Tourism
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3869, in the name of Alex Neil, on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report on the future of tourism.
It is my pleasure to open on behalf of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee this debate on the committee's report on the future of tourism in Scotland. I always feel that debates on committee reports are rather curious parliamentary beasts. Much prowling round the jungle has gone on, to the accompaniment of roars, grunts and snuffles, and there has been some locking of horns, but when the ultimate product is unanimous—as this report is—it usually means that no one emerges bloody and bitter.
I see the visible disappointment of members, who are no doubt asking, "Does this mean the report is passive or inert—just another committee report?" Nothing could be further from the truth, because the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has a mind of its own. Indeed, it has been innovatory and, some would say, harbours its own idiosyncrasies. It is none the worse for that.
Before we proceed to the report, there are certain courtesies to be observed. First, I am not Alex Neil, the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—we are not quite that idiosyncratic—but I thank him for departing from traditional practice in allowing me as deputy convener to lead for the committee in this debate. That is an act of characteristic gallantry. I think that he took the view that as one of only two original committee members—Marilyn Livingstone being the other—our dowager status should be acknowledged.
If the Parliament will indulge me briefly, I will say that serving on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has been challenging but immensely interesting and pleasurable. The committee has been positive for the parliamentary process. It is pleasing that the media frequently accord the adjective "influential" to the committee.
I thank the clerking support team of Simon Watkins, Judith Evans, Jane Sutherland and Michael Govind for their advice and forbearance. Judith Evans and Jane Sutherland were the clerks for the case studies in Denmark and California, and I thank them for mothering beyond the call of duty. Our clerks have been of the highest calibre. The committee is also indebted to our adviser Roger Carter for his sage comments; to the many organisations and individuals who gave the committee oral or written evidence; to Stevens and Associates for its immensely helpful and instructive research, which was commissioned pre-inquiry; to the Scottish Parliament information centre for welcome research support during the inquiry; and to the Parliamentary Bureau and the Conveners Group for making time available for the debate. I think that I am correct in saying that, with the exception of the Finance Committee, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has had more debates in the chamber than any other committee.
Alex Neil would wish me to express a final note of appreciation to the committee's members. A heavy volume of work had to be packed into a tight schedule. Four cross-party case studies were undertaken in Scotland. They covered VisitScotland's e-tourism venture; rural tourism issues and the impact of foot-and-mouth disease in Dumfries and Galloway; golf tourism in Fife and business tourism in Scotland; and urban tourism and dispersal issues in Edinburgh. Two cross-party studies were undertaken abroad, which involved myself and Tavish Scott—very agreeable—going to Copenhagen and taking in Malmö in Sweden, and Alex Neil and Gordon Jackson going to California in the USA.
In short, much was asked of members, who responded spiritedly. The committee had a healthy and robust debate as it shaped its views, but all was achieved without our eating lumps out of one another. That is probably just as well—otherwise, the exercise might have been indigestible.
The report is the sixth full report that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has produced after holding an inquiry. It is a thorough and robust piece of work. I intend not to go through the report ad longum, but simply to comment on pivotal processes and aspects of the report. I do not intend even to use the full time allocated for my speech, because it is important for other members to be given the chance to speak.
In June last year, the committee agreed that the inquiry's remit would be to inquire into the levels and effectiveness of Government support for tourism. The committee also agreed to pose a set of key questions to stimulate and focus debate. Those questions were singularly significant and can be found at paragraph 43 of the report.
Of undoubted assistance in pointing the committee in the right direction was the pre-inquiry research from Stevens and Associates to which I have referred. That research achieved a status in its own right and focused the committee on matters that merited investigation.
The external research is worth dwelling on. A sample of countries and territories was identified for comparison with Scotland on five key tourism markers, which were the scale, nature and growth of tourism; the structure and nature of governance in support of tourism; the nature and level of direct and indirect support of tourism; marketing strategies and trends, whether niche or general promotion; and the perception of the country or region as a tourist destination. The report of the findings of those comparisons facilitated the identification of practice that was applicable to tourism in Scotland. It did not always produce an outcome that was entirely favourable to Scotland.
