Official Report 256KB pdf
It is now after 2 o'clock. We allowed an extra two minutes to give people plenty of time to get here, as there was a fire alarm earlier. Welcome to the 26th meeting this year of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I ask everybody to switch off their mobile phones—even if they are on silent mode, they cause a problem. I have received apologies from Mike Watson and Michael Matheson. I welcome Brian Adam to the committee. He is here for the first item, on tourism.
I wish first to record the fact that the STF welcomes the opportunity to give evidence today. I will introduce my colleagues. On my left is Peter Taylor, chairman of the Town House Company. He is also vice-chair of the Scottish Tourism Forum and chair of the pride and passion initiative. On my right is Ian Gardner, marketing manager at the National Trust for Scotland. He is also the chairman of the Association of Scottish Visitor Attractions and an STF director. I am chief executive of the Scottish Tourism Forum. Our immediate connections with the new network and the tourism network Scotland—or TNS—project are as follows: Peter Taylor sits on the ministerial steering group; Ian Gardner is a member of the project communications group; and I sit on the project's progress group.
Do either of Alan Rankin's colleagues wish to add anything to that at this point?
No—I would simply endorse the points that Alan has made.
I will start by picking up one of your later points, Mr Rankin. You said that it is critical to have a sustainable financial platform for the new organisation. In the past, a membership fee was paid by private sector members. Now, the intention is for private sector suppliers effectively to buy services from the new structure. Given that you represent those in the private sector, can you give us any feedback on your understanding of how that will work in practice? What response have you picked up among your members as to how receptive they will be to the new operation? How far down the road have the ideas been progressed? How enthusiastic will your members be in supporting the new structure?
I refer to my comment that there is some frustration in the industry and among our members and front-line businesses. It is not as yet clearly understood how services will be purchased and under what terms. There is a concern about how the membership subscriptions, which we understand to be in the region of £2 million, will effectively be replaced through buying packages of services, the nature of which has not yet been clarified. That is the critical stage that we are entering now.
The membership subscription scenario cannot be ideal. I work for a national organisation. Until now, we have had to buy membership of 11 out of the 14 area tourist boards in those areas where we have properties and want to engage with the ATBs. We have found that to be a cumbersome and complex process. We see it as an advantage to have one national body to engage with.
In effect, you are saying that you welcome the change in principle, but that you will need a lot more detail about how it is going to work in practice.
Yes. As of next April the new structure will be in place. It might be a year or two down the road before we see what impact it is having. We certainly welcome the new streamlined structure.
I am concerned about one point. Given that organisations such as yours will be buying in those packages, and that, at this stage, you do not know how it is all going to work, there must be an issue about the financial viability of the new structure in its early days.
The situation for the 2005 season is virtually the same as it is now. The seasonal purchasing of marketing opportunities is now under way, so we are really talking about the 2006 season. There is therefore time for those issues to be resolved, but many businesses have an 18-month planning window and will need to find out about the new structure now. It will not have a major impact on the marketing activities for next season.
I share some of the concerns about marketing planning for the following season, but that is not what I want to ask about. In your statement earlier, you said that you hoped that VisitScotland would adopt a more consultative position and be a supporting agency for businesses. The fourth bullet point on the first page of your submission says that you hope that what will come out of that will be
We see VisitScotland as more of a broker.
Given what you have said before about the necessity for clarity on marketing programmes for businesses for the season after next, do you think that the delay in getting this done will hinder the more essential work that might be being done to determine the viability of businesses in 2006-07?
There is a real need on both sides. It has already been said that an understanding of the revenue that will be generated from selling the packages is essential to the development of a sustainable business plan for the new network. The cart is being put before the horse; the revenue generation needs to be better understood.
I return to the question that Murdo Fraser asked earlier. It is still not clear to me how the new system will work financially. Does the STF foresee individual businesses buying marketing services? Do you also see the private sector buying marketing services collectively, either for an area or on a theme? You suggest in paragraph 10 of your submission that you expect surveys to be carried out. I assume that, as all that is to be done on the basis of something equivalent to a service level agreement, the private sector will have to make a contribution towards such surveys. What mechanisms do you envisage being in place to deal with marketing and/or survey work that is being undertaken on a collective basis on behalf of the private sector, as opposed to individual businesses buying a service in?
My understanding is that there will be a mixture of both, but that the opportunity will exist for individual businesses to buy such services on the basis of their individual business needs. A new initiative of challenge funding is being made available for groups of businesses that want to come together with innovative ideas for marketing. That is a collaborative approach and the costs are spread between the businesses and VisitScotland. I think that we will end up with a mixture of both individual businesses and groups buying services.
Paragraph 10 of your submission states:
One of VisitScotland's core roles is to look at future trends and the changing landscape of the global market. It is one of its core responsibilities to undertake research to support future marketing plans. Some market intelligence is obviously an asset to businesses, and there is an opportunity for collaborative working to secure additional private investment for that research, which is critical for the future of the industry.
What mechanism do you envisage for that collaborative research? I understand that a company that has a niche market may wish to have a certain question asked. How do we deal with such issues on a collective basis, or do you see that as the responsibility of VisitScotland?
That will be almost entirely for VisitScotland, although in a specific market sector, such as whisky tourism, an industry—for example, the whisky industry—may support additional, specialist research. We are keen to shape the research to ensure that it is not just the same old research, and VisitScotland is considering different and better ways of conducting research.
If there is to be a new partnership arrangement and if you want to shape the research, surely you should make a significant financial contribution to that. If we are to have that new arrangement, now is probably the time to lay the ground and make changes, and the mechanisms whereby the specialist questions on whisky or whatever are to be asked and the market research is to be shaped need to be decided now or very soon. We also need to know what contribution will be made by each of the partners to enable that to happen.
Conversations on those issues are already taking place between ourselves, the industry and VisitScotland.
