Tourism
The first item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S1M-1914, in the name of Mr David Davidson, on tourism. There are two amendments to the motion.
The Conservatives have brought the issue of tourism back to the chamber today to highlight the Executive's abject failure to offer leadership and direction to Scotland's largest industry.
On 1 November last year, Wendy Alexander stated that the Scottish Tourist Board's
"main aim is to help maximise the economic benefit of tourism to Scotland".
She then laid out a series of objectives for it. If she was laying down the STB's remit, she must accept responsibility for the board's failure to date. I hope that she will respond on that point. Does she intend to pretend that there is an arm's-length relationship, leaving others to take the blame, or will she be accountable?
On 9 November, the minister stated:
"We have world class assets, world class performance is achievable but it needs world class leadership."
What was her role? She went on to detail a 10-point action plan—presumably that was her notion of assuming command. After laying out the 10 points of the plan, she concluded:
"Scottish tourism has been underperforming and this must improve. Scotland has world class assets and now needs world class performance."
That was a bit of a schoolmistress scolding, as if the matter was not her direct responsibility.
The truth is that the copious press releases by the minister and her predecessor, Henry McLeish, have solved nothing—it was all talk and no action. On 12 October 1999, Mr McLeish stated:
"I am determined that Scotland should have a genuinely world class tourism industry".
What has he done in the 19 months since then? We had a review of tourism—another initiative. We had the famous announcement of three-year funding of area tourist boards by councils. That was a McLeish initiative with no teeth—it was up for review even before the year was out.
The Executive, with its poor record of local government settlements and the new burdens that it has placed on councils, has damaged local authorities' ability to support area tourist boards. It would have been far better if the Executive had accepted our proposal to fund area tourist boards directly via the Scottish Tourist Board. Had Mr McLeish grasped the nettle then, perhaps tourism would have been in a better position to cope with the aftermath of foot-and-mouth disease than it is now. The Executive cannot continue to fiddle while the industry burns. I hope that the minister will say what initiatives she will take to move forward on the issue.
On 25 March, Ivan Broussine of the Scottish Tourism Forum said that
"the tourism industry is increasingly angry at the slow speed of response of the Scottish Executive".
He also complained that, whereas the Prime Minister and other Westminster ministers had met tourism representatives, as had Mr McLeish, the minister responsible had left her deputy to take the flak.
We have seen huge increases in fuel taxation in four years of new Labour. I trust that the chamber recognises our pledge to reduce fuel taxes by 6p a litre. Annual running costs in Scottish business have risen by a staggering £1,500 per employee. The Executive has increased the rates burden on Scottish business by abandoning the uniform business rate, which has caused Scottish business to be less profitable.
Last year, the number of visitors to Scottish attractions dropped by almost 6 per cent and there were reports throughout Scotland of reduced bookings. Henry McLeish, as the minister responsible, presided over a 12.7 per cent fall in the overseas market, as announced in an Executive press release on 7 July 2000. Everyone in the industry agrees that, during the Executive's period in office, the sector has been in decline, whereas global tourism has grown. Since the Executive took power, it has been totally indecisive in reforming tourism support in Scotland.
When the disaster of foot-and-mouth disease struck, the industry was leaderless. The Executive totally failed to take responsibility for that. When the 10-point Executive plan was announced, one of the priorities was to find a new chief executive for the Scottish Tourist Board. Six months on, all we have is an expensive and humiliating failure owing to Ms Alexander's insistence on appointing Mr Rod Lynch without checking thoroughly that he would be a suitable appointee. Perhaps the minister can tell us what abatement she has received of the fees paid to Heidrick & Struggles, the headhunting firm that was used. Is it not time that Parliament received a clear statement of the minister's position and an apology for the fiasco of what was a disastrous but very public episode?
That was on top of the gaffes made by the First Minister during his visit to America for tartan week. Those gaffes were compounded by the abject failure of the Executive and its agencies to mount an immediate rebuttal campaign to the press reports on foot-and-mouth disease, which dominated American television and sent out a totally inappropriate image of Scotland as a tourist destination. Moreover, staff of the British Tourist Authority—another Government agency—misled American visitors about foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland.
When the minister came to the chamber to announce a recovery package, there was universal disbelief at the small amount of resource from the Executive to try to save the £2.5 billion tourism industry. At the time, I welcomed the resource for the area tourist boards and the quality assurance package, but the money was not enough to allow for a UK-wide marketing campaign to attract our home visitors, who account for half our tourism turnover. It is all very well for local enterprise companies to be given money to conduct business advice clinics, but that does nothing to counter the fact that, without turnover, no business will survive long enough to implement any advice that it has been given.
The Executive was extremely slow off the mark in implementing the foot-and-mouth containment exercise. It has failed to recognise the immediate needs of the many businesses affected, especially in the south-west and the Borders. The Scottish Conservative party, with its colleagues at Westminster, called for a hardship fund to provide interest-free loans to allow businesses to survive. I repeat that call today. Before there can be any talk of recovery, we must recognise that the issue boils down to survival.
We called for a deferment package on liability for business rates and council tax and for the Executive to approach the Treasury to seek deferment of payments of national taxation. We asked that the moratorium be dealt with on an interest-free and non-penalty basis. We expect such support to be available to all businesses that have been affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak—not only those that deliver directly a tourism product, but all the local businesses that are suffering a downturn in the affected areas.
At the time, the deputy minister, Alasdair Morrison, talked of deferred tax payments. Today, will the ministers say what response the Executive has received from its negotiations with the Treasury? The SNP called for only a three-month abolition of rates; that is far too short term to help businesses to survive through the summer. I appreciate the relief support that the Executive has given to local councils, but it is too little for too short a period—we cannot agree with the proposed £12,000 ceiling or the period of three months. Many vital businesses, such as small hotels, recreation facilities and even garages, are excluded from the support package by the artificially low ceiling.
It is essential that the Scottish Executive takes a lead in opening up the countryside. It must ensure that landowners carry out risk assessments and it must put in place a mechanism whereby local authorities are given the responsibility of managing the reopening process. It is staggering that no organisation has responsibility for that role. If no organisation has been appointed, the issue must be the Executive's responsibility. I hope that the minister will reply fully on that point.
I have received many requests for support, not only for Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, but for areas across Scotland that have been affected—whether in Dundee or Inverness, the outbreak has affected tourism. We must ensure that businesses throughout the country are given help to survive.
We are disappointed by visitscotland's eight-point plan, as it merely reiterates activities that have already been announced. It is unbelievable that the organisation has not already met Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the British Tourist Authority. Surely the Executive must have co-ordinated such activity. I look forward to hearing what the Executive has done on that. I hope that the minister will also tell us what part, if any, the Executive intends to play in any future appointment process and what additional resources it has offered visitscotland to market the country.
The Executive has totally failed to respond to the urgent needs of the tourism industry and has compounded that failure with its ineptitude in dealing with its six-month-old plan for reforming the STB. Having the Executive wear tartan underwear and eating McHaggis burgers is not a realistic solution to the crisis.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the failure of the Scottish Executive to complete the restructuring of the Scottish Tourist Board/visitscotland which has undermined efforts to regenerate Scottish tourism following two years of decline; calls upon the Scottish Executive to implement a survival and recovery plan for Scottish businesses affected by the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak which includes a hardship fund to provide interest-free loans to supplement the limited measures announced to date, and further calls upon the Scottish Executive to expedite the opening up of the countryside via the risk assessment procedure.
I thank David Davidson for choosing a debate on tourism. No one doubts the importance of the industry and its revitalisation, which is one of the Executive's highest priorities. Consequently, I read Mr Davidson's motion and listened to his opening remarks with some regret.