The research report identified five key lessons for Scotland. The first was that Scotland should create a clear and focused national tourism strategy that involves leading private sector representatives. The second was that Scotland should encourage different product and service providers to establish a strategic alliance that meets market demand. I think that I speak for the whole committee when I say that those two lessons were material in influencing the committee's approach to the inquiry.
The committee had a mission and a compass, but did not necessarily know what it would encounter on the journey. It soon became clear that the tourism territory in Scotland was congested and that numerous bodies, organisations and individuals were struggling to perform roles, provide advice and represent provider groups in the industry—not to mention the prominent roles that some providers play. All of that was set against a backdrop of various Scottish Executive strategies and initiatives.
Interestingly, we found that the situation contrasted sharply with that in Denmark and California, where the lead position of the industry was not only prominent but unquestioned. It is no coincidence that that situation forms part of our key recommendations: members will find them in paragraphs 172 and 173. It is vital that the industry's voice be clear, visible and articulate, and that there is not a chorus of collective contributions.
It was also clear that a critical factor in the success of competitor destinations was the attraction of new air links—that was an issue that weighed heavily with the committee. The committee agrees that the Executive's new route development fund is a sensible contribution to meeting that need, but further work needs to be undertaken by VisitScotland and the enterprise agencies to prosecute actively the case for such development.
Listening to Annabel Goldie, I miss working with her and colleagues on the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
Does Annabel Goldie agree that one of the recommendations that the Executive should follow is the recommendation that is to be found at paragraph 213? It reads:
"The Committee recommends that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning aids HIAL"—
Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd—
"in renegotiating its PFI arrangements because of their impact in constraining growth at Inverness airport."
Could not the route development fund of £5.3 million be used to assist the situation? Surely the use of that fund could have a significant impact on the need to attract more low-cost carriers to Inverness airport.
Mr Ewing touches on an important aspect of the inquiry. I do not think that any committee member would dispute the fact that we found the issue perplexing. What seemed particularly arcane was the structure of the private finance initiative, which had to be unravelled. We were given the clear impression that the structure of the PFI package was hostile to the improvement and expansion of routes. That seems to me to be something of a commercial paradox.
I say to Mr Ewing that, as the recommendation suggests, the situation needs to be actively investigated. The minister might want to comment on that. The issue taxed the minds of the committee, hence our recommendation.
No doubt others will wish to address particular aspects of the report, but, in promoting Scotland as a world-class destination, it is clear that there needs to be close co-ordination with United Kingdom ministers, particularly in respect of the role of the British Tourist Authority. I know that Tavish Scott, Gordon Jackson, Alex Neil and I were immensely impressed by the role of the BTA abroad, which we saw when we undertook our foreign visits.
All members of the committee recognise the potential for partnership between the BTA and VisitScotland. We think that the BTA has the potential to be a strategic and significant partner in VisitScotland's work overseas. We were struck by the professionalism and obvious willingness of the BTA to engage in that partnership. One practical and manageable proposal is to place VisitScotland staff in each of the BTA's eight international hub offices. It is also important to measure activities under any such initiative. It would not be enough to simply put such a structure in place; the committee felt that it was important for it to be measured.
Is the member aware of the report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, under Gerald Kaufman, on the changes to the BTA and the English Tourism Council? It appears that the Westminster committee went further than the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee did in its interesting report in indicating its hostility and opposition to the changes that Ms Jowell has announced.
The Westminster committee report calls for a properly federated structure for the BTA. In the light of that, does Miss Goldie wish to reconsider whether the Scottish Parliament should go further than the committee has done in expressing our distaste about being boxed in by having to go through the British Tourist Authority?
I am not acquainted with the detail of the Westminster report, but I can say that the committee researched fully the role of the BTA as part of its inquiry and took evidence from that organisation.
In fairness to the minister, the committee took evidence from him and subjected him to intensive questioning about liaison between the Scottish Executive and the Westminster Government. What is important is that we are where we are. We are working with a new devolved Parliament within the context of the United Kingdom. The BTA is a significant association and operator in the tourism field, and, from committee members' direct experience, I believe that the BTA has a positive contribution to make to the development of Scottish tourism. Perhaps Mr MacAskill will want to pursue those aspects further with either VisitScotland or the minister.