I was recently asked to join a scenario planning group that is considering tourism trends to the year 2025, and it is clear that fairly clear agendas in looking forward are embedded in VisitScotland's research budgets. The project is also considering how some larger operators in Scottish tourism can be attracted to help to sustain that research jointly. However, our view is that the core responsibility rests with VisitScotland.
Industry partners also have a responsibility to share their research. Our organisation certainly conducts market research and makes the findings available to VisitScotland. Rather than everyone doing their own bits of work, we should try to pool as much knowledge as possible. Obviously, some research is commercially sensitive, but there is a responsibility to make information—whether it is on profiling, attitudes, ways in which people have found out about particular things or people's perceptions—available as widely as is practicable.
That would certainly make sense.
A complete review of tourism in Scotland is being done, which obviously represents an opportunity to consider where tourism support offices, hubs, or whatever they end up being called should be located. It is clear that the 14 existing locations have been used as a stepping-stone, and I can understand having 14 locations as a requirement of the transition period. A lot of change is happening and having 14 locations is a sensible stepping-stone, but we would like to see quick thinking about dispersal into other tourism areas. For example, the Argyll, the Isles, Loch Lomond, Stirling and the Trossachs Tourist Board covers a huge geographic area, but there is a potential for some form of tourism business support centre that is located over in the west to support the gateway to the islands, or for a centre further over on the west side of Scotland.
Would that be the only change? Would that centre be instead of, or in addition to, something else?
If I may apply the term, market forces will resolve where the area hubs or business offices should be. They will support the businesses that channel the tourism market, which is channelled to develop 50 per cent growth. The relationship that is being developed is very much a commercial relationship, and I see that following through.
I do not think that only market forces will determine things—I think that discussions will. Obviously, you have thrown one potential change into the pot, but are you likely to state your views publicly on where else there might be a change? You have carefully not said anything else. I am trying to put you on the spot.
There is geographical access to the Western Isles, which are not served by any mainland tourism office from the Tarbert and Inverary area right up to Oban and the Kyle of Lochalsh. There is no hub on the agenda right now, but we would certainly hope that that area would be considered when the overall assessment is being made of where the best places are for tourism support offices. However, I emphasise that the first stage of using the 14 existing area tourist board head offices is the right approach, although we would like to see things developed fairly quickly.
I will ask about a number of aspects of the decision-making and implementation process. To some extent, I want to park the substance of the change and to get more of an understanding of where things are at, how we got here and where we go from here to progress change.
I would like to think that, if we were holding this discussion in four weeks' time, we would be able to talk with more confidence about more of the detail. At present, Alan Rankin knows more than I do. We are at the crucial stage when things are about to be delivered and when packages for members, such as individual businesses, are about to be worked up. Alan Rankin has had sight of that, but has not been able to share what he has seen. We are nearly there. Alan Rankin might want to say more.
Peter Taylor is right. We are at a critical stage. As recently as last Friday, the new challenge fund was launched. That is a tangible result of the project that we support whole-heartedly, because it rightly seeks to connect local marketing with national marketing ambitions. As recently as last week, I was involved in a focus discussion group on how the packages could be best designed for leading hotels; there was an excellent discussion with some of the major hotel chains. I am fairly confident that the people who managed that discussion will embrace what was talked about.
I want to understand where we are at. Do you remain confident about obtaining the necessary clarity and detail within a reasonable timeframe? In other words, is our discussion just a bit premature?
We will hold our industry conference, "Scotland United 2004", in Aviemore this coming weekend and the occasion will be used to make a number of announcements to the industry. As I said, the problem is the timing of today's meeting. Three or four weeks from now, we will all be able to talk with much more confidence about the detail.
That is helpful. The minister will come before the committee in January.
On 25 January.
I presume that it is reasonable for the committee to expect that, by that stage, there will be clarity around the issues that we are talking about.
If there was not, we would be concerned.
Having clarified that point, can you give a little more feedback about the consultation process to which I have referred and about which we heard a lot earlier in the year? It sounded like an inclusive process that was bringing in a lot of different inputs. Notwithstanding the point that everything has still to be fully cooked and announced, do you feel that that process has been effective?
A huge amount of work has been done by the project teams. I recognise that the process is complicated, but there is frustration at the fact that it has not been fully understood by the industry. Understanding the complexity of the process is perhaps not people's top priority, but the opinion has been expressed consistently throughout the process that there has been a lack of consultation and that views have not been taken on board. A fair amount has been done to address that, but it has not suppressed all the frustration and suspicion.
One of the roles of the Scottish Tourism Forum will be to bring together the industry, the public agencies, VisitScotland, the Scottish Executive and others through our meetings and dialogue. The fact that individual concerns, ideas and suggestions will be brought directly to the decision makers has been welcomed by both sides.
For my final question, I keep my anorak's hat on to ask how everything will come together. Looking to the future, I absolutely take the point about the importance of communication for implementation. Given the nature of the industry that you represent and the pressures on people's time, do you have any thoughts on what the communications plan and implementation process might look like, bearing in mind the need to ensure that people in the industry get the information that they need in a way that is accessible, usable and timely? Who will be responsible for developing the communication plan, or who do you think should be responsible for developing it? There may not be an answer to that, but I would like to hear your opinion.
As the project is VisitScotland's, it is ultimately VisitScotland's responsibility to ensure that the communication is good. As we move forward, there will be different levels at which key business decisions should be taken to keep the big turners of volume and value up to speed. The VisitScotland communications network, the associations and the likes of the Scottish Tourism Forum should be used. The message should not just be seen as VisitScotland's; it should come through some of the association intermediaries, which many small businesses will heed.
I have been involved with the communications project team for the past few months. Our work to date has been based on a number of delivery mechanisms. Our newsletters have been published on scotexchange.net, the industry website, and through trade associations that are represented in the forum. There have also been face-to-face briefings. One communication method does not suit everyone. We need to refine the process; we need to do more research to find out what suits the industry better. There needs to be a mixture of printed, e-mailed and face-to-face communications. That means that there will be a two-way process. It is not just about telling people what is happening; it is about listening to what is going on and taking comments on board.