I am deeply saddened by the condemnation of visitscotland. We should be talking up the industry instead of talking it down. As the SNP motion recognises, the crux of the matter is industry leadership: the future of Scottish tourism needs an industry-led strategy, which means industry leadership for the board. The board needs the support of the Parliament in delivering change. Less than a month ago, the appointments of Peter Lederer and Mike Cantley—both of whom have spent a lifetime in the industry—to the chair and vice-chair of the organisation were widely welcomed. It is truly a small nation that covets grievance when errors are made. visitscotland's board meets today in Dumfries and Galloway to review with the ATB what needs to be done to move forward. It is not just the weather that has turned for the better; we are working with visitscotland on a series of positive steps to aid the revitalisation of our tourism industry.
As people know, Scotland is now over the worst of foot-and-mouth as far as disease control is concerned. Infections have declined from the rate of seven new cases a day at the end of March to fewer than one case a day now. There has been a decline in the epidemic, for which we should congratulate the state veterinary service, the Army and the local authorities. Of course, we must remain vigilant and plan for recovery. To that end, the Executive has been working closely with those affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak.
We announced an immediate package of hardship relief in March. The Executive is writing today to the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council, setting out our interim response to the recovery plan. We recognise that the area has special needs, as it was the worst affected by the outbreak.
I shall outline the main aspects of the further package of hardship relief that is on offer. First, there will be a payment to Dumfries and Galloway Council of £2 million on account to pay for costs that it has incurred in controlling the disease. Additional funds of £5 million from Scottish Enterprise's existing budget will be allocated to Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway to assist economic restructuring and to provide for the kind of small loans support that South of Scotland MSPs have been asking for. There will be further dialogue on the terms of that scheme. visitscotland has also given a commitment to meet the area tourist board and other industry representatives in Dumfries today to discuss additional funding requirements.
On the subject of financial resources, I should note that we have already committed an additional £5 million in Scotland, which is the equivalent of an allocation of £50 million for England alone. The actual allocation in England has been £3.8 million. That is a measure of the Executive's commitment. We are also introducing a grants and loan scheme for small-scale capital investment to provide environmental or landscape benefits. Moreover, Dumfries and Galloway is being given sympathetic consideration under European structural funds schemes and we are appointing a woodland development adviser in south-west Scotland to advise on how woodland development might assist farmers and other land managers in recovering from the effects of foot-and-mouth disease.
I want to move from the specific issue of Dumfries and Galloway to consider the bigger picture. We were asked to take decisive action, which took the form of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on visitscotland. The suggestion in the Conservative motion that the implementation of the report's recommendations has been put on hold is simply not true—since the hour the report was received, the board has put it into practice. I will provide some examples of what has been achieved so far.
The recommendation that visitscotland should secure greater industry involvement has been acted on. Not only have a new chair and vice-chair been appointed, but Norman Murray of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Norman Lauritson—the chair of the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board—and Paul Murray-Smith have all been appointed as advisers to visitscotland's board. An interim chief executive has been appointed to drive forward implementation. The visitscotland board confirmed last week that interviews for the three new senior director posts are in their final stages. As for the ATBs, there have been discussions to develop much better relationships that do not marginalise the role of local authorities.
The point of my speech was not what was happening inside visitscotland, but the Executive's response to the absence of leadership while the organisation was being restructured. I welcome the appointments to the board—I know the men personally and that they have great experience. My point is that, in the six-month vacuum, the minister and her predecessor could have taken an active grasp of the problems.
That is why, for the first time ever, we appointed a chair and vice-chair from the industry. That was one of the central recommendations on how we should drive things forward. Furthermore, we appointed an experienced interim chief executive and embarked on a worldwide search for a chief executive and other industry leaders. I point out that the appointment of the board's chief executive is visitscotland's responsibility. It is common practice that no minister should be involved in the selection process—the minister's role is simply to approve the appointment that the board has made. We have very much strengthened the board through industry leadership, which was a recommendation that the Parliament supported.
The minister says that the appointment was not an Executive responsibility. Will she confirm that it is an Executive responsibility to accept or reject visitscotland's recommendations? On her point about Executive involvement, what was the ministerial or Executive involvement in the selection process and the interviews?
No minister had any involvement in the selection process. That is common practice in the appointment of chief executives—the minister's role is to approve visitscotland's appointment. As I have said on numerous occasions, it is time to move on. Within 24 hours of my being made aware of Rod Lynch's extensive outside interests, visitscotland withdrew its offer. I think that making such a move within 24 hours counts as decisive action.
I want to highlight the impact that the debate in Parliament will have on visitscotland's staff as they face their difficult task. Peter Lederer has assured me that his staff are absolutely committed to the task of supporting our tourism industry, as has been amply demonstrated by their extensive efforts. We must support that industry leadership in order to move forward.
As for the Conservatives' points about access, we share their desire to expedite the opening of the countryside through risk assessment procedures—that is what we are doing. Although an extremely precautionary approach was taken at the start of the outbreak, the situation has moved on and much of Scotland is in the provisionally free area, where the risk of transmission is much lower. The restrictions on access in those areas should be seen in the same light, with a greater presumption in favour of public access.
It is important that, in working through the crisis, we lay the foundations for the longer-term revitalisation of the tourism industry. We need consensus from all tourist operators about building longer-term international competitiveness for the industry. Members have much to contribute to that debate and it is only right that visitscotland and the industry should take the lead.
I note in passing that, although the SNP amendment is interesting, it does not suggest any proposals for VAT reduction. How much VAT should be reduced for which operators and in what circumstances? As for the level of sterling, the problem that people often refer to relates to the euro zone, whereas, in terms of visitors, the United States is our largest market. If the SNP were to make any progress in the upcoming election, would it instantly have Scotland adopt the euro and would the exchange level be based on the level of sterling? I also understand that the Conservatives will propose an extensive reduction in fuel tax, the cost of which will be in excess in £2 billion. The knock-on effect of such a reduction would be a cut in our budget of more than £200 million. It would be interesting to find out what the Opposition parties propose on all those points.
The message from this chamber must be that, as far as tourism is concerned, Scotland is open for business. We must all work with visitscotland and the industry to revitalise tourism and to find a way forward for the future.
I move amendment S1M-1914.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"welcomes the actions being taken by the Executive to assist the tourism industry to recover from the effects of foot-and-mouth disease and supports its commitment to work with the relevant agencies including visitscotland and the industry to prepare and implement an appropriate and effective strategy to ensure the future growth of the industry."
The Tories are right to have lodged the motion: there is a crisis and action is needed. Much of the motion is perfectly reasonable, but the SNP cannot support it for two reasons. First, it fails to acknowledge the Tories' culpability for the sorry circumstances in which tourism finds itself. Secondly, the solutions that it proposes are inadequate both as immediate action and as long-term strategy.
In 1997, tourism went out of the frying pan and into the fire. Whatever fond memories the Tories have of being in government, the reality was not so benign for the industry. I do not seek to underestimate the catastrophe of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. However, it is no famine following feast; it is a disaster following five or more fallow years and it has occurred at the worst possible time in the industry's financial cycle. There should have been an opportunity for replenishment after the winter; instead, the lights are on but no one is about. Many businesses are living on borrowed time and borrowed money, with a shutdown that, to all intents and purposes, will run from winter 2000 to spring 2002.
Had there been previous years of feast, the damage might have been sustainable, but there were not. The culpability for that lies on both sides of the British political divide. A high pound, high VAT and high fuel prices were imposed not under the heel of an iron chancellor, but under the handbag of an iron lady and her successors. No matter how sincere their sympathy is now, the Tories will not be forgiven by the tourism industry for their previous complicity.