There were also key recommendations in the report on Executive strategies and targets for research, business tourism, e-tourism and skills. In relation to area tourist boards, the minister may have some comment to make on the review that is being conducted.
Although the committee did not take evidence on the ATB structure—members thought that it would have been premature to comment on the structure per se—it was clear that in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, ATBs have a distinct role in acting as gateways to Scotland in business and leisure tourism, and in dispersing tourists elsewhere. That compares with the successful Copenhagen model, and the committee felt that Edinburgh and Glasgow should be encouraged to maintain that drive.
I am pleased to say that the overall reception of the report from the industry has been favourable. However, it is in the public domain that the BAA in Scotland had certain concerns about paragraph 190 of the report, which refers to BAA ownership of the three main airports in Scotland. The BAA has written to the convener and committee members, and that letter is on the agenda for next week's meeting and will be considered seriously.
Will the member give way?
I am in my closing minutes, so I shall continue.
I hope that the minister will feel able to receive the report warmly—I shall stop short of asking him to embrace me—in principle; I appreciate that it would be unreasonable to expect him to respond in detail. Perhaps he will be able to indicate the direction in which he thinks the Executive might go in relation to the report.
I commend the report to the Executive and the Parliament as a positive and robust contribution to improving tourism in Scotland. I take pleasure in moving motion S1M-3869, in the name of Mr Alex Neil.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the 1st Report 2003 of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, Report on the Future of Tourism in Scotland (SP Paper 740), and commends the report to all stakeholders in the tourism sector.
I should like to thank the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee for the opportunity to speak on its report. I am glad that the committee chose Scotland's biggest business sector as suitable for an in-depth inquiry.
When the committee began its work last year, tourism in Scotland was still suffering from the aftermath of foot-and-mouth and the other tragic events of 2001. Although the committee has not ignored the past, it has clearly concentrated on the future, which I welcome. I am happy to embrace the report, if not to physically embrace Annabel Goldie for her introduction—perhaps I could do that another time. The report will help the hard work that is going on throughout the tourism sector in Scotland to get the sector growing so that it can make a contribution to an expanding Scottish economy.
I shall comment on one or two of the most significant points that are raised in the report. Three years ago, the Executive published its "New Strategy for Scottish Tourism". That strategy still holds good with its focus on five strategic priorities, and in March last year the Executive set out in its "Tourism Framework for Action" an action plan to deliver the strategy. That plan has now been taken forward across the sector, and a lot has been achieved. Information on what has been achieved will be published next month in the first annual report on the action plan. As well as recording what has been done, that report will show what remains to be done. Already, the efforts of many people across the tourism sector and in the public sector are producing results.
The figures for 2002 demonstrate that tourism is on the road to recovery. For instance, hotel occupancy in Edinburgh and the Lothians last year was at its highest level since 1997, despite the fact that the number of beds increased by 15 per cent during that period. It is particularly heartening that tourism expenditure by overseas visitors increased by 3.6 per cent over the first three quarters of 2002. We must ensure that that trend continues.
Those figures show that we are on the way to achieving the target that the Executive has set VisitScotland of returning tourism numbers to the 2000 level by 2004. In addition, the short breaks market is becoming increasingly popular and important. Indeed, I have made use of short breaks myself over the past year or so, and the market brings people to Scotland at times outwith the typical holiday periods.
Although that progress is encouraging, I am prepared to state clearly that many uncertainties face us and that we will press on with the key strategic priorities that we have outlined on a number of occasions.
Although we should recognise that the figures for 2002 are good news, the minister has hinted that the situation is slightly patchy and our interpretation of the report is dependent on what members here in the chamber say about it. For example, Annabel Goldie gave us a very elegant but rather broad-brush description of the situation. Given that tourism is one of the few long-term viable industries in the Highlands, does the minister agree that the marketing of particular areas, such as the far north, is key if tourism is to be for all, and if the benefits that we have seen in 2002 are to be rolled out to those areas of Scotland that could use the money?