Let us be honest: it is a mammoth task getting 15 organisations, plus VisitScotland, together. Inevitably, there have been a lot of chicken-and-egg questions as to what can be communicated. Where in the consultation process do we start to ensure that everyone is buying into the process? April is only the start of the process. The most important issue—and where the industry is looking for some win-wins—is for the local authorities, VisitScotland, the enterprise network and the industry to be singing from the same hymn sheet and working together. If those public bodies pull together, that would be a real win-win.
We are probably taking this evidence too early. We should perhaps have organised this session for about a month from now. The Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport will be before the committee on 25 January. Originally, she was going to come next month, but we have postponed it. She could not pick a better day than Burns day for giving us an update on the situation.
I will return to some of the issues that our witnesses covered in response to Brian Adam. The second bullet point under paragraph 8 of the submission refers to
The overall national strategy is understood by a selection of the industry. The larger-level marketing strategy will not necessarily assist some of the smaller businesses. Next year, we will have virtually the status quo. The real questions about how the local marketing strategy integrates with the national marketing strategy will be asked in spring next year. That is not particularly clear at this point in time.
So some people are concerned about how the situation will develop and how whatever strategy is in place later will be properly sensitive to the needs of different parts of the country.
Yes. That will form part of the process and I am sure that it will be considered at the time. The considerations at this point are how ATB deliveries will be replicated, changed or improved for small businesses. How that links with the broader national strategy still has to be articulated for the 2006 season.
That harks back to the points that Susan Deacon was making. At several meetings, we have heard that the crystallisation of some of the issues is just around the corner. That has been the case for some time, so I am encouraged to hear that that is because the issues are being considered deeply and that good research has been done to enable decisions to be made. However, I presume that, until some of those issues are crystallised, concerns will persist among your membership.
There are a number of concerns. Critically, the challenge fund initiative seeks to join up local marketing. I took part in the discussion group that took that work forward, which was my first experience of businesses being quite clearly pushed towards the national objectives and the national portfolio. That is a clear, tangible sign of good joined-up thinking, which we expect to be followed through as other issues are taken forward.
We hear a range of concerns, which arise mainly because people do not know enough and are waiting to hear the detail. There are more than 300 local action groups—call them what you will—which range from the fairly sophisticated Edinburgh tourism action group to one man and a dog in some areas.
We will not ask you to name the dog.
Or the areas.
Such groups can influence what happens locally.
To what extent will the groups buy into the national strategy? Will they be convinced that the strategy meets local needs, rather than the need to market the brand of Scotland as a whole?
The groups need to be persuaded that they should not promote their areas in competition with the areas down the road. The real competition is, at the very least, with the rest of Britain and we would prefer it to be with countries outwith the United Kingdom.
However, the marketing of a specific area will be part of the collaborative strategy.
Absolutely, but we must persuade people locally to buy into national strategies, as Alan Rankin said, so that we work as a country instead of as Perthshire versus Grampian, for example.
That is one of the big opportunities of the new structure. Rather than having 15 potentially conflicting strategies, we will have one strategy, which will have the benefit of being delivered according to local needs.
The strategy must also reflect needs throughout Scotland.
And throughout all sectors of the industry.
We are told that the fact that some businesses regret that they will no longer be part of a membership organisation might encourage the setting up of more action groups. Is that happening?
Yes, and we welcome it. There are self-help groups, some of which have funding. Most people are passionate about the industry and want to do their bit to work together, which is brilliant.
The groups have been set up for a specific purpose; they are not just groups that keep going because they have always existed. They also provide a new opportunity for bodies such as the Scottish Tourism Forum and individual trade associations to engage more effectively at national level.
One of the witnesses said that the structures are not the most important factor. There is probably something in that. I do not think that tourism providers or customers are particularly worried about which ATB area they are in.
The TIC network is part of the delivery chain of services to visitors. It is clear that, in an age of changing technology, the role of TICs will change—it has changed significantly during the past couple of years. There remains a need for a local, face-to-face service for the visitor provided by a well-placed network of tourism information centres. It is good that TICs are at the front of a national organisation and can access visitor services information for the whole country.
Do you agree that, if we consider VisitScotland as the organisation and TIC Auchnagatt as the visitor face, the resources are concentrated too much on the empires of what may now transform into hubs, with some additions, and that not enough is put out to the point of sale or delivery?
I have not considered the concept of empire building, as we are talking about a national network.
Perhaps I am being a little pejorative in my use of language. What I mean is that a lot of revenue—a lot of resource—has been put into the administration structures for the former ATBs, to be spent on admin, payroll and other such functions, and that not so much of the money has been spent on the TIC, which is the point of sale. Do you agree that the spend pattern may have been skewed too far one way and not enough towards customer service at the point of sale?
We allude to that in our written submission. We recognise the need to develop a financial plan that will represent absolute best value in marketing expenditure and the local provision of services to visitors. When all the organisations are brought together, there will not be the best fit and there will have to be some rationalisation or opening up of new visitor centres. That will have to be taken into account when the organisations come together.
Good afternoon. In your wish list of what you hope to come out of the process, you mention equality of skills, training and career opportunities for all network staff. That ties in with the previous point about the engagement and motivation of staff both during and after the process and the creation of a true team structure. How do you envisage that being done and what is not happening at the moment that causes you to list it as a potential worry?
Tourism is, essentially, a people business. There are a great number of highly motivated individuals at local level within the current ATB structures. We want a careful process to be followed to ensure that the integration, which will be an unsettling period for every member of staff at ATBs and at the head office in Edinburgh, is fair and well communicated. Opportunities that exist in the network must be made available across the network so that a one-company, one-team feeling and culture are created.
The unsettling nature of the changes is something that we commented on in the interim report. If you were VisitScotland, what would you put into place to ensure training and career opportunities for all staff? How would you like the new development to build on the national network?