What of the current incumbents? Before I address their belated and inadequate response to the crisis, I shall critique their period in office at Westminster and in Scotland. Did they roll back the Tory legacy? Did they invest where there had been shortage? Did they promote where there had been silence? Did they change where change was overdue? No. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. What did they inherit? A high pound, high VAT and high fuel prices. What is their legacy? A high pound, high VAT and high fuel prices. Both Labour and the Tories have conspired to make Scotland a high-cost destination, for which the tourism industry has paid a high price.
Can Kenny MacAskill confirm the VAT level that the SNP supports? What cut in fuel tax does the SNP support, and how would it pay for it? At what level does he suggest that the pound should enter the euro?
We have called for a reduction in fuel prices of 10p a gallon. We have called for interim measures to be taken to reduce VAT on accommodation and visitor attractions from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent. We believe that membership of the euro is in Scotland's best interests, once the appropriate criteria have been met.
Let us consider some examples of the British neglect of tourism. Hardly a family in Scotland does not have a relative in Canada. Much has been made—even by the Executive—of a call to the diaspora, but what action has been taken to promote our country and to encourage members of the diaspora to visit Scotland? I asked the Executive how much the Scottish Tourist Board and visitscotland had spent on marketing Scotland in Canada every year since 1995. In 1995, the Tories—known for their support of the British diaspora on the Costa del Sol—spent the princely sum of £8,000 on marketing Scotland in Canada. In five years, new Labour has reduced that princely sum by 50 per cent; in 2000, its advertising budget in Canada, the place of our diaspora, was a king's ransom of £4,000. One hundred and thirty-six thousand Canadians visited Scotland. To secure those high-spending visitors, the Executive invested the sum of 3p a visitor. Is that speculating to accumulate? Those are only the figures for Canada; we have the figures for other places and we will release them in due course.
So much for the Executive's past failures. What of its current inadequacies? The tourism industry does not want advice on receivership or debt counselling; it wants interest-free loans and hardship grants, assistance in its marketing budget and a credible rates relief package. The Scottish Tourism Forum has put forward its proposals, some of which have been met, but all of which must be implemented.
Finally, what about a future strategy? The tourism industry needs a marketing budget that will allow Scotland to compete not just in Canada, but worldwide. We must ensure that, once interest in Scotland has been ignited, access to our country is reasonable in both time and cost. That must mean the expansion of direct air links to destinations not only in Europe, but in the USA. Fewer than 3 per cent of visitors from the US to the UK arrive at a Scottish airport. We need to be an international gateway not just to Scotland, but to the UK. If we cannot secure the same access to Scotland that there is to Ireland, we will never be able to compete.
The tragedy in Scotland remains that, although the natural product is unsurpassed anywhere else in the world, current and past Labour and Tory Administrations have let down the tourism industry. Only the SNP stands for tourism and for Scotland.
I move amendment S1M-1914.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"believes that policies being pursued by successive Westminster Governments, in particular a high pound, high fuel costs and high VAT, have been damaging to the tourist industry; further believes that the aims of visitscotland/the Scottish Tourist Board should be sharply refocused so that it is a marketing rather than a regulatory body; notes the relief package as proposed by the Scottish Tourism Forum and calls for its full implementation, and believes that direct transport links between Scotland and Europe and Scotland and America are essential."
I welcome this opportunity to debate the recovery of tourism in Scotland. It is worth pointing out that the predictions of disaster and ruin for Scotland's tourism industry have not come true, although one would not know that from the previous speeches. Indeed, there is some good news. Reports that I have received over the past few days from industry operators suggest that the industry had a reasonable Easter weekend and a good May bank holiday. There have been problems in the interim period, but the number of day trips and short-break holidays in Scotland has increased. Much of that increase has been facilitated by the good weather, but the television marketing campaign to persuade Scots to visit our countryside has also worked. A landlady in Oban told me yesterday that she has enjoyed her best-ever start to a season.
It is not all good news, however. The Dumfries and Galloway area still has major problems to overcome—I welcome the minister's announcement of the measures that are to be taken there. There are still serious problems to overcome in our overseas market. I would appreciate it if the minister with responsibility for tourism, Mr Alasdair Morrison, could give us an update in his winding-up speech on what progress has been made in recovering the markets in America and Germany.
The marketplace has a soft underbelly, as long-stay bookings are still well down and there are grave concerns about the summer, which is the long-stay season. Will families book for a full week rather than take the day trips and short breaks that have been a feature of the past four or five weeks? Although much of the hard work of visitscotland and the Scottish Executive has been effective, much more needs to be done. We must build on the work that has been carried out, in which context the measures to help Dumfries and Galloway are welcome. I hope that the Executive will introduce measures to help the Borders as well, as that area has also been affected by foot-and-mouth disease and is stigmatised in the same way as Dumfries and Galloway.
The Tory motion mentions access to the countryside. There are still serious access problems that require to be addressed. In Mull, for instance, there is a major access dispute at the south end of the island, the Ross of Mull. Landowners and tourism operators are unable to resolve the issue. Can the minister tell us what action can be taken in such situations when agreement cannot be reached? Both sides have taken entrenched positions. I understand both sets of arguments: farmers and landowners are still nervous about letting people on to their land but the tourism operators feel that, as the restrictions have been relaxed and animals can be moved freely, the presumption should be that access exists unless a high risk can be proven. I ask the minister to suggest how we can tackle that issue. I have been involved in trying to resolve it, but the problem is difficult.
Another outstanding issue is, as has been said, visitscotland's lack of a chief executive and the fact that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report has not been implemented. There is no doubt that the Rod Lynch affair and the lack of leadership have done immense damage to the credibility of the Scottish Tourist Board and the industry in general. The barrage of media reports that followed the Rod Lynch affair did nothing but undermine the Scottish Tourist Board and the confidence of the industry. The industry is in a fragile state. It needs leadership from the top of visitscotland. The morale of the 200 people who work for visitscotland is on the floor. We are relying on them to rebuild our market abroad and we are trying to encourage—
Will the member give way?
If the member is brief.
On the subject of morale, I have tried to make it clear that responsibility for the problems lay not with the staff of visitscotland, but with the Scottish Executive, which had control of visitscotland when the organisation did not have a firm leader. We have to make that clear and I support Mr Lyon's view on that point.
I am trying to make the point that it is in everyone's interest for us to stop kicking the organisation that we hope will lead Scottish tourism to a reasonable recovery from this summer. The last thing that the tourism industry wants is for visitscotland to be turned into a political football, evidence of which we have seen in this debate. It is regrettable that the Tory motion has little to do with the future of Scotland's tourism industry and everything to do with the general election campaign.
Who might we get as a new chief executive of visitscotland? Yesterday, we saw evidence that suggested that a certain man might fit the job. Perhaps the minister will investigate the matter. The man is currently unemployed and word has it that he is likely to continue to be available for work. He is well travelled and has an excellent knowledge of marketing, particularly poster advertising. Given yesterday's display of his expertise in this field, I respectfully suggest that Sir Malcolm Rifkind might fit the bill.
The tourism industry faces serious challenges in its attempt to rebuild confidence and market share over the summer. The 200 people who work for visitscotland want support to come from all the political parties to ensure that the good work that they are doing to turn the industry around succeeds. I appeal to everyone not to turn the Scottish Tourist Board and visitscotland into a political football during the election campaign. The parties must get behind the attempt to rebuild an industry that is vital to Scotland.
Some years ago, I wrote an article for a local newspaper entitled, "What Do You Do With an Empty Countryside?" It was not intended to be prophetic, but if one drove from Stranraer to Gretna tomorrow, a virtually empty countryside is what one would find. The land is almost denuded of livestock and, in empty field after empty field, there is mile after mile of lush grass that no one is yet quite sure what they will do with.