Indeed. Although it is important to market Scotland as a whole, many areas within the country can be marketed on the strength of their unique attractions. The far north of Scotland—including Caithness and Sutherland, which I am sure Jamie Stone has particularly in mind—is part of that marketing strategy. The Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board markets the area very effectively. I am sure that its efforts will continue, and I recognise the benefits of such an approach.
I find it encouraging that many of the committee's recommendations in the report build on the priorities that the Executive has already established. For example, Annabel Goldie mentioned direct air access. The report makes important recommendations in that regard and we recognise the issue's strategic importance. That is why, in November 2002, the First Minister announced the interim route development fund, which amounts to £6.8 million.
Will the minister give way?
Not at the moment.
The First Minister announced that fund specifically because we wish to increase the number of direct routes into Scotland and therefore the benefits of tourism. VisitScotland is working closely with the Executive on that issue and I expect that some announcements will soon be made on important new direct air links to Scotland.
I have a question on direct air links, which has already been raised in relation to Dalcross airport—or Inverness airport, as most of us call it. HIAL is fighting with its hands tied behind its back in its attempt to attract low-cost budget airlines to the airport. In that respect, will the minister directly address paragraphs 213 and 214 of the report?
I notice the report's specific comments about the public-private partnership aspects of the matter, and I will be having discussions with Lewis Macdonald as the minister with responsibility for transport, and other colleagues in the enterprise and lifelong learning department, to find out what can be done about the situation. However, contracts have already been entered into, which might have implications that might or might not meet what the committee has sought on the matter. I recognise the importance of Inverness airport to tourism and to other aspects of life in the Highlands.
Business tourism is increasingly important in Scotland; I stressed that point when I addressed the Business Tourism Scotland conference last month in Glasgow. After all, business tourists spend one and a half times more than leisure tourists, and encouraging business tourism is a good way of spreading accommodation capacity in Scotland, particularly during the winter months. That is why VisitScotland will put more emphasis on business tourism in the coming year.
VisitScotland's marketing strategy—
Will the minister give way?
I will take one more intervention, but then I really must move on. I have only 12 minutes.
Will the minister assure us that business tourism will form an important part of the major events strategy?
Yes, indeed. The major events strategy is about not just big sporting or cultural events, but major conferences, some of which are very major indeed. For example, a midwives conference that will be held in Glasgow in 2008 will attract something like 18,000 delegates. Of course, the exhibition market is also an important aspect of the strategy.
On marketing, I acknowledge the remarks that the committee, Annabel Goldie and Kenny MacAskill made about the BTA. We were consulted about the proposed new arrangements. I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in the House of Commons and have seen its report. From our point of view, the most important matter is to ensure that the BTA structure works for Scotland and chimes with VisitScotland's marketing strategy.
That is why my officials will keep in close touch with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and VisitScotland with the BTA, to ensure that the new structure works for Scotland as it is put in place. We are determined that the new structure will result in stronger marketing of Scotland in key overseas markets—it is not as though we can somehow suddenly detach ourselves. The BTA spends about £5 million on marketing Scotland abroad. From VisitScotland's point of view, that is effective. I visited two of the offices and I saw the effort that the staff put into the job. If there is any change in that situation, I will be quick to deal with it, as will VisitScotland. People have to be a little more confident about the new structure and must wait and see how it settles in.
There is a question of utilising new technology in the tourism sector. I welcome the committee's support for the new website, visitscotland.com. I have been impressed by the solid start that has been made by the e-tourism booking service. The latest figures show that nearly £1 million-worth of new bookings has flowed to Scottish tourism businesses and to the new contact centre in Livingston since it was opened only last August. The most dramatic increase has been in the Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board area, where there has been a 20-fold increase. Other parts of the country have been good and, in fairness, some have not been so good. These are early days, but a considerable, solid foundation exists upon which to build.