It is inevitable that we will have to go through pain—there is no way of avoiding pain. Whenever there is a takeover, a merger or a coming together of organisations, there is a clash of different cultures and a period of settling in is required. There is no way of getting through that other than through strong leadership and trying to convince people that the changes are for the best. It is necessary to identify, as quickly as possible, who is going and who is staying.
I thought that we had been assured that everyone was staying.
Yes, but some people might be moving to central locations rather than being kept at area level. I believe that there is some possibility of movement of that sort.
The comment just reflects the fact that a new organisation is being created. That organisation is not necessarily an extension of a single organisation; the best of 15 bodies will be brought together to make a new organisation with a new culture that ensures equality across the board as regards recognition and opportunities.
If we are to achieve equality in the provision of skills and training so that the skills of people throughout the country are raised to the same level, it sounds as if a substantial amount of effort will be required on the part of the new organisation. Do you agree?
Absolutely. There is a lot of good talent across the network and it is critical that that is retained to deliver that local service.
Thank you. Both your written evidence and your oral evidence were very helpful.
First, I apologise for the fact that there is no elected member representation from COSLA at today's meeting. That is unfortunate. We try to bring along elected members when we can but, owing to a variety of circumstances, we could not get anyone from our tourism reference group to come along today. All the comments that are in our submission and those that we will make during our evidence will reflect the views that have been communicated to us by Councillor Dunn, our economic development planning spokesperson, and other members of the executive group and our more focused reference group.
Thank you. We have received your submission, but could I just check that members have received a copy of it?
I have only just got it.
From me.
I pinched a copy from Jamie Stone.
I received three copies.
Your e-mail must be working better than everyone else's.
Last time COSLA gave evidence to the committee, it had many concerns, but there seems to have been some progress with your representation on the board, in accordance with the Nolan principles, and with business tourism activities in cities. That is hugely welcome. The local authorities to which I spoke a couple of months ago were greatly concerned about the lack of information and progress, so I seek reassurance that there has been sufficient progress. As you said, we need more information on two key issues—the business plan and the partnership agreements—to ensure that local authority funding, which is absolutely crucial if the new system is to work, will come on board. Are you confident that we are getting there on a reasonable timescale and that not just COSLA but individual local authorities are receiving information to reassure them about the progress that is being made?
Yes, although progress has not been as quick as we hoped. We hoped that we would be at the stage that we are at now a couple of months ago. If that had happened, things would have moved forward dramatically by now. Communication varies across the country; as far as possible, COSLA has kept its leaders and spokespeople in touch with what is going on and with the negotiations. It was only recently that we managed to get the democratic framework that we seek accepted. Before that, there were huge concerns among local authorities about what the new structure would look like and what local government's involvement in it would be.
Obviously, local authorities are reaching a critical time in the budget process and we are all exercising our minds about the partnership agreement. The business plan is fundamental to the partnership agreement because the partnership agreement has been set up in such a way that it is a framework document. It refers to the business plan as the primary mechanism for defining the service that will be offered and how that will be monitored in terms of the outputs that will come through the business plan. The business plan is now critical. I understand that it is due out in December, but things are getting a bit tight for local authorities. The other option is for local authorities to roll over their budget provision for next year. It is up to individual authorities to decide how to proceed.
So you are making progress with the partnership agreement template but you cannot finalise it until the business plan is published.
I understand that the partnership agreement framework will be sent out in the next few days. It is important to recognise that it is only a guiding document; it is not prescriptive and it will be for each local authority to decide how to interpret it. Historically, some local authorities have not had service level agreements. For example, the City of Edinburgh Council has had an annual minute of agreement for the best part of 10 years. There are different practices in different local authorities, but the document is a framework. The issue comes down to the nitty-gritty of the business plan and what services will be offered locally by individual hubs, area offices or whatever we want to call them.
Will there be 32 partnership agreements or 14 partnership agreements?
There will be 32, I imagine. Most local authorities will need to have an individual agreement for funding because of the requirements to follow the public pound and improve best value. That is where things will differ. For example, the City of Edinburgh Council will give £1 million of council tax money to the current area tourist board, which is in theory to pass to the hub. Some local authorities give small sums of money. That is why some local authorities have exchanged letters whereas others have had a detailed service level agreement to which a business plan is attached, as in Edinburgh. We have only a partnership agreement framework because it is for each local authority to decide how to respond. Will it have the full bhuna or will it choose something that is more basic and involves an exchange of letters? As I said, the framework is not prescriptive.
If a hub—currently a local tourist board—covers three local authority areas, for example, does that mean that three partnership agreements will be made?
That is what happens at the moment. Each local authority has a service level agreement. Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board covers four local authority areas and each authority has a service level agreement, which will stand. The common factor among area tourist boards is the business plan, which is more important. Collectively, all the authorities that Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board covers buy into the business plan. The same should apply under a partnership agreement, which will make the business plan fundamental.
That is why we have argued long and hard for the area tourism partnership, which could bring local authorities together to work to identify priorities for the benefit of the area as a whole. We are not competing.
When you refer to the business plan, are you talking about the national business plan or a local version of it?
We have not yet seen the national business plan. We have argued strongly for the VisitScotland integrated networks business plan. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen are cities that have as much interest in international marketing as they do in domestic UK marketing, so we are interested in VisitScotland's marketing offer to promote Edinburgh internationally. We must see the VisitScotland business plan.
We should not rely totally on the hypothetical, but if we have one national business plan and a tourist board covers three local authority areas in which the authorities take different views on the business plan, will we not have a mishmash?
No. I understand that we will have a national business plan and local strands. We also have thematic marketing to consider. Edinburgh will be interested in short-break marketing and in festival and cultural marketing.
I agree with Mr Wardrop that the proposal is close to what happens with agreements at the moment. However, the current set-up has always had a problem—and the new set-up replicates it—when capital investment is required to build developments such as new TICs or the new hubs that were spoken about in earlier evidence. Have the witnesses seen any sign of arrangements for that?