Just as most of Dumfries and Galloway has lost much of its livestock, so it has lost most of its tourism industry, which is every bit as important to its prosperity as is agriculture, if not more so. One of the stark lessons that has come out of the dreadful outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is how inextricably linked in rural Scotland are the agriculture and the tourism industries.
As we begin to see beyond the immediate impact of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, we must not overlook the inescapable fact that our rural tourism industry was facing severe problems before the cataclysmic virus struck and that those problems will remain after it has gone. While Dumfries and Galloway breathed a collective sigh of relief that its Easter trade was only 20 per cent below last Easter's average—although that is a strange definition of relief—we must remember that the base numbers were already in decline. That decline is hitting the whole of rural Scotland and needs to be addressed across the whole of rural Scotland. There is much that we need to do.
We need to examine the structure, remit and effectiveness of visitscotland. For the benefit of Mr Lyon, I stress that I am not using visitscotland as a political football when I say that; the need for an examination of those elements is a fact. It is unacceptable and unbelievable that the visitscotland board contains not one representative from the south of Scotland. Ministers will no doubt reply that the quality of the individual is much more important than the question of where they come from. However, that is tantamount to an accusation that no one in the south of Scotland is good enough to serve on the board, which is blatant rubbish. Perhaps the current shambles from which the board is trying to extricate itself will provide an opportunity to correct that discriminatory omission from its make-up.
We also need to examine the role of the local tourist board—we should not be frightened to do so. A recent survey that my colleague David Mundell and I carried out showed that the tourist board in Dumfries and Galloway does not enjoy the level of confidence among its members to which it no doubt aspires. I blame not the individuals involved, but the remit of the board, which has to become more promotional and less police-like.
It is no coincidence that many communities seem to be bypassing their local tourist boards by setting up their own websites and promoting their own areas. Examples of such initiatives can be found in Sanquhar and Glenluce. That development points to a failure in the system from which valuable lessons can and should be learned. Those within the industry need constantly to monitor their standards. Top-quality service does not have to be expensive. A smile costs nothing, yet it can make a stranger's day. We have much to learn from our continental neighbours about the delivery of service. Service means simply giving our visitors what they want and expect, rather than what we think that they should have.
We all agree that we have to rebuild an industry that is facing a disastrous year through no fault of its own. That must be an opportunity as much as it is a challenge and we have the advantage of the perfect base from which to start: Scotland itself. It will be harder to rebuild the industry in the south of Scotland because of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but I have no doubt that that challenge will be met. I broadly welcome the measures that the Executive has intimated to the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council this morning but I stress that they must be a first step. On their own, they are not enough. I am glad that the minister accepts that point.
As a resident of Dumfries and Galloway, I am somewhat disturbed by recent ministerial statements that seem to suggest that the current coterminous status that is shared by agencies such as the local tourist board and the local enterprise company in Dumfries and Galloway could be altered. I strongly reject such a move as being unhelpful in the extreme. I suggest that those agencies require considerable support under the current circumstances. There is a need to have their remits made more flexible, but they do not need to be either amalgamated or disbanded. By giving the tourism industry that support and flexibility, we will discover what can be done with an empty countryside as the phoenix of our tourism industry rises from the ashes of foot-and-mouth disease.
The Conservative motion talks about the efforts to regenerate the Scottish tourism industry being undermined. It is important that politicians do not undermine efforts to promote Scotland and its regions in the wake of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. There is a temptation, particularly during a general election campaign, to create headlines, but we and the media must beware of talking down the industry and contributing to its considerable difficulties.
The problems created by the foot-and-mouth outbreak for the economy of Dumfries and Galloway will be debated later today and, obviously, tourism must be part of that discussion. I am concerned about the efforts that are being made by the local tourist board which, as Alex Fergusson just said, has had problems. However, we must give credit to the chief executive and the chair of the board for their sterling efforts to turn around the situation. Last week, for example, they made an effort to rebrand the region. We must not lose sight of those important initiatives due to the fact that the media likes to concentrate on personalities and problems within visitscotland. Many of my constituents who are struggling to survive at the moment feel that such matters are an irrelevant distraction from the issues that face us.
Tourism is worth £82 million a year to Dumfries and Galloway. It provides around 8,000 jobs and attracts 700,000 visitors. I should point out that few of those visitors are from the diaspora—I, too, have a dictionary, so I know what the word of the day means. Most of the visitors to the region are from the UK and Europe. The foot-and-mouth crisis is estimated to be losing the tourism industry around £2 million a week.
Last week, the area tourist board launched Operation Azalea to try to counteract the damage that has been done. That project was funded through the £300,000 that was allocated to the region's recovery plan by visitscotland. I know that £300,000 is not really enough—I do not think that any of us feel that it is—but it was a start, and was allocated for a particular purpose. That funding enabled the ATB to commission the services of experts, who already had experience in the regeneration of tourism in the Shetlands after the Braer oil spill disaster, for example.
I note from today's speech by the minister that discussions between visitscotland and the ATB are under way on the subject of the additional resources. I can tell members that the ATB wants £7 million over the next three years and is prepared to approach a number of funding sources for that, including the EU and the UK Government. That may seem a lot of money, but, compared to the £82 million a year that tourism in Dumfries and Galloway is worth and to the £2 million that is being lost each week, that is a reasonably small investment to try to turn the situation around.
Clearly, much ground has to be made up in tourism in Dumfries and Galloway. Alex Fergusson mentioned that the figures were down by 20 per cent on the previous year, which was itself a poor season. However, the reduction varied across the region and across sectors. The self-catering sector, for example, suffered worse than some others. I understand that preliminary data from the recent holiday weekend show a similar variation, with very poor returns in the east of the region—in my constituency—but rather better returns in the west. In fact, Threave gardens were busier over the May holiday than they have ever been. The ground still has to be made up in the parts of the region worst affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak. That is why it is so important that we project a positive image of the region, and that that is not obscured by the political badinage that inevitably accompanies a general election campaign.
We should bear in mind that 85 per cent of tourist attractions in Dumfries and Galloway are open. That figure is increasing. Forest walks may be reopened; the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development was in the area on her bike last weekend; all the golf courses and all the beaches are open. In my view, the region still possesses, despite the lack of animals—which is a very sad sight—the greatest variety of beautiful scenery in the whole of Scotland. I did not see a single pyre all weekend, except for some smoke across the Solway firth, near Silloth.
The Conservative motion calls for a number of actions to be taken. I think that the Conservatives are somewhat pre-emptive in doing so, because we have received only this morning the announcement of further interim measures in response to the recovery plan that was put to the Executive by Dumfries and Galloway Council, the area tourist board and Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. As the minister has told us, the plan includes a small amount of loan support to the affected businesses.
I was pleased to hear today's announcement, but I look forward to further announcements about more long-term measures. I am convinced that tourism in Dumfries and Galloway, like many other industries, has a future. I hope to see the tourism industry rise like a phoenix from the pyre of the disaster that has taken place over the past couple of months. I look forward to support from the Executive and the Parliament on that.
If I was in any doubt about the extent of the problem facing our tourism industry, it was confirmed to me and my parliamentary colleagues during our visit to Washington DC for national tartan day last month. Everywhere we went, the perception was the same: that of a country in crisis, with the stench of burning animals and the countryside closed to visitors. More worryingly, there was a commonly held belief that our meat was unfit for human consumption.
In the minds of many Americans, foot-and-mouth disease has been confused with BSE. How did that public relations disaster take root? Quite simply, through the media. Night after night, news and documentary programmes such as CBS's "60 Minutes" and programmes on CNN and the other main news channels ran with pictures of funeral pyres and "No Entry" signs. They indulged in what was, frankly, sloppy reporting, which scared their viewers about what to expect if they were to visit this country.
