VisitScotland
The next item of business is a statement by Jim Mather on VisitScotland. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
14:55
I wish to make a statement to Parliament in response to a request by the Opposition parties following recent newspaper speculation about personnel matters at VisitScotland. Specifically, I would like to clarify the Scottish Government’s position regarding the media coverage about the chief executive of VisitScotland, Philip Riddle. Clearly, all operational matters, in particular personnel matters within VisitScotland, are the responsibility of VisitScotland’s board and management. It is therefore proper that, earlier today, they made a statement on Mr Riddle’s position. In that statement, it was confirmed that Mr Riddle is in discussion with VisitScotland. In that light, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on Mr Riddle’s position until those discussions are concluded.
Members will know that Mr Riddle was appointed to the post of chief executive of VisitScotland in 2001. Since then, the industry has faced and managed its way through a number of difficult challenges that have impacted on Scotland and Scottish tourism businesses. Those include the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 2001, avian and swine flu, the recent global economic downturn and the current disruption to air travel that has resulted from volcanic ash. In that period, Scottish tourism has not only coped with those threats but matured, strengthened, come together and grown. It has proved to be resilient. Last year, it produced the first upturn in visitor numbers in five years, in terms of both domestic United Kingdom and overseas visitors.
That success story is vital to Scotland. The sector accounts for more than £4 billion of Scotland’s gross domestic product and plays a crucial role in developing and maintaining Scotland’s image and our rural economies. Already, as is evidenced by the sector’s performance in homecoming Scotland 2009, it is clear that tourism has strengthened Scotland’s recovery while still having massive potential for further growth. In order to consolidate that aspiration, VisitScotland will this year lead the industry in a shared focus on Scotland’s iconic food and drink—the first of a series of themed years—as we build towards a second year of homecoming in 2014.
Only last week, the chair of VisitScotland announced a new series of marketing campaigns to boost visitor numbers and spend including, for the first time, a campaign that is targeted specifically at the home market. The campaign seeks to persuade many more Scots to holiday in Scotland. It will persuade us to make the most of our natural and cultural heritage, to discover some of our many hidden gems and to enjoy the friendly welcome for which Scotland is famous the world over. With expenditure of £5 million, VisitScotland aims to generate additional tourism revenue of £100 million through its seasonal marketing campaigns.
Also last week, the First Minister published the results of the independent evaluation of Scotland’s first year of homecoming. The target was to deliver an 8:1 return on the core investment of £5.5 million, by generating £44 million additional tourism revenue for Scotland. Homecoming Scotland 2009 exceeded that target by delivering £53.7 million additional tourism revenue for Scotland, which is a 10:1 return on investment. The independent research, which was published on 21 May 2010, set out the undoubtedly positive impact of Scotland’s first homecoming year. The celebration delivered a string of benefits to the country and bolstered Scottish tourism during one of the toughest global economic downturns. As a result, there can be absolutely no doubt that VisitScotland and EventScotland have performed important leadership and co-ordination roles in the delivery of homecoming 2009.
As Roger Goodyear of the Portsoy maritime festival said last week at a homecoming legacy event in Edinburgh:
“This was not a damp squib—it was successful—with more to come”.
I agree with him.
As regards the current situation, I understand the concerns of members and their desire for certainty, clarity and a continuing focus on growth. That is exactly what I am here to confirm today.
As members would expect, I regularly hold meetings, attend joint events and have discussions with various senior representatives of VisitScotland, including the chair and chief executive, at which we discuss matters relating to the performance of Scottish tourism and of VisitScotland in particular.
As I have stressed already, all issues relating to the employment of VisitScotland staff, including the chief executive, are the responsibility of its board and not of Scottish ministers. Of course, I expect to be kept informed about important final decisions that the board makes in relation to its senior staff. However, the legislation under which VisitScotland was founded is clear in stating that personnel issues are a matter to be dealt with by the public body itself. Indeed, that is the case with most non-departmental public bodies. In addition, VisitScotland’s management statement and financial memorandum make that principle clear.
I hope that this statement assures members that the tourism industry continues to strengthen in difficult times, and that the specific matter that triggered this statement is properly an operational matter for VisitScotland’s board.
For our part, the Scottish Government will continue to focus its efforts on providing strong support to enable the tourism sector to strive for greater performance and to achieve yet more growth for Scotland’s economy.
I thank the minister for early sight of his statement.
What is at issue is the reputation of VisitScotland and whether it is as free from political interference by ministers as Mr Mather asserts. He is making a statement today on behalf of the Government—in other words, on behalf of all ministers. As the minister responsible for tourism, did he—or any other ministers—have discussions with the chairman of VisitScotland about the future of the chief executive prior to the meeting of the VisitScotland board in Inverness on 14 May? Did any Scottish Government special adviser have such a meeting or discussion with Dr Cantlay or with any other member of the board on this matter prior to the board meeting of 14 May? Did Mr Mather meet Dr Cantlay at any point between that date and the press reports of Sunday 30 May?