That is where area tourism partnerships and plans come in. They will fit in with the national tourism strategy. That is important because the local enterprise companies, the private sector and all the public sector agencies are needed in the area tourism partnerships so that, together, they can put the infrastructure in place. The area tourism partnerships involve the same players so their work is joined up. Good practice exists in the area tourist boards and their area tourism strategies. Again, it is welcome that we are now feeding much more into the national strategy and becoming more connected. The area tourism partnerships should achieve that if they are offered the right mechanism.
I am thinking out loud here, which is a dangerous thing. From experience, I know that the police authority had its own capital block and could requisition revenue funding from the local authorities that it covered. Is there not a weakness in that there might be a scrap between two or three local authorities? We all know how heavily burdened local authorities' capital budgets are. Further to what Christine May said, I am concerned that if a serious capital spend was required for city TICs, there could be problems. Do you think that all the bodies will pull together? In some ways, it is almost easier to access LEC funding than local authority money.
Bodies would come together in partnership to decide on priority spend. There is not generally a huge capital programme for tourism—we are all working with tight capital budgets these days and we all have to try to work in partnership and work with the local enterprise company to maximise the funds that they have. The area tourism partnership and the area tourism plan will define the priorities and the agreed agenda and get everybody to sign up.
You talked about area tourism partnerships and you suggested that, in the next short period, we will hear more detail about those. Prior to that, you talked about the local authorities being the lead agency in partnerships. Has that been agreed, and if so, how are the local authorities going to lead the area tourism partnerships?
Clearly, local authorities are in the tier of government that is closest to the people. They have responsibility for community planning and tourism is a key part of that. When we talk about leading those partnerships, we do not mean that in every case an elected member will chair an area partnership. What we mean is that local government has a key role to play in facilitating and co-ordinating the activities and drawing together the area tourism strategy. Local authorities have a link into the national picture through the chair's committee and through the minister. Perhaps Ken Wardrop will comment on how that will work in practice.
Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board took a paper on Friday that talked about the area tourism partnerships. They are still a bit of a blank sheet, but people are up for it. Edinburgh has said that we want to move quickly on the proposal and we aim to get our partnership up and running so that it is in place for April 2005. That will be fairly important in influencing the future shaping of business plans and national strategies.
You talk about the different ways of addressing the local democratic deficit. Are potential partners concerned that we are returning to the system that operated perhaps two reorganisations ago, when local authorities were the substantial players? COSLA's submission does not suggest that a majority of members of area tourism partnerships should be councillors, but it says that local authorities should be the "lead agency" and you have talked about chairing the partnership. Does that not run counter to the spirit of the approach, which is to do with how we bring all the partners together to market local areas within a national strategy?
That is what we are attempting to put in place. As Ken Wardrop said, the structure will allow true partnership. We talk about leading because local government has the responsibility to lead in a local area—it is as simple as that. That is why local authorities are elected. Ken Wardrop explained how the system might work in practice. We certainly regard the proposed body as a partnership, which presents an opportunity to bring the key people to the table to discuss the way forward and develop an area tourism strategy that feeds into the national strategy.
There is a major difference between facilitating and leading. I suspect that, regardless of the issue about leading, many people in local government rely heavily on the fact that locally elected representatives are involved and give greater weight to their decisions.
A decision was taken on Friday to include more private sector representatives in the proposed scenario in Edinburgh than are represented in the current area tourist board structure. A partnership in Edinburgh would comprise eight representatives from the private sector, whereas the current area tourist board has seven, so the balance would be better in the new set-up. Local government is set up to support such organisations. The private sector finds it easy to turn up and make decisions, but it does not want to get bogged down in administration; people want to be out running their businesses and making money. That is why there is a need for facilitation and support from the public sector.
Are we handing responsibility back to local authorities by default?
No. That is not what we are saying.
The COSLA submission says that the remit of area tourism partnerships will include
The local alignment will by definition vary from area to area.
Is the statement a reference to the location of hubs in areas that are different from those of the area tourist boards? For example, the STF suggested that there should be a hub to service the Western Isles and a hub for Ayrshire.
The statement relates to alignment with other local strategies and key strategic priorities, not to geographic alignment.
My first question is a truncated version of the line of questioning to the previous witnesses about the decision-making and implementation process. What are your views on how effective that has been? What is the local authority point of view on where the implementation process should go from here? What should the local authority input to that be?
Ken Wardrop will speak about what has happened in practice, because he has been involved in one of the working groups. COSLA has found this a fairly bureaucratic process. When we came to the committee previously we welcomed the consultative nature of the way in which things were going. The reality has been that we have got bogged down a lot. Things could have been a bit more focused, and we could have got through this a bit more quickly. Some of the decisions may not have emerged as quickly as we might have liked.
That is a fair comment. The complexity of the whole thing has been apparent, and the timescale has been very ambitious. It is a bit like a Chinese puzzle, because if we move one part of the puzzle, another part is knocked out. That has become apparent only as we have gone along and especially as we have tried to address the issue of the democratic deficit. For example, if we make a concession in one area what does that mean for the other aspects of the structure?
You said that the timescale was "ambitious". Was that a literal or a diplomatic use of the term? Was the timescale unrealistic?
The proof will be in the pudding on 1 April.
Fair enough.
The simple answer is no. We had a good relationship with the previous minister and we have a good relationship with the present one. The previous minister was quick to accept the argument about democratic deficit, and he was quick to look for the best means of addressing that. Where things got bogged down was when that message from the minister and from COSLA got into the bureaucracy that was the various working groups. The difficulty lies in getting from the vision to the achievement of the vision. I do not see any change of emphasis from the minister. The minister has been very supportive of our case all the way through.