The question has to be asked: what was being done by our Government to inform the overseas media of the facts? Was nobody monitoring how the situation was being portrayed overseas? We in the tartan day delegation took every opportunity to right the wrong. However, it was clear to us that huge damage has been done. It will take a great deal of effort and ingenuity to restore American confidence in Scotland as a tourist venue.
Foot-and-mouth disease has indeed been a catastrophe for tourism, particularly for tourism from overseas. But let us not kid ourselves: the fact is that Scotland's global market share has been steadily falling for the past five years. That problem will still be with us when foot-and-mouth is no more. It is the steady drop in visitors that must be addressed now, before it is too late.
A couple of steps must be taken. One is to do with how we sell Scotland. We need only look across the Irish sea to see how it is done. Not a night goes by on American television without a well-produced advert extolling the pleasures of a vacation in Ireland. I have yet to see a single similar advert urging people to visit Scotland. Scotland continues to be seen, and advertised, as an add-on to a visit south of the border.
As Kenny MacAskill said, a mere 3 per cent of overseas visitors fly directly to Scotland. That situation is exacerbated by the fact that only one airline, Continental Airlines, flies year round with direct flights to and from Scotland. Grateful as we are to Continental, those flights are in small-capacity aircraft of the type more usually used on domestic and European routes. Again, we need look only to Ireland or to other small European states such as Belgium and the Netherlands to see the difference that direct flights can make to the tourism industry.
Tourism employs 180,000 people, which is 8 per cent of the entire work force of Scotland. It accounts for 5 per cent of our gross domestic product, and we have to take it seriously. Tourism is not a hobby. It is time that we invested in the future of the industry. Let us get our act together once and for all, and leave the Mickey Mouse tourism to Disney. I urge members to support the SNP amendment.
One thing that has come home to us all over the past months is just how important the tourism industry is to Scotland's cities and countryside. That is a step forward because, before the foot-and-mouth outbreak, I was concerned that the significance of the industry often went unnoticed in the wider country. I do not think that the same can be said now. The images of burning animals that were flashed across our TV screens made us realise how fragile a country's reputation can be, and how important it was and will be to counter those images. The Executive's commitment to the tourism industry and the swift release of money for marketing has been crucial to achieve that.
The £100,000 campaign run by the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board brought visitors north for Easter in greater numbers that we had dared hope for. The number of visitors was not quite as high as last year, but was on a par with that for 1999. HOST informs me that the level of UK inquiries for holidays in the Highlands is continuing to hold up. The overseas market, which we depend on in August, will be harder to revive. I would like to know what plans are in hand to market for the main summer months.
Access problems are lessening. Although that staunch Conservative, Lord Burton, still refuses access in Glenshiel, the Cuillins are, thank heavens, open at last. More than half the Munros are accessible, as are 80 per cent of formal footpaths.
Crofters still need a lot of reassurance before they allow informal access over inby land, and we can understand their concerns, considering the unfenced nature of the ground, which does not quite fit in under "The Comeback Code".
It is good that people are working together, including councils, area tourist boards, local communities and tourist businesses. In Glencoe, in Ullapool and in Badenoch, for example, they are working to promote their areas in the face of their difficulties.
We cannot deny that the tourism industry has faced difficult times for several years now, and we should not make the mistake of thinking that the foot-and-mouth outbreak is the single cause of problems in the industry, as problems existed before that need to be addressed now if the industry is to have a secure, stable future.
The first need is for strong, effective leadership from the centre. In spite of all the difficulties with the appointment of Rod Lynch, it is important to acknowledge the job that is being done by Peter Lederer and his team. Theirs is not an easy task, and I believe that they can provide the effective and strong leadership that the industry needs until the appointment of a new chief executive. It is important that they are given every encouragement by the Parliament and are not constantly sniped at.
Obviously, strong marketing is needed. The Executive's strategy for tourism places a lot of emphasis on niche marketing. Although that is important and there are opportunities for it in the Highlands and Islands in particular, there are other areas that do not have niches to market but rely on the general holidaymaker. It is essential that businesses in those areas are not ignored but are given guidance on how to improve and modernise the product that they offer and on how to attract visitors back.
Longer-term issues that were raised in the Executive's strategy for tourism need to be acted on. It is essential to show that tourism is an attractive career option for young people. Investment in employees is necessary to raise morale and esteem in the industry. The strategy says that the uptake of 1,000 modern apprenticeships by 2003 will be encouraged. Perhaps the minister will inform us what progress is being made toward that target.
Achieving quality is perhaps the most important long-term issue. Word-of-mouth marketing is the best way of advertising the Highlands. When people come to visit the Highlands and Islands and other parts of Scotland, we must offer top-quality, fast and efficient service. Visitors expect no less. That is particularly important for foreign visitors, who in many cases are prepared to pay a bit extra for higher-quality service. The remoter Highlands will never be a cheap holiday option due to our distance from the centres of population, so we must become a quality holiday option.
It is important to debate the future of the tourism industry. The industry makes an important contribution to the Scottish economy and cannot be ignored. It is very sad that the Tory motion indulges in gesture politics by appearing to offer solutions to the tourism industry that either are unworkable or are measures that are already being enacted.
In common with other MSPs, I recently received a short-breaks package from the Scottish Tourist Board, enclosing a sample of the board's promotion material and details of the current £2.3 million marketing campaign, which focuses on attracting visitors to Scotland during May and into the summer. visitscotland tells us that the campaign is its biggest-ever assault on the domestic market. I believe that the initiative is very much welcomed throughout the industry. The board informs us:
"For every £1 the Scottish Tourist Board spends on promotion £6 is generated in return on behalf of Scotland's tourism industry."
The financial help that the Executive has given to a hard-pressed tourism industry is welcome.
In our previous debate on the tourism industry, I asked the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning whether she would consider refunding this year's membership subscriptions to all tourist board members. I was pleased that she replied that she would encourage visitscotland
"to examine the £5 million package that it has received to ensure that some refunds of subscriptions are made to the most affected businesses."—[Official Report, 28 March 2001; Vol 11, c 978.]
I was very pleased to receive a copy of a letter from Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board advising its members that 50 per cent of their membership fees and quality assurance fees would be returned to them. All the refunds would be funded out of the Executive's package. In addition, £104,000 would be spent by Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board on recovery marketing plans, which would help to gain additional funding from the European rural development fund. That represents real help.
I have been contacted by many businesses in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that are suffering the effects of the foot-and-mouth crisis. Whether they are large hotels or small one-person businesses, many tell me that bookings are down by 50 per cent and that they face real difficulties. That is why I am so pleased that, with the help of the Scottish Executive funding on which I have concentrated this morning, the marketing strategy is in place and action is under way to give help to businesses in my constituency.
However, once the emergency relief is over, a more effective, longer-term funding mechanism is needed to help the tourism industry. We cannot continue with our somewhat ad hoc approach to the funding of this important industry. We have an ineffective system at the moment. It is no wonder that so much criticism has been levelled at Aberdeen City Council over its refusal to pay its fair share to the tourism industry in the north-east. That refusal resulted in the closure and movement of the area tourist board's office, which affected not just the city of Aberdeen but the whole of the north-east, including Deeside and the Kincardineshire coast in my constituency.
The system whereby local councils are left to decide their own contribution levels cannot continue. We have a national industry, which needs a guaranteed level of funding. We cannot go on funding our tourism industry through our hard-pressed councils. We need a minimum of direct funding from the Scottish Executive. We must reform the ridiculous system of funding now.