The First Minister told us earlier today that he had not spoken to the chairman of VisitScotland about the matter in the past few days. For the avoidance of doubt, can the minister confirm whether the First Minister talked to Mike Cantlay at all at the weekend? Did he speak to him at all on Sunday 30 May? Did John Swinney, who is sitting beside the minister, have such a conversation with Dr Cantlay the weekend just past? Did Mr Mather have such a conversation himself? Has the tourism minister at any point in the process discussed the issues with the long-serving chief executive of VisitScotland, whose achievements he has just outlined and whose future now appears to be in jeopardy?
I noted the press coverage and Mr Macdonald’s contribution, which essentially assumed that because the chairman of VisitScotland would not discuss personnel matters with the media, ministerial intervention was involved. I still struggle to see the logic of that connection; it must be the logic that flows from previous Administrations.
Of course I meet Mike Cantlay regularly, and I will continue to do so. I met him in April—shortly after his appointment—in the United States, and I met him again in Glasgow on 20 April. I spoke to Philip Riddle on 14 May. No special advisers have been involved. The First Minister met Dr Cantlay at a discussion on the homecoming evaluation on 25 May.
The key point, however, is that personnel issues are operational matters for VisitScotland—there they will stay.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
The minister seemed to absolve himself of responsibility in the matter by using VisitScotland’s management statement and associated financial memorandum as the basis for his reasoning. I have examined the document and I am a bit surprised by the minister’s position. It seems to me that the management statement treats the chief executive differently from other members of staff of VisitScotland who would qualify under the heading “staffing”, perhaps because the chief executive is the accountable officer.
In relation to the board’s responsibility to appoint a chief executive, it says in the management statement that the board will
“in consultation with the Department set performance objectives and remuneration terms linked to these objectives for the Chief Executive which give due weight both to the proper management and use of public monies and to the delivery of outcomes in line with Scottish Ministers’ priorities”.
Are you going to ask a question, Mr Brown?
Will the minister review what is in the management statement and perhaps take a slightly different view? He said that the issue is not any of his responsibility, but I do not think that the position is as he outlined it in his statement.
Had I had Mr Brown as an adviser, I might have looked at the issue differently. However, the member must recognise that this Government believes in autonomy and operational independence. Members should think about what we have done with local government and about the ethos whereby people have the chance to run things and make a success of them.
We charged Mike Cantlay and his board with achieving great results and with moving our wonderful tourism industry forward in whatever way they decide to do so. We have given them the operational freedom to do that. That will continue to be the case.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
The minister said that VisitScotland’s statement
“confirmed that Mr Riddle is in discussion with VisitScotland.”
He forgot to mention that VisitScotland’s statement goes on to say:
“To give Mr Riddle space to conduct these discussions in the light of unhelpful media speculation at the weekend, he will not undertake Chief Executive duties in the meantime.”
The minister brightly pointed out that staffing is the responsibility of the board of VisitScotland, but the board, and in particular the chair, are appointed by, and are responsible to, the Scottish ministers. I again ask what discussions the minister or any other Scottish minister had with Dr Cantlay, either prior to, during or after his appointment as chair of VisitScotland, regarding the position of the chief executive of VisitScotland. Will he also say when he was made aware that Mr Riddle’s position as chief executive was under discussion?
Does the minister really expect us to believe that within weeks of his appointment a new chair of a public body would seek to get rid of his chief executive without the knowledge and at least tacit approval of the sponsoring minister? I suggest that the minister either knew what was going on, in which case he is culpable, or did not know what was going on, in which case he is culpable.
There is a pattern here. Mr Smith wrote to me earlier in the week to say, in essence, that in the absence of a denial from VisitScotland’s chairman in relation to plans, the assumption is that the Scottish ministers were involved. There is a fancifulness about Iain Smith’s attempt to create a conspiracy theory.
We are happy to be accountable for what we are accountable for, but we are talking about matters that are of operational import to VisitScotland. Clearly I spoke to the chairman after the coverage at the weekend. The situation now is that we want this wonderful organisation to move forward with the support of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. We are all looking to play our part in ensuring that we get the improved results that are achievable. The basis for decisions on that will be the combined wisdom of the board on what is best for VisitScotland.
VisitScotland recently set out to members who represent the north-east a series of initiatives and campaigns for the coming years, which will build on the huge success of homecoming 2009 in Aberdeen and the north-east. Can the minister confirm that the expectations for those campaigns chime with the Scottish Government’s aim to make tourism in Scotland a growth industry in the face of the Labour-induced recession?
I can be categorical about that. The industry has made real progress—homecoming 2009, for example, has been a huge success—but I think that most of us who have got close to this wonderful industry realise that it has infinitely more to deliver.
Homecoming, in particular, has been a big help in giving us extra momentum at a very difficult time. Last year, the Scottish tourism industry grew by 2.7 per cent at a time when tourism the rest of world fell by 4 per cent, and we now have a legion of people stepping up and telling us the significance of homecoming and why it has made a material difference. Earlier, I quoted Roger Goodyear, who is from Lewis Macdonald’s neck of the woods, who described the event’s impact on Portsoy. At the same legacy event, Robin Worsnop from Rabbie’s Trail Burners called it “a huge success” and said that it had allowed the company to realise significant business growth of 30 per cent.
