examine a wide range of factors to produce the broader picture. It will not only examine what ministers are doing. We could feed that element into the study.

I do not—

Order. Rhona Brankin was next to speak.

We must be careful that we do not end up with a massive unfocused study.

I echo that. We do not want to get involved in arguments—we all have an idea of where the study will end up.

I want to make a point about infrastructure. It strikes me that the market that we miss in Scotland is the niche market, not the Dublin or Paris weekend market. I might have a free weekend and want to go away somewhere. And if I want to get a bed in Ross and Cromarty, I must phone up Mrs McGlumpher or find out whether she has free beds from a notice tacked on her wall. I might decide that that is too difficult.

I am sure that VisitScotland would tell you that that is not the case. People visit its website and—

People do, but they do not get very far.

You find out that no accommodation exists.

Exactly. Although I have had great times with Mrs McGlumphers, I want to make a serious point about how we could make it easier for people around the country to take a break in Scotland. That is the point that David Mundell made. What is important is how our infrastructure competes internationally. If it is too difficult to go to Wester Ross, I will go to Dublin, Paris or Amsterdam. I would be interested to have information about infrastructure from the study.

I was told recently by a major retailer that tourist agencies niche-market to potential visitors in other countries. That includes Christmas shopping promotions. However, people who are not members of the tourist board are not included. For example someone—not Mrs McGlumpher—in Iceland might go on to the web looking for information about Scotland and find that Glasgow has only three shopping centres. That remarkable situation arises because only those three centres belong to VisitScotland or whatever. That is another deficiency of the system.

One aspect that is important is how VisitScotland deals with perceptions from outside Scotland. If people perceive that Scotland is wet, expensive and has three shops, it is important that VisitScotland knows that.

I am not sure that we need primary research on that. VisitScotland and Scotland the Brand have both conducted fairly extensive and expensive surveys on those matters. We do not need to spend public money on such research—it has already been done.

I wanted to ensure that the information was available.

Annabel Goldie mentioned the structures of tourism and travel agencies in other countries. We must ensure that what we are offering on that stage can be purchased. As we know, the United States has a very institutionalised and structured tourism market. If someone does not slot into the box as required, they are not in that market.

Murray, can you accommodate all those points within the terms of reference?

Yes. The inquiry will be fairly lengthy and will take much evidence from different sources. The purpose of the research is for us to learn lessons from practice in other countries. That should be the focus of the research and one of its concrete outcomes.

The choice of comparators is critical if the research is to be of any use to us. I do not know what stage has been reached in the bidding process, but I am keen for the researchers to tell us which countries are proposed as comparators and what criteria have been applied.

We could do that or the committee could just tell us which areas and countries it wants us to consider; the committee could choose.

That would be difficult, because I have not done any research into tourism. I would prefer the committee to set the criteria.

We can set the criteria in the bid. In bullet point 2 on objectives, on page 4 of my paper, I identify what I think would be the relevant factors. I would be happy to clarify those factors or to add to them.

One of those factors is "size of country". What do you mean by that?

That refers to the size of population or the geographical size of a country.

We must be clear about the parameters. The size of a country is meaningless if its population is tiny. There must be some consistency in the definitions.

I presume that you mean that we must use countries of a roughly comparable population and geographical size.

That is right. That factor is intended to apply to Ireland and the nordic countries, which are roughly comparable in those terms.

Okay. I suggest that we agree to the proposal in principle, but we will circulate a revised version that takes into account members' suggestions. We will agree to the proposal subject to those amendments being made. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will have to circulate the revised version to the committee as quickly as possible.

We should not forget the point that several members have made concerning our position as part of a larger entity. That must be emphasised in the identification of comparators during the first stage, as well as at the second stage.

I think that Murray McVicar has acknowledged that.

Yes.

Thank you very much. We agree to the proposal subject to those amendments.

As this is our final meeting of 2002, before we move into private session I express the committee's gratitude for the tremendous work rate of its supporting staff. I thank Simon Watkins and his team of clerks. I thank Linda Orton, in particular, as this is her last meeting before she moves on to pastures new in the chamber office. I also thank the staff of the official report, who must always sit in silence but whose role is absolutely crucial. Finally, I thank the research and information group, particularly Murray McVicar and Terry Shevlin, who have been of tremendous support to the committee throughout the year. On behalf of the committee, I express our thanks to all the support staff. Under parliamentary rules, we are not allowed to buy them any presents—which is tremendous, as it saves me a bob or two—but we appreciate all the work that they do for us.

Meeting adjourned until 11:40 and thereafter continued in private until 12:35.