On listening to the radio this morning, I was pleased and relieved to hear that, rather like Baldrick, Mr William Hague is in possession of a cunning plan. That cunning plan is to reduce the level of fuel tax. I commend Mr Hague, the former putative leader of the Opposition, for developing that cunning plan, but I fear that, as with Mr Baldrick's efforts, it will go awry because of one fatal flaw. The flaw is that it is clear to everyone except Brian Wilson and Helen Liddell that Mr William Hague has about as much chance of being in a position after the general election to implement his cunning plan as Mr Ronald Biggs has of becoming a High Court judge.
At least the Conservatives have recognised their sins of the past. We must always welcome the occasion when a sinner repents. However, I offer the advice that when they make a confession, they should make it a bit more fulsome and perhaps a bit longer. It was the Conservatives who introduced the fuel duty escalator. That policy was introduced in the guise of helping the environment.
Will the member give way?
Certainly, once I have moved on a little.
While the Conservatives' motives were ostensibly of green and greenery, we know that the real motive was greed—the greed of successive chancellors.
Will the member give way?
I will take the lady first, as I am sure that Alex Fergusson would urge me to.
Which is greater: Mr Ewing's figure, which refers to gallons, or the Conservatives' figure, which refers to litres?
You must address the motion, Mr Ewing.
Certainly. I think that I am addressing the amendment, which relates to high fuel costs.
We certainly have a shining example of the highest fuel tax in the world, which has been imposed by Maureen Macmillan's party following the Conservatives' example and which is deeply damaging to our tourism industry. The figure that the Labour party is putting to the people of Scotland is zero, as it will not even recognise that the problem exists. Our figure is 10p per gallon as an immediate cut.
Members will recall from my previous speeches that we are committed to reducing the level of fuel tax in Scotland to the European average. That is where the Conservative proposal is flawed, even if it were not a cunning plan that is bound to go awry. The Conservatives must recognise that the problem is the competitive disadvantage that affects tourism and other areas.
I must move on to deal with the point that the minister for tourism, enterprise, lifelong learning and general election campaigns made, which was that we talk down the tourism industry. That argument is the last refuge of a minister who has no coherent criticism to make. It is incoherent and meaningless waffle.
I take the opportunity to praise the efforts of David Noble and Delia Holland of HOST, which covers a massive area of Scotland, as it is important to praise the people who are delivering on the ground. However, their hands are tied by a dreadful rates relief package and "The Comeback Code", which leaves decisions in the hands of the landowners whom the Labour party is supposed to bring into line.
The survival workshop is a complete waste of money. It provides up to £2,000 for legal advice for people who know well that their problems are lack of market and loss of business, about which no lawyer or accountant will be able to do anything.
The Scottish Licensed Trade Association pointed out the fatal flaw and the reason why we lodged our amendment. The SLTA states that the problem is that decisions taken by successive chancellors
"are making the cost of taking holidays in Scotland prohibitive, even to Scots. VAT at 17.5% on accommodation and meals, the high cost of fuel, the exorbitant commercial rates and"—
I stress this point for the minister—
"the strong pound have made Scotland too expensive for both British people and for visitors from abroad."
That is the real problem, but the Labour party has no appetite even to recognise that it exists.
As many members have said, we now recognise that tourism is a key part of the Scottish economy and generates substantial revenue—about £2.5 billion, or about 5 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product. That key role has been recognised over the past two years, with the substantial new strategy for Scottish tourism that acknowledges the many challenges that face a successful tourism industry in Scotland and identifies clear paths for the way forward. The strategy identifies key niche marketing areas, such as golf, culture, genealogy and activity tourism. Business tourism is another area that is of particular importance in Aberdeen and Scotland's other cities. The tourism strategy has been backed up by substantial investment, such as the £11 million that was announced last February.
The current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has undoubtedly put the tourism industry under pressure, particularly in areas such as Dumfries. Swift action has been taken to support tourism businesses, both in Dumfries and throughout Scotland.
Does Elaine Thomson, who represents part of the city of Aberdeen, agree with my call for area tourist boards to receive direct funding in future? That would help us to get away from situations such as the one that occurred when Aberdeen City Council did not provide the required amount of money for the tourism industry.
During its recent inquiry, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee considered funding for area tourist boards. I know that the committee will come back to that issue. A successful meeting involving Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board, Aberdeen City Council and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic, Alasdair Morrison, was held recently at which the way forward in Aberdeen was discussed. Many different contributions are made to support tourism in Aberdeen and the north-east, such as the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre, which is supported entirely by Aberdeen City Council. The situation is not as straightforward as it might appear.
What about direct funding?
Discussions on that issue are under way, but I repeat: in supporting tourism, many contributions are made—the issue is not just about support for Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board.
One of the most useful activities that any member can pursue is that of not talking down Scottish tourism. There has been quite enough gloom and doom and pessimistic prediction. The Tories' motion is not helpful, particularly given the way in which it undermines visitscotland, which is working hard to restructure itself.
Ministers have taken many steps to support Scottish tourism, such as their visits to America, which is one of our key overseas markets. It has been made quite clear that Scotland is open to visitors, contrary to the sometimes over-dramatic pictures of burning farm animals.
Other measures that have been taken include the provision of £5 million to support visitscotland and of another £5 million for the enterprise network. Rates relief has been provided, with the Scottish Executive funding 95 per cent rather than the usual 75 per cent. Other industrial sectors, such as the paper industry and the fish processing sector, are quite envious of that support.
Today, the minister offered further help for Dumfries, through Scottish Enterprise, which I welcome. While we shall have to wait to see the full impact of foot-and-mouth disease on Scottish tourism, we know already that the figures for Easter were higher than predicted.
I note from television advertisements that visitscotland is heavily targeting the home market. Sixty per cent of the Scottish tourism industry's revenue comes from within the UK and I think that visitscotland's campaign will be productive. I hope that many more people will take short breaks in Scotland this year. I am a firm adherent to the belief that Scotland is a great holiday destination, so I am off to visit Orkney for the first time this summer. I hope that others will take this opportunity to go on similar visits.
Many of the problems that affect Scottish tourism are deep seated and existed well before the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The Scottish tourism strategy is designed to address those problems and I believe that they will be addressed clearly over the next few years.
This morning, we have heard Dismal Dave and Kenny and the Moaners talking about tourism. We also heard a bit of fantasy from Fergus Ewing.
Does Ian Jenkins agree that Fergus Ewing, who raised the issue of fuel taxes, failed to acknowledge or to agree that Britain has the lowest income and business taxes in the European Union? We must consider taxation policy in the round, rather than concentrate on fuel duty.
I am happy to agree that tax is a complicated issue. Fergus Ewing's comments about William Hague's chances of being able to make decisions about taxes might have resonance for Alex Salmond and others.
The Rod Lynch episode was a bad start, but the Tories will hope that a bad start to a campaign does not preclude recovery. I hope that they will be sympathetic and recognise that the Rod Lynch affair should not condemn visitscotland to failure for ever.
The tone of today's debate has been negative and unhelpful. It is neither fair nor right to kick an organisation when it is in difficulties, given that it is doing the job that we want it to do in difficult circumstances. At a time of crisis, it is absolutely wrong to lodge critical motions that sap the organisation's morale.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I will not give way just now. Helen Eadie's intervention took up about half my time.
Yesterday, I spoke to the chief executive of the Scottish Borders Tourist Board. He assured me that tourist board chief executives and visitscotland are determined and committed to working together professionally in a way that clarifies their roles and prevents the overlap that existed previously. We ought not to decry the work of the STB, which introduced standards of professionalism. No one can deny that, broadly speaking, quality in Scottish tourism has risen hugely over the past few years. It must continue to rise and, as Maureen Macmillan said, we must get to the stage where Scotland is seen to be a quality destination.