The tourism industry is poised to move forward and we want that to happen. Looking at the experience of New Zealand and other countries, and understanding the uniqueness of the Scottish proposition, we know that the industry can grow ad infinitum and be the showcase for Scotland, giving us the chance to sell other goods and services—primarily food and drink this year—and to ensure that Scotland becomes an absolutely-must-visit destination for anyone who speaks English, aspires to Scottish values or has been taken by anything Scottish from golf to whisky.
The minister has confirmed that he spoke to the chairman of VisitScotland on Sunday. Will he confirm whether John Swinney or the First Minister also spoke to him? In his discussion with the chairman, did the minister discuss the leadership of the chief executive of VisitScotland?
I think that I have to correct Ms Alexander, because just yesterday I had a conversation with Mike Cantlay in which John Swinney was involved, which gave us an understanding of what was happening and how he was reacting to the press coverage at the weekend. That was perfectly right and seemly, and a productive conversation ensued.
I am not sure that it is satisfactory that only at this stage of the questioning do we find out that just yesterday the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism had discussions with the chairman of VisitScotland about the position of the chief executive. Last year the cabinet secretary wrote to the chairman of VisitScotland, asking him to ask the chief executive to forgo part of his bonus this year. The Scottish Government has already involved itself in the chief executive’s terms, conditions, pay and remuneration, but now the Parliament is told that it has no involvement at all. How long—[Interruption.]
Order.
How long will the discussions about the chief executive’s position last, or is that a question that the cabinet secretary and the minister forgot to ask yesterday?
I think that we are going to be hung for being involved too much or hung for not being involved enough. I suspect that Jeremy Purvis does not understand autonomy, VisitScotland’s remit or our expectations. I must tell members that if the Parliament is going to operate with political parties trying to micromanage organisations, it will get sub-optimal results. When we bring in talented people, we have to give them the space and the right to optimise the job that we have given them.
The legislation that established VisitScotland makes it clear that personnel issues are to be dealt with by the public body itself. Does the minister agree that, as he and others have previously pointed out, any employment matters in this respect are for the chief executive, the chairman and the board of VisitScotland and that the kind of misleading comments that we have heard, not only today but on other days, damage Scotland’s tourism industry?
I think that such comments are damaging and that there is a real and really unhelpful conspiracy mindset with regard to this matter.
On television, Lewis Macdonald said:
“The fact that Mike Cantlay has been asked four times and not said either way about Philip Riddle reinforces the view that ministers have ordered his removal.”
Where is the logic in that? Where is the understanding of how a chairman of a public body should handle himself and treat his staff? To discuss someone’s personnel issues on television, in full view of the nation, would be totally unseemly. Today, Mr Macdonald asked for urgent clarification. He has received urgent clarification from us and from VisitScotland.
I had intended to ask about the future plans for homecoming, which is an important issue in my area in Burns country, but I must seek further clarification from the minister. Far from giving us more information, he seems to be obfuscating or perhaps not giving us all the information in response to the questions that have been asked. It is important that he is clear. For the record, did Mr Swinney have a discussion about the issues in question on Sunday? Was the leadership of VisitScotland discussed during the conversations that took place yesterday? If so, will the minister provide some clarity on those points for the record?
I have said repeatedly that the issue at stake is an operational matter for VisitScotland, and that continues to be the case. The conversation that we had last night covered all the issues that one would have expected it to. We must leave VisitScotland to deal with that operational matter so that it can optimise the situation. Debating that further in Parliament and putting more issues on the table and into the public domain is not helpful and will not get Scotland or the Scottish tourism sector the result that it wants, needs and deserves.
Can the minister confirm that the £10 million budget cut that was reported in the Sunday Herald is a projection rather than an actual cut? Does he agree that as we face tight economic times, it is important that all organisations deliver value for money and that VisitScotland bring in as much tourism revenue as possible at as efficient a cost as possible?
I have absolutely no idea where that figure came from. The tourism sector is coming together in an unprecedented way. Resources are available not only in the private element of the sector but in Scottish Natural Heritage, RSPB Scotland and Historic Scotland. It is clear that if those resources are brought together with local authority moneys, there is a lot of muscle in a sector that is now beginning to realise the uniqueness and quality of the Scottish product and its potential to follow the Scotch whisky industry as a sector of our economy that premiumises and that will do really well in the future.
The minister has quite rightly outlined a number of the achievements of VisitScotland during the years of Mr Riddle’s leadership. In the light of those achievements, does he believe that Mr Riddle is being treated fairly and appropriately? Given that he is the minister who is responsible for the sponsoring department that looks after VisitScotland, I think that that is information that he can share with the Parliament.
I reiterate the call that has been made by my colleagues and ask for the third time, for the avoidance of doubt, whether Mr Swinney had a conversation with Dr Cantlay on Sunday.
I repeat that Mr Swinney did not have a conversation with Mr Cantlay on Sunday. As I said in my statement, Philip Riddle—whom I know well, as members would imagine—has made a strong and significant contribution to VisitScotland and Scottish tourism since he began in 2001. The delivery of VisitScotland strategy is an operational matter for the board. That is where the responsibility properly lies and that is where I intend to leave it.