There is a strong focus on the need to ensure that the customers do not see too much difference in service, and there is a great sense that the existing employees should get a fair crack at the whip. This is a critical time for them, and we are very conscious of what that means for people at a personal level. We are trying to ensure that the transition is as easy as possible. It is focusing many people's minds. People are conscious of the timescales because the transition is real, it is live, and it is affecting colleagues and people whom they know. For the sake of continuity of service, we have to get everything sorted for 1 April.
Finally, on a completely different matter, I recall that the original brief for and aims of the review, as set out by the Executive, referred to the importance of developing gateway status for cities. I am aware that there are plans to do that in the proposals that have emerged since then. In your submission you mention
We will not.
Thank you. In all seriousness, will you give us an idea of how the new bodies will build on what is there already? I guess that Kenneth Wardrop will have a particular comment on that, given the success of Edinburgh's convention bureau.
The changes are very much about protecting the success and added value that the convention bureau brings. It generates about £45 million per annum for the Edinburgh economy. Overall, I think that the international convention business generates about £95 million for the Scottish economy. If we are to deliver on our ambitions in Scotland, we must recognise that business tourism is one of the key growth areas throughout the UK; it appears in the national policy statement. We are pleased that we have had the concession in that regard.
Thank you. That was helpful and illuminating.
No. Everything is in our paper, so we will go straight on.
Good afternoon. Your paper is extremely robust, which is no bad thing. You make your case well. Reading the paper gives a sense of the frustration about the process that the organisations that you represent feel. Yesterday, I spoke to an ATB chief executive—I will not name the person—who confirmed what your paper says about a lack of involvement with ATBs and a general feeling of disengagement and being disfranchised from the process. I will try to move on in a more positive light. What needs to be done now to remedy the fact that you feel that ATBs have not been properly involved in the process?
The business plan needs to be completed quickly. I would like to see a business plan—there is no plan yet, although a structure is being put in place, posts are being defined and people are being matched to posts. We are still concerned about the ability of the whole picture to stack up financially—I am choosing my words carefully. I think that big financial holes exist and I am desperate to see a business plan. We are trundling quickly down the road. There is the skeleton of a structure, which we are all for, but it has no flesh on it and it keeps changing, so we are a little scared. I would love to have a business plan quickly, but I do not think that it will be quick.
My question was what needs to be done now to remedy the situation, but you have probably answered that.
We need to progress as quickly as we can. We are at the bottom of the trough—the most chaotic part where there is still plenty of mud and no clear picture of the finished structure, how it will work, whom we will target and how everything will piece together. The sooner we start climbing to reach the top of the wave, the better.
You were not present when we took evidence from the Scottish Tourism Forum. I will ask you the same question that I asked the forum. What feedback have you had from your members about how the financial arrangements might work when the new structures are in place, when they will no longer pay a membership fee but will have to buy in services? Have your members said how receptive they will be to that process, or is it too early to assess that?
I have received no positive feedback. I will choose my words carefully again. The vast majority of area tourist board members are not fully tuned into the process—it has not hit them—although it is starting to be discussed at annual general meetings. Their heads are down and they are just getting on with their businesses, because whatever will happen will happen. They are not particularly tuned into what is going on.
At our AGM, members asked me to whom they would pay their membership fees after April 2005. There has been a failure to understand the psyche of the small business. Many of our members enjoy belonging—and need to belong—to a network that is structured on their behalf. It takes all their energy and concentration to run a small business. There are few people to whom they can hand over, so they are in the front line seven days a week and they need the back-up of an organisation that can do some of the thinking for them. The proposals that we have seen so far—I must add the rider that we have not seen enough detail—do not take that matter into consideration sufficiently seriously. We seem to be designing something for big businesses, which will welcome and be able to handle the system. However, as Robin Shedden said, the majority of businesses that are involved in tourism are not big businesses. That is a major problem.
Six months have passed since we took evidence from you at the end of May. Is the situation any clearer than it was six months ago?
Sadly, no. It is sad, but that is an accurate answer. The situation is no clearer. We have seen the skeleton of a structure, but the detail on how the system will work is conspicuously missing. Worse than that, the little splatterings of detail that we receive from time to time change constantly, which is disconcerting. It seems that things are happening on the hoof.
I presume that you have put your concerns to VisitScotland's senior management. What reaction have you had?
We are told, "It will be all right on the night."
Has no extra effort been made to ensure that your members are taken into VisitScotland's confidence a little more?
There has been effort from the Executive, but nothing has materialised from that.
Will you expand a wee bit on that? Have promises been made to you that have not been kept?
Things that we were told would happen have not happened.
Can you give any examples?
I probably can. The most recent rattling of the tree took place at the chairs and chief executives meeting in Stornoway, which was held about a month ago.
The meeting took place on 27 October.
We were made promises. We said that we were being left on the outside, but we were assured that that was not the case and that we are very much part of the process. We were assured that things could be done, none of which has happened.
What was supposed to happen?
We have yet to see any reports from the working party groups. Some of the people who were in those groups have not seen the reports of the groups that they were in. The reports were locked away so that they could not see them. We were promised that we would see all the papers of the working party groups, but that has not happened yet. We are still very much in the dark. We were promised consultation on the matrix management structure that was introduced to us at Stornoway and that caused a bit of—perhaps irrational—fear. There was to be a rolling out, an explanation and an exploration of that as well as consultation. It has not happened. What were the other things that we were promised?
We feel that we are partners rather than stakeholders in the proposed new organisation, but the input that we have been invited to make has been minimal. We felt that a clear signal needed to be sent round the ATB network that that was being addressed, so we asked whether we could be part of the recruitment process for the senior management team of the new organisation. We got the impression that that request would be taken seriously and that it was accepted that that would send a clear message that the proposed new body was to be a partnership. However, we are not a party to the recruitment process. It seems that someone will be appointed as an independent assessor and that they will be involved in the recruitment of the managers for the hubs, but that is as far as the participation will go.
