Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
Section 1—Scottish Tourist Board:
change of name
Agenda item 3 is stage 2 of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill. Members have copies of the marshalled list of amendments for the bill. I welcome to the meeting the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Patricia Ferguson.
Amendment 1, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is in a group on its own.
I am delighted to speak to amendment 1.
Members who recall the committee's stage 1 debates, which were conducted in preparation for our report, will not be surprised that I have lodged amendment 1. The amendment deals with an issue that is dear to my heart and which I raised at that stage. Its purpose is to delete section 1 of the bill and therefore ensure that the Scottish Tourist Board will not be renamed VisitScotland, but will remain as the Scottish Tourist Board.
I lodged my amendment for three reasons. First, we should all sign up to the principle that we should seek to legislate only where doing so is absolutely necessary, and thereby set our faces against unnecessary legislation. The proposal that has been made is unnecessary. There is no earthly reason why the Scottish Tourist Board should be renamed VisitScotland. If the organisation's name is retained, it can trade under any name that it wants to trade under. Currently, it trades under the name VisitScotland, but it could trade under any name now or in the future. There is no legal reason why there must be a change of name.
Secondly, the Scottish Tourist Board's name is perfectly appropriate in the light of what the organisation does. It is immediately obvious what a person is talking about when they talk about the Scottish Tourist Board—he or she will not have to go into a long explanation about what it does. People might be becoming familiar with the name VisitScotland, but when that name is used, what the organisation does must often be explained because it is not immediately apparent; what it does must often be explained to people from overseas, for example. The Scottish Tourist Board's name perfectly describes the organisation, so it is unnecessary, at best, to change it. The name VisitScotland was probably dreamed up at great expense by marketing consultants—no doubt the same people who devised the new Tory party logo. I dare say that they reached the conclusion that the name is attractive—as the Tory party logo is, of course—and that it will attract headlines, but it is very much a marketing name. I am not sure that it necessarily follows that the organisation's legal name should be the same as its attractive marketing name.
The final reason why I oppose the measure is that if we now change the name from the Scottish Tourist Board to VisitScotland, we will set a precedent such that when we inevitably rename the organisation in the future—I suspect that VisitScotland is a name that is very trendy at the moment, but which may need to be changed in 10 or 20 years—we will have to pass a similarly unnecessary act of Parliament to change the organisation's name once more.
For the three reasons that I have outlined, I oppose the change of name. I am pleased to support the amendment in my name.
I move amendment 1.
I agree with everything that Murdo Fraser said. While listening to him, it occurred to me, as a former member of the Angus and Dundee tourist board who has holiday accommodation, that I would like the minister to say what the regional boards will be called. Perhaps I should know that already. I do not see myself lifting up the phone and saying that I am a member of VisitScotland Dundee. Many of the visitors to my accommodation came from within Scotland. The Scottish Tourist Board is a name that provides a much rounder description, which implies that many visitors come from within Scotland. The new title of VisitScotland implies that people are coming in from the outside.
I am getting on—I am an old bloke of 52. However, the word "board" seems to be terribly backward looking. It is synonymous with the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. "VisitScotland" means precisely what it says—by cleverly putting together two words it invites people to visit Scotland, which is what we are all about. We lose that by using old-fashioned English. I accept Murdo Fraser's point about the oak tree and so on, but I will disagree with the amendment for the sake of it.
If the same marketing executives produced the Tory logo, they are going from success to success. Would the minister like to say a few words?
Certainly, convener. Thank you for having us along this afternoon.
It is true that the Scottish Tourist Board is already calling itself VisitScotland and could and would continue to do so, even if we did not change the name legally. However, the bill in its entirety provides a new start for tourism in Scotland. It is about consolidating the work that has been done over the past few years to make the Scottish Tourist Board into a 21st-century tourism organisation, and about putting that integrated organisation on a proper legal footing. For that reason, it is right that the Scottish Tourist Board's new name, VisitScotland, will also be put on a proper legal footing. As Mr Stone correctly said, the name "Scottish Tourist Board" belongs in the past. This is a fresh start for the organisation, so it is right that its new name will be made official.
I can reassure Mr Fraser on at least one of the points that he made: we are committing ourselves to a name that will not need to be changed by more primary legislation if, in years to come, we and VisitScotland decide that the name is no longer appropriate. The bill does not prohibit a future name change—we can make such a change without resorting again to legislation.
It is true that it is not vital that we change the legal name of the organisation to VisitScotland, but the committee will agree that this is a good opportunity to put the new name on a legal footing and to confirm VisitScotland as the way forward for Scottish tourism.
I will sum up briefly. I was interested in my colleague Mr Stone's comment that the name VisitScotland perfectly describes what we want it to do. As Shiona Baird pointed out, that may be the case for people from overseas, but it is a strange admonition to urge people who are already in Scotland to visit Scotland.
Nothing that the minister had to say convinced me to change my mind on the issue. With respect, I suggest that she argued against herself, because she said that it would be possible in the future for the organisation to call itself anything that it wants, without new legislation. That is the case at the moment, which means that legislating on the matter is unnecessary. The minister conceded that it was not vital to change the name by legislation, so I rest my case. Section 1 is unnecessary. Accordingly, I will press amendment 1.
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Baird, Shiona (North East Scotland) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Baker, Mr Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab)
May, Christine (Central Fife) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Stone, Mr Jamie (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Abstentions
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Sections 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill and completes our meeting this week. I look forward to seeing members again next week.
Meeting closed at 15:26.