The second part of David Davidson's motion refers to the recovery plan. The recovery plan has two aspects, one of which is getting people to Scotland. That is a chicken-and-egg situation—we must ensure that when people arrive, the infrastructure and quality businesses are in place to greet them. I welcome the recovery plan announced by Ms Alexander, which attacks on both those fronts and will help businesses survive. The trouble is that some of the best businesses are those that have invested most and that are in the greatest difficulty when there is a lacuna in their funding. We must ensure that those businesses are able to survive, so that they can cater for visitors when they come back.
When George Lyon welcomed the announcement on Dumfries and Galloway, I was pleased to hear him say that similar consideration should be given to the Borders, which has been stigmatised by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth in the area. I saw Ms Alexander nodding when he said that and I hope that she will convert her agreement into action shortly. It is crucial that, when the Borders economic forum meets Mr McLeish shortly, those things are treated positively. Of course the Scottish tourism industry has been affected nationally, but the areas that have been infected with the disease must overcome a psychological barrier in trying to attract visitors.
Liberal policy is quite interesting this morning. Two years ago, when I introduced in the chamber our policy of direct funding for area tourist boards, the Liberals talked it down and voted against it. Do Mr Rumbles and the Liberals now agree with our policy?
I am sure that Mr Davidson is mistaken. I may recall imperfectly, but I spoke in favour of direct funding and do so again now. I support Mr Rumbles in that aspiration, which may take time. I welcomed three-year funding through the councils, but direct funding would be better.
The third strand of Mr Davidson's motion is on the opening up of the countryside. Yesterday, I was at a meeting of the cross-party sports group. We were made aware of the difficulties that are caused by the mixture of open and closed areas for people with tourism businesses and those who are trying to run events such as the great Caledonian run.
It is vital that we send out clear messages. The Executive has done so positively with the gradings of infected, at-risk and provisionally free areas. That policy should be hardened up if it can be. Publicity and moral pressure should be directed towards people who have areas and estates that are closed to the public to open them whenever that is possible without risk. We live in a democracy and so cannot always order people to do things. There are clearly difficulties in the Borders, where farming people are really nervous about that. We must accept that there are limitations.
On an optimistic note, hundreds of visitors came to Peebles last weekend. They did not need to go into the forests. They could walk on Tweed Green, listen to silver bands or go shopping. Much of the Borders is as good as it can be for tourists.
Again I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on the future of the tourism industry. I want to concentrate my remarks on three issues that have been raised: the position of visitscotland and ministerial responsibility; consequential compensation, which seems to have slipped off the agenda; and the wider aspects of tourism and the urgent action that needs to be taken now.
In her opening speech, the minister said that it is a small nation that covets grievance when errors are made. That was apparently a cover suggesting that no one is to blame. I am not seeking a scapegoat for the crisis in the tourism industry or for the complete mess in the appointment of the chief executive. Believing in parliamentary accountability is not seeking grievance and does not make us a small nation. As she is the minister, the minister is responsible. We were told by the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee that she is responsible, so it is not uncharitable of MSPs to call her to account. That does not belittle us.
I want to ask some of the questions that remain unanswered. We were told that no minister was involved in the debacle surrounding the chief executive and that no minister was available to go to the interview panels. The minister did not say that a civil servant represented the Executive. At no point has it been denied that there was an Executive representative. If there was no representative, what was the civil servant doing there? Were they there to keep out the cold? Were they there to represent the Executive or were they just lost? Did they just wander in and wonder where they were? They were there to represent the ministerial interest. Did they ask pertinent questions of the candidates? Did they ask the candidates how many jobs they had? Did they even bother to check whether the person was available to give 100 per cent commitment to the industry in its time of need? If they did not, why not? Why did the minister not demand that those questions were asked? What was the point in having a representative there if those serious questions were not to be addressed?
Despite the fact that ministers are trying to put the problem at arm's length, the decision about whether to appoint the new chief executive was ultimately for the minister responsible for tourism. Before the contract was signed off, it was the minister's responsibility to ensure that all the details were right. Rather than hiving off to Tuscany, perhaps it would have been more useful if he could have done so. Perhaps his deputy could have given the matter some of his close attention.
Before I deal with consequential compensation, I want to put in the Official Report that the Executive has not made one attempt to contradict any of those details or to answer any of those questions. Perhaps the minister will do so in his closing remarks.
Henry McLeish is another minister who seems to have had a lot of trouble. On 22 March 2001, the current First Minister—we do not know for how much longer—told Parliament in answer to John Swinney:
"We are working on every front. Over the next few weeks, we hope to be able to develop consequential compensation."—[Official Report, 22 March 2001; Vol 11,
c 877.]
What have we seen since then? Total inertia. Businesses still do not know whether consequential compensation will come, what it will mean or how to qualify for it. That is another example of the First Minister promising something that he later realised he could not afford to promise, or did not understand. I would welcome from the Executive today some clarification of whether the First Minister was misleading Parliament, whether he was misled by his advisers, or whether he did not understand the terms that he used.
Mr Lyon asserted that we should not turn visitscotland into a political football. He said that we should not use visitscotland to highlight Executive failings. Is that the same George Lyon who used visitscotland and the debacle surrounding it to do precisely that? Is that the same George Lyon who told the nation in a burst of unparalleled publicity for him that he was the person to call the Executive to account for fighting like ferrets in a sack and for its members looking at their own promotion before the industry's needs? Mr Lyon is losing credibility by the minute.
I welcome the debate because it is a chance to put in context the current role of the tourism industry. Before she left the chamber, Elaine Thomson made the point that, before the industry's immediate difficulties, there were problems from the strong pound, the high cost of fuel, poor marketing and two years of consecutive decline in the number of overseas visitors. After the insufficient package of measures that has been implemented—if I had time, I would say why it is insufficient—and after the immediate crisis has passed, let us remember that the systemic problems that existed before the crisis remain and remain unanswered. Once we are out of this particularly dark period, it is time to refocus our efforts not on getting people re-elected but on getting the Scottish tourism industry back on its feet.
I am happy to respond on behalf of the Executive. My colleagues, Maureen Macmillan and Elaine Thomson, were absolutely right when they said that Scotland now appreciates the importance of the tourism industry. Maureen Macmillan was correct when she dismissed David Davidson's motion as a vain attempt at gesture politics.
Mr Davidson spoke of the Executive's abject failure over the past two years. In the past two years, we have taken tourism from the fringes of political thinking and placed it at the heart of the Executive's programme. Mr Davidson said that the Executive had totally failed to respond to tourism. Last week, I met a former member of the Scottish Tourist Board. She spent two terms on the board under the Tory Government and she said that, in the six years that she served, she did not once meet or have any contact with a Tory tourism minister. That shows the way in which the Tories treated tourism.
When we last debated tourism—in the final statement and debate in this chamber before the Easter recess—Mr Peter Lederer's appointment as chairman was endorsed as an inspired choice by people from across the political spectrum. We should again put on record our recognition of Mr Lederer's undoubted skills and talents.
David Davidson launched into an unwarranted attack on the British Tourist Authority and came out with a spurious claim that BTA staff are misleading American visitors. I have seen and heard for myself the work of BTA staff in their call centre in New York. They are doing an excellent job; they have been doing an excellent job all through this very difficult episode. Mr Davidson would be well advised to establish the facts before so roundly criticising staff who are doing an excellent job.
Will the minister give way?
I have only five minutes and I want to respond to as many members as possible.
Kay Ullrich made a valid and pertinent point when she talked about the American media hysteria surrounding foot-and-mouth—or hoof-and-mouth, as they call it. I am happy to reassure Kay Ullrich that ministers—both UK and Scottish—have been working with the American media to get the message across. Our ambassadors and consuls general have also been engaging aggressively with the media.