The committee emphasised the importance of better product quality and better skills and training. I have mentioned that consistently in the period in which I have had responsibility for tourism. Just this week, I met Careers Scotland to discuss what it is doing and what it can do to ensure that young people in schools in Scotland are given every opportunity to pursue tourism and hospitality as a career, because there are many worthwhile jobs in the sector.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry; I must press on, or I will not get through all the points in my speech.
Much has been done by VisitScotland, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and other bodies such as Springboard Scotland, to ensure that training takes place and that those who are working in the sector keep their skills up to the mark so that they can maximise the quality of tourism for our visitors to Scotland. That is an important aspect.
Another of our strategic priorities is restructuring. I welcome the committee's recognition of the work done by VisitScotland. It is widely recognised that there is a new energy and direction in the work of VisitScotland and that has been an important factor in the recovery of tourism in Scotland since 2001.
I note from the report that the committee did not take direct evidence on the area tourist board review. However, the views that are expressed by the committee are helpful as we seek to finalise our thinking on that important issue.
The Executive received well over 300 responses to the consultation. Needless to say, there were many diverse views on the subject of the future of support for tourism. Many respondents commented on the important issue of funding, but not so many commented on the functions that will be needed in the future as we develop tourism in Scotland. Certain common themes emerged from the responses. One such theme was that, if tourism is to prosper, there needs to be much better integration between our tourism strategy, as developed and delivered nationally by VisitScotland, and the delivery of that strategy on the ground. I certainly concur with that.
In considering the responses, we started by examining the functions and not the structures and funding, important though those are. I am convinced that local businesses need to be involved in developing the overall Scottish tourism brand and the various products in it, so a key function of the new structure will be to engage those local tourism businesses in the delivery of the national tourism strategy. That links in to the response that I gave to Jamie Stone. Individual tourism businesses, wherever they are, need to understand what is being marketed nationally for Scotland, what the strategy can offer them and how they can build on it locally. That is a key method to ensure that Scottish tourism grows again.
Another key role, which was referred to in the committee's report, is that of major gateways—especially, although not exclusively, in Edinburgh and Glasgow. We want to maximise the gateway effect as well as the dispersal function, which is important to achieving a geographic spread of tourism throughout Scotland. For example, 75 per cent of visitors to the tourist information centre at Waverley station are not staying in Edinburgh; instead they are using the city as their base.
Those are the kind of issues that are important as we proceed. I am not saying that our tourism support structure must not do anything other than the functions that I have described. However, if it cannot achieve them, it will not operate effectively in support of the national priorities now and in the future.
I am aware that there is a degree of anticipation in the sector over what the outcome of the area tourist board review will be. Naturally, we have taken some time to reach conclusions and have given a great deal of thought to the proposed new model. We are now close to final decisions on the outcome of the review. However, after very careful reflection, including discussions with officials, Cabinet colleagues and VisitScotland, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to announce any decision prior to the dissolution of Parliament. Given the vital contribution of the tourism sector to the Scottish economy, a new structure for tourism in Scotland deserves to be received and evaluated outwith the glare of an election campaign, where it could become the subject of political point scoring. So the new structure will be finalised, but an announcement will be made as soon as possible after the new Parliament has convened. I believe that that is the right time to make a statement on such an important matter.
Our aim is to have a structure that is flexible and fit for purpose as international markets change. All the indications are that international tourism will continue to expand in the long term, and we want to be able to take full advantage of that and get tourism in Scotland growing strongly again. The committee's report will be of considerable assistance in doing that, and once again I compliment the committee's members and its support staff on a thorough job well done.
There is a lot of good news in the Scottish tourism industry, but we should not be fooled by the figures for 2002. The 2002 figures simply look good because 2001 was such a disaster, and there are long-term structural problems that need to be addressed.
It is fair to say that we welcome the report, particularly because we recognise that tourism is our biggest industry and that its wants and needs are often ignored. That is perhaps part of a cultural hang-up that afflicts our country in recruiting staff and in other aspects of the industry. Scotland and the Scots must recognise that service is not servility and that tourism is not incompatible with a strong manufacturing base. Many small and large European nations see that as something that is complementary, and perhaps the classic embodiment of that view is the state of California, which has a modern, go-ahead manufacturing economy and which also ensures that its tourism is a high-quality product.