There is not a lot of point in going backwards, because we cannot change what has been. From the word go we were supposed to be partners in the process, but the reality is exactly the opposite: we are no more partners in this process than a flea in the air would be. From our side of the fence, this is not a merger of two bodies; it is a takeover. That is how it has felt from the start and that is how it still feels sitting here today. There is an acceptance of that situation in the ATB network—a resignation to the fact that that is what is happening, so we should just get on with it. That is terribly sad.
The concerning aspect is that the new structure, as we have seen it so far, totally underestimates the value of the area tourist boards. We are not saying that we should keep the area tourist boards; we are talking about their current job, which is misunderstood. There is no accurate understanding of the role that the area tourist boards perform. Therefore, I do not see sufficient planning to replace the role that the ATBs fulfil in the new structure.
I presume that if you do not participate directly in the organisation of the new body, it is difficult for you to feed in your views.
Absolutely.
You say that you have not been involved or consulted, but you have members in the progress group. Do they not relay information back to you? Do you feel that they do not have access to the right information? I presume that the people who fund the area tourist board network are in those progress groups.
That is the perception and that is what is sold to us all the time—we are told that we have so many people in those groups that we are the groups.
Are you talking about employees?
Yes.
Those employees are shortly to become employees of the new organisation, which must limit their ability to speak their minds.
Knowing some of the people who fulfil that role in those groups, I would be surprised if they felt in any way limited in speaking their minds.
There is no point in going back. I could give you hard evidence of members of working groups who are not being given access to the submitted reports to which their names are attached.
I find that surprising.
So did I.
My question is similar to the convener's line of questioning. We need to have that information, if the witnesses can give it to us.
We are going backwards—
With all due respect, this is not going backwards. I have spent the afternoon asking questions about the decision-making process because it is germane to where we are going in a very important area to which all of us in the room share a commitment. That commitment is shared by the Executive from the minister downwards. We must, retrospectively, get behind what has or has not worked, not least so that we can make improvements in where we go from here.
No problem.
When you came to our previous evidence session, I distinctly remember both of you, especially Mr Shedden, being positive, verging on extremely enthusiastic, about what was to come, not least because you thought that there would be oodles of opportunity for you and others to shape the process, contribute to it and take us to a better place. I am sure that we all shared the aspiration to get to that place, but today we are hearing something that is very different in both tone and substance. We need flesh on the bones of what you have said in order to understand what has happened to change completely the view that you expressed to the committee.
I expressed concern at the previous meeting—
I recall that.
I thought that, in addition to employees, there needed to be more industry members on the working groups, because they would not have the same difficulty in expressing their thoughts.
Believe me, I have tried very hard not to be where I am now. I tried to accept everything that I was told, to take it at face value, to be positive and to see all the good things. There are plenty of good things and they might all still happen, but we are not party to making them happen. I have resigned myself, as has 99 per cent of the area tourist board network, to that stark fact. That does not mean that the process will not work at the end of the day, but we are not part of it.
Do members have any other questions on the point? We will exhaust it, then go back and allow members to come in on other points. Has Susan Deacon finished her questions?
My specific further question is: can you put any meat on the bones? You said a number of times that "they" have not shared information with you or told you outcomes. Who is "they"?
Do you want specific examples? Is that what you are asking for?
We need specific examples and we need to understand what is going on—that is our job. If information is not being shared as perhaps it ought to be, we need to understand whether that is a conscious decision on the part of politicians or just poor administration and process by some relatively lower level of support. We need to understand whether any shortcomings are happening by accident or by design.
I do not see the problem as accidental. I now see it as conscious, which is unfortunate. The specific example that sticks most in my mind involves a member of my tourist board who was on one of the financial committees—I cannot remember its number off the top of my head, but I could find out fairly easily. The committee met once and talked briefly about what it was to examine and discuss. The individual then got a phone call—I cannot remember how much later—to say that the lead person in the group had written the report and would submit it. The member said, "That's super—can I see a copy, please?" The answer was, "No," and the report was subsequently submitted. The committee had met just once, and we have still not seen a copy of the report.
For clarification, are you talking purely about the process that is being administered under the auspices of VisitScotland, or about the Scottish Executive?
I am going way back in time. We cannot change any of that, so I do not think that there is an awful lot of point in dwelling on it. A couple of months ago we were jumping up and down about not being part of the process, but we are past that. The climax of that was at our last chairs and chief executives meeting, in Stornoway, at which we were promised changes. They have not happened, so we accept now that they will not happen.
I emphasise the point that Susan Deacon made. The situation is historical, but it is nevertheless important, because our job is to consider and evaluate the process. One of our tasks is to ensure that such issues do not arise again in future reorganisations, whether of the tourism industry or other sectors.
We can do that.
We are not trying to sort what cannot be sorted. We will assess the process, what lessons need to be learned and whether the situation will be a dog's breakfast. If the situation goes topsy-turvy, committee members and their colleagues will carry the can with the public for a massive waste of public money, so you can understand why we are very interested.
I endorse the remarks that have been made.
I was talking about mental resignation, not about people physically walking out of the door.
Have people walked out of the door?
Not that I am aware of, but I know that we are fairly close to that. I cannot think of a person who has walked out.
In that case, we will deal with mental resignation. I presume that that has had an impact on the effectiveness of elements of your work force.
Definitely.
How far back does that go? Does it go back three, six or nine months?
The potential for rot has always existed. Susan Deacon was right about the enthusiasm. From day one, I said, "This will work. This is great and fantastic. This is it. Let's go," but now I am in a completely different place. I realise that the system may work, but that we are not part of the mechanism that creates the finished product. We may be among the cogs, but we are not designing the cogs or fitting them together.
I assume from what you have said that you made representations to VisitScotland's chief executive.
We did so on one point.
That is fair enough. What you have described impinges on your organisation's effectiveness. The situation is fairly serious and has worsened as the weeks and months have gone by. Have you made representations to the relevant MSPs who represent Fife?
No—not specifically.
Why not?