George Lyon rightly began with a positive picture of tourism across Scotland. I am happy to say that, in my constituency over the Easter weekend, the numbers on ferries sailing to Barra, Lochboisdale, North Uist, Harris and Lewis were all up on last year. Numbers on the Ullapool to Stornoway route increased by a staggering 28 per cent. Mr Lyon asked what we are doing about recovering the American market. A great deal of work is being done on that market and similar efforts are continuing in other important markets in Europe. I will deal with the matter of access that Mr Lyon and other members raised in few minutes. I can certainly endorse what he said about it being in all our interests to stop kicking visitscotland.
Alex Fergusson raised concerns about the enterprise company and the tourist board in Dumfries and Galloway. I reinforce the points that have already been made: they have been receiving support and, as was announced by Wendy Alexander this morning, they have now received additional support.
Elaine Murray was absolutely correct when she said that we must avoid the temptation to talk down the tourism industry. I recognise the efforts of tourism leaders in Dumfries and Galloway. Everyone appreciates the need for co-operation between Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. For example, I believe that the southern upland way has the potential to become one of the jewels of Scottish tourism. However, before it is properly developed, it will require a lot of co-operation between the councils and area tourist boards in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders.
The contributions from Kenny MacAskill, Fergus Ewing and Duncan Hamilton can be summed up by words, written in 1943, that I read in The Herald yesterday. The article mentioned a report on the Scottish nationalist movement, which was studied by MI5 in 1943. It said that MI5's view was that
"while individual members are mischievous and potentially dangerous, the organisation itself, albeit full of sound and fury, is of little consequence."
I will move on to the issue of access. In responding to last night's debate congratulating the Scottish Youth Hostel Association on its 70th anniversary, Allan Wilson referred to the difficulties being created in some parts of the country by unofficial closure of land. That is causing significant economic harm to some in the tourism industry. I take this opportunity to support fully what Allan Wilson said. Many landowners, farmers and crofters in the provisionally free area have followed our advice, carried out risk assessments and reopened their land where advised that it was safe to do so. However, others have refused to co-operate with local authorities and have kept in place unofficial signs saying that the countryside is closed. That is not acceptable behaviour. It came as no surprise to me to learn that Lord Burton of Dochfour is one of the landowners who is not taking the wider view. He is indulging in the selfishness that has been his hallmark over the years.
In closing, I will reiterate what my colleague Wendy Alexander said in her opening remarks. The message from this Parliament needs to be that Scotland is open for business. Our real task with visitscotland should be to revitalise our tourism industry.
This has been an important debate because tourism is Scotland's most important industry. Many people say that often, but rarely are the words backed up by action and deeds. The vulnerability of the industry and the fact that we cannot take it, its income or its jobs for granted have been underlined by the foot-and-mouth crisis. I welcome, as a first step, the package that has been announced. Interestingly, it was Ross Finnie rather than Ms Alexander who announced it.
I especially welcome the additional £5 million from Scottish Enterprise to Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. That is a start. I hope that in the welcome debate that we will have this afternoon on the specifics in Dumfries and Galloway, we will get some more detail. As the minister knows from her various meetings and from the people's protest last week, the priority is to provide some form of survival loan to businesses. That must be included in the detail, otherwise the package will disappoint and cause genuine anger. I look forward to hearing that the detail is in place so that, as we have done today, all in Dumfries and Galloway can move forward positively to overcome this crisis.
It was interesting to have a debate in which Ian Jenkins turned nasty; and if there is anyone in this chamber who can lecture us with gravitas on incoherent and meaningless waffle, it is Fergus Ewing. As Duncan Hamilton so well pointed out, George Lyon did yet another volte-face and, rather than blaming the Labour party for all the problems in the Scottish tourism industry, he proposed that Sir Malcolm Rifkind could lead the industry. I am afraid, George, that Sir Malcolm will be otherwise engaged.
I agree with Elaine Thomson, Maureen Macmillan and others who pointed out that the tourism industry was in serious difficulty before foot-and-mouth. The high value of the pound and the cost of fuel were major disincentives to come to Scotland. The chaos—or what we thought then was chaos—that prevailed at the Scottish Tourist Board, leading to the departure of the
chairman and senior executives; the PricewaterhouseCoopers report; the curate's egg that is the area tourist board structure; and the lack of clarity between the tourist boards, Scottish Enterprise and local government, existed before. Now, they have been compounded by the foot-and-mouth crisis.
I accept that the Executive did not bring the crisis about, but it caused the fiasco surrounding the appointment of Rod Lynch. I make no apology for criticising those things. As Elaine Murray mentioned, Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board is now well led by a new chairman and a new chief executive. I had no difficulty in calling for the resignation of the previous chairman, who had led in a most incompetent fashion. If people do not highlight such difficulties, they go on and on and on. It is the duty of the Opposition parties in this Parliament—and even the duty of Mr Lyon, on occasion—to highlight genuine difficulties that exist in the visitscotland organisation.
In restoring confidence, Peter Lederer has a big job to do. As the minister knows, he has a big job to do in Dumfries and Galloway, where there is genuine concern that visitscotland is unable to represent all our tourism businesses. I am very pleased that Alasdair Morrison, the minister with responsibility for tourism, gave an undertaking last week to take up that very issue with the acting chief executive. I am pleased that the board of visitscotland is in Dumfries today. We need to see some action, with the south of Scotland being properly represented on that board.
As my colleague Alex Fergusson said, much needs to be done. Interestingly, our survey of more than 1,000 tourism businesses in South of Scotland, asking them what the Scottish Parliament could do, highlighted lobbying of the UK Government on the cost of fuel as being the single most important thing for the tourism industry.
Tourism businesses and other electors will have their opportunity to influence the UK Government on the cost of fuel over the next four weeks. As David Davidson said, our promise on that is very clear: a 6p a litre reduction in the cost of fuel. By my calculation—Mr MacAskill should note this point—that is more than 10p a gallon. Given the SNP propensity for foreign figures, I am sure that Mr MacAskill will be using the US or Canadian gallon. Today, as ever, Mr MacAskill gave us figures for Estonia, Lithuania and Canada, but did not give us a budgeted figure for Scotland.
The other plea that I would make to ministers is to end the mishmash and lack of clarity between the respective roles of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and visitscotland/the Scottish Tourist Board. Who is responsible for tourism? We know that it is not ministers. Who is there to support businesses and help them to develop? The current area tourism structure is a mess. In many cases, good people operate it, but there is a lack of clarity about what they are doing.
The fact that the area tourist board is a membership organisation leads to increasing exclusion of hundreds of tourism-related businesses. That must be reviewed. I am very concerned to find myself agreeing with Mike Rumbles, but I am reassured by David Davidson, who tells me that Mike Rumbles is agreeing with us when we call for the direct funding of area tourist boards and local organisations, rather than funding through local authorities. Local authorities and area tourist boards must work in partnership, but it must be a partnership of equals and that cannot exist where the tourist board is dependent on the council for funding.
Tourist boards must take issues forward and lobby the council on behalf of their members. As members, particularly those who represent rural areas, will know, there are many important issues in relation to changing councils' development and planning policies and signage. The tourist boards must be able to have an arm's length relationship with the councils.
I want to draw attention to yet another shambles, which in previous debates was heralded as the future of Scottish tourism yet failed to get a mention today: Project Ossian. How many times did we hear that Ossian was the future and that thousands of people would use it to book their holidays in bed and breakfasts, hotels and self-catering accommodation across Scotland? In reality, Ossian was another shambles. It was the wrong system—all too reminiscent of the computer system used at the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Some measures are in place. For example, I have met the people who are developing the website, which will be an important element of the Scottish tourism industry, but we cannot have shambles after shambles in our most important industry. It is time to stop saying that tourism is Scotland's most important industry and to have some action instead.