The industry must be welcomed for its worth and benefit, and its denigration, in all sections of our society, must cease. Collectively—I mean nationally, rather than from a specific political position—we must stop lecturing and start listening to the industry. We must stop complaining and start delivering and we must stop going on about the bad aspects and start praising the good aspects. There are problems in tourism in Scotland, but the good sectors are far better than those that are failing to deliver, and there is service in California that is just as bad as that in some areas of Scotland.
Fundamentally, the debate is about the role of VisitScotland. The fundamental role of VisitScotland must be about selling Scotland. If it will not sell Scotland, who else will? At the end of the day, VisitScotland's duty is to ensure not that it sells the product of an individual hotelier or restaurateur but that it engenders the whole concept of coming to Scotland. The individual operator will sell the specific product, but the requirement for VisitScotland is to sell an interest in coming to our country. VisitScotland must be moved away from being a regulatory body and a tourist police force to being a marketing force for Scotland. There are more than enough bodies addressing a plethora of regulation. We do not require VisitScotland to come in with additional bureaucracy on top of that. It must focus on selling Scotland abroad, just as Tourism Ireland is focused on selling Ireland.
I find those remarks surprising. Surely the quality of tourism in Scotland must be regulated in some way, so that people know when they walk through the door what standards they can expect of the hotel, restaurant or whatever. Surely that is part of VisitScotland's role, notwithstanding the fact that other bodies will do it as well. Regulation is a central part of developing tourism in Scotland. It is about quality.
Those matters are dealt with by local authorities. We have environmental health departments and an array of other bodies to deal with those matters. We should compare how Scotland and VisitScotland punch in comparison with Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Tourism Ireland sells Ireland rather than running round policing Ireland. It ensures that it delivers quality. The quality in Ireland is no better than in Scotland, but Tourism Ireland outperforms VisitScotland considerably. We must move on and accept that.
There are important matters to mention in relation to the report, such as the necessity of the industry playing a leading role. That is something that should have been viewed as common sense. If it has not been dealt with, it must be. The best folk to advise and deal with the industry are clearly those who work in it. We must take on board the benefits of such an approach.
We support direct air services. I want to talk about two matters in particular in that respect—BAA and HIAL. My colleague Margaret Ewing will speak at length about HIAL—what is happening with the company is a scandal and the Executive and the First Minister cannot shirk responsibility. We are talking about the First Minister's airport—he is the sole shareholder. Everybody now acknowledges the problems with PFIs. There is more than one way to address the matter, but it must be addressed.
On direct routes, we support the growth of a route development fund, but we are rather surprised that its purpose should be to lower landing charges. That seems to me to go against the interests of marketing direct routes. We are in danger of subsidising an airport operator that has a monopoly and imposes landing charges that are outrageous in comparison with the charges at airports south of the border, never mind competitor airports elsewhere. Why should we keep that operator in the standard of living to which it has become accustomed? Mr Donald Dowds, who is the chief executive of BAA, does not like the committee's report. If that is the case, perhaps he should consider whether his position as a VisitScotland board member is compatible with proposals to open up and pursue direct services. If he cannot deliver, he should not remain on VisitScotland's board. BAA has failed Scotland and that matter requires to be addressed.
The position of the BTA must be addressed, too. We do not see a requirement for VisitScotland to have a plethora of offices. We recognise that VisitScotland, as the national marketing body for Scotland, has the best people to sell Scotland. It is absurd to suggest that Scotland can be sold better by the BTA when the BTA is trying to sell an entirely different concept. As others have suggested, if that were true, Tourism Ireland would be lining up to be taken aboard and brought into the bosom of the BTA. No doubt the Portuguese also would seek to be sucked into the benefits that are provided by the Spanish tourism authority. Nobody with a different product seeks to hand it over to their competitors.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am approaching my final minute.
The situation is unacceptable and must be changed—it simply cannot continue. VisitScotland should decide where it wishes to market. I do not believe that the benefits of using the BTA offices are shown in any statistical information. We should also bear in mind who sits on the BTA's board, in the main. The BTA exists to