The answer is poor, but because I was dealing with the Scottish Executive and VisitScotland, I kept the matter in-house. That answer is not good, but that is it.
The answer is perfectly honest. In retrospect, do you wish that you had made representations to MSPs?
If I thought that making representations would have changed anything, I would wish that I had done so, but I do not know whether it would have had that effect.
My next question is the simplest. Why is the proposal happening? Is it simply a cash-saving exercise throughout Scotland? Is that why Perth and Fife are being rolled up?
Why is what happening?
Why will we shift from ATBs to hubs and have a general coalescing, notwithstanding what I said about TICs? What is the raison d'être?
The raison d'être is simple. The process started as a rationalisation—that is the wrong word. It started as a concreting—a better way to describe it would be as an attempt to stabilise—of the finances of local area tourism support, which was in a muddle in some areas. Such support had no fixed financial arrangements and so was in trouble in some areas.
I have two short last questions, convener.
The honest answer is that there is good and there is bad. I have no problem with the concept of the ATBs going into the process and trying to achieve the structures that we are still trying to achieve. The principles have not changed: the tying together of local and national is a great idea and the stabilising of finances is desperately needed.
Are you telling us that product delivery, in terms of services to tourism and the promotion of tourism in Fife, will be worse off in the future than it is today?
That question is probably akin to getting the belt.
I am, however, permitted to ask such questions.
Although you are not obliged to answer, Mr Shedden.
My off-the-top-of-my-head answer is that services will not be better in the future. The reason for that is the damn good provision that we have in Fife at the moment. I will speak specifically about Fife. Although it has taken us a wee while to get to the point that we are at today, there is now co-ordination between the local authority, the LEC and the tourist board. Everybody is involved and things work damn well.
Everybody has told us about the lack of a business plan—witnesses on all three panels have mentioned that a plan needs to be put in place quickly. I am concerned that we are hearing about the disillusionment of staff. We heard positive things from the local authority side in COSLA's evidence, although it also highlighted the issue of the business plan.
I would love that to be the case. The direct answer, however, from what I have seen so far, is a very flat no. It is the wrong answer to give, but I have been asked to say what I think.
Okay. What is it about the way in which the discussions have gone so far that makes you believe that the situation cannot be changed?
"Cannot be changed" is a different thing altogether; I am sure that things can be changed.
I will rephrase the question. What would it take to make the situation different?
It would take a change of management style at the top of VisitScotland. We need more inclusivity and a willingness to share, instead of which we have a corral mentality. Since the beginning of the process, we have been on the outside of a closed corral. That is not what we are told, but that is the reality, which is accepted by pretty well the entire area tourist board network.
We should consider the history of the organisations that are coming together. Industry engagement took place with the ATBs locally, whereas VisitScotland centrally had different areas of expertise. It is disappointing that that has not been recognised, because an attempt could have been made to capitalise on the ATBs' strengths to create the scenario that Christine May described. A golden opportunity has been missed.
Is there still time to pick up and run with that opportunity?
Between now and April?
During the year and a half or so before the 2006-07 season, which is the first crunch season for which marketing must be done.
Yes, there would be time, if during that period there were a major rethink and a completely different approach to the management of the change process.
That is helpful.
Have we exhausted questions on the process and participation? I will take a question from Chris Ballance on that and then move on to other issues.
My point follows from the questions that Jamie Stone and others asked.
I congratulated Perthshire Tourist Board staff at our AGM a month ago. They are consummate professionals and they have not allowed the outside world to see anything of their concerns throughout the process. Given the timescale of the review, the wait for the review's outcome and the change process that is going on, we all owe staff a debt of gratitude for carrying on regardless. I think that they will continue to do their damnedest not to let the cracks show, but there are inevitably many personal concerns and misgivings. We are not serving our staff well and we need to get rid of as much of the uncertainty as we can do in as short a time as possible. If we do not do that, some very good people will try to find employment elsewhere—I am talking not specifically about the Perthshire ATB, but generally about staff in Scotland. There is a tremendous amount of experience and expertise in the ATBs, which we cannot afford to lose.
There is real fear about redundancies. The process started with assurances that there would be no compulsory redundancies. I welcomed those assurances, but I did not think that they reflected the real world. We have seen a series of figures and people fear that there will be serious redundancies—not 15 or 30, but big numbers. If the financial hole materialises, as we in the ATB network are fairly sure that it will, we know where cuts will be made. If the numbers do not add up, how many TICs and staff will be affected?
So you are talking about demoralised, fearful and somewhat unmotivated staff operating in a new organisation with no business plan.
We are at the bottom of the trough, but if we are where we now are at the end of March, we will be finished. We cannot be there.
How do you expect to get out of that position in the three months that are left?
We need details. I liked the council guy who spoke about a Chinese puzzle. Somebody might stick up their hand and say, "I don't like this bit. We don't tie into this." We will sort that bit, but that will push three other bits out at the side. Somebody else will stick up their hand and say that that will not do, so there will be another shunt around. We do not have the finished picture. We need a business plan, please.
It sounds to me that you are saying that there will be inevitable effects that will be noticeable to tourists and tourism industries come next Easter.
I hope not. Please prove me wrong.
We have pretty well exhausted the issue, but members have questions on other issues and I want those questions to be asked to ensure that we cover those matters today. I know that Christine May and Susan Deacon have questions to ask.
My questions have been dealt with.
Susan Deacon has exhausted her questioning. Do you have a question, Christine?
Perhaps my final question leads on from the previous issue. The final paragraph on page 2 of your submission refers to the potential of Tourist Board Training Ltd to be used as the training organisation. What discussions have been held about that potential? What feedback have you received?
None.
There have been no discussions that we are aware of. We made that suggestion, as we think that there is another rich resource that does not seem to have a place at the moment.
I thank the witnesses, whose written and oral evidence has been illuminating. We look forward to receiving the follow-up information, which we would appreciate as soon as possible.
We could provide it within a week.
Great. Thank you very much.