Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I reconvene the meeting. Item 4 is consideration of the draft stage 1 report on the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill. Unusually for this committee, the draft report is a public paper and I should perhaps check that committee members are content for the discussion to take place in public. Are members content?
Members indicated agreement.
I understand that Murdo Fraser wants to make a few comments on the report.
Indeed. This bill does three things: it abolishes the network tourist boards; changes the name of the national tourist board; and increases the size limit of the VisitScotland board. I have no particular concerns about the third of those aims, but I am concerned about the first two. The abolition of the network tourist boards simply consolidates in law a change in practice that was introduced last year. Members will recall that, when we took evidence on the issue last year, the sector was rather unhappy about how the change had been handled. I am still unconvinced by—and unhappy about—that change. Anecdotal soundings that I have taken from people in the industry show that they are unhappy that area tourist boards were replaced by the new, centralised structure. Indeed, two weeks ago, when I pressed the minister to cite evidence from the industry that the changes have been beneficial, she was unable to do so.
As for the name change, I regard that element of the bill to be utterly pointless. A legal body should bear a name that at least describes what it does. For example, the Scottish Tourist Board is a perfectly sensible way of describing a body that acts as Scotland's tourist board. Giving it a trendy name of the moment such as VisitScotland might be all very well as a marketing tool; however, if that is the body's legal name, people will simply wonder what it is. Moreover, VisitScotland might well be a trendy marketing name today, but I dare say that it will be out of date in 10 years' time. The Scottish Tourist Board could endure for ever.
When I asked officials about that, they said that it did not matter, because the legal name is not terribly relevant and, in any case, the organisation can call itself anything it likes. If in 10 years' time it decides that VisitScotland is no longer a trendy name of the moment, it can change its marketing name to something else without having to change the legal name. Of course, that raises the question why the legal name needs to be changed at all. Surely it would be more sensible for the organisation's legal name to reflect what it does instead of being called some trendy name that has been dreamed up by marketing experts—no doubt at considerable public expense—simply because it is fashionable.
In summary, I support one of the bill's three aims and feel uncomfortable about the other two.
Thank you. I will ask you later how you want to proceed with your objections. Do other members have any comments on the draft report?
Again, I come new to this issue. I have to say that I share Murdo Fraser's concerns about changing the name of the Scottish Tourist Board to VisitScotland, partly because of the environmental impact of the number of letterheads that will have to be pulped, brass plates that will have to be replaced and so on. Like Murdo, I see little point in introducing a bill that changes the legal name of an organisation from something understandable—such as the Scottish Tourist Board—to something like VisitScotland that requires an explanation.
Thank you. Again, I will ask you how you want to proceed on that after I have made my own comments.
Murdo Fraser says that he has anecdotal evidence that people are still unhappy about the change that has taken place. To some extent, I would concur that, of the people who were unhappy with the original change, those who were most vociferously opposed are still opposed; they did not support the change to begin with and they still do not support it. At least one of those people, however, has reported to me that business has never been better, so they would probably agree that the change has not adversely impacted on business. That seems to be the general consensus in the area for which I am elected; I have to confess that I have not been further abroad than that. The evidence that the change is at worst neutral and is at least doing some good is as strong as the counter-evidence.
At its simplest, changing the name of the legal entity—which must be done by these means; if the legal name of the organisation is to be changed, it must be reflected in the legislation—will, at the very least, avoid the pointless and time-consuming discussions that I recall happening some time ago in a similar organisation whose official name was different from its marketing name. We had endless discussions about whether the minutes should refer to the official name or the marketing name. The change that we are discussing will avoid that, at least.
The change also reflects practice across the global tourism industry. For the past six or seven years, tourist boards have all been called "visit" followed by the name of the country. Certainly that is the standard format for tourist boards on the web, so the change makes some sense—to me anyway.
I think that we are reasonably content with the increase in the size limit of the board.
From all that, members can see that I am in favour of what is in the report. Do Murdo Fraser and Mark Ballard want the report to reflect their dissent? I am not sure how we could amend it to take account of your detailed concerns, Murdo.
It is a very brief report and I see no point in producing a minority report; that seems unnecessary in the scale of things. I would be happy for it to be noted in paragraph 14 and the conclusion of the report that I dissented from the general view of the committee—assuming that that is the general view.
Is the committee content with that?
I would like to join in that dissent.
I generally support the report. With great respect to Murdo Fraser, I note that he used the word "trendy" with a level of disdain that only a Conservative could muster. Perhaps in the future we should reflect on whether the name of the organisation should be face-of-the-bill stuff. However, I take Christine May's point that if it can help to avoid needless argument, it would be well worth while. It is hard to deduce from the current level of growth in tourism whether the changes have been beneficial.
So the final report that we produce will indicate that two members dissented from the views expressed. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We now move to the final item on the agenda, on the Scottish Enterprise budget and restructuring plans, which is to be taken in private. I thank members of the public for their attendance. I also thank broadcasting and the official report.
Meeting continued in private until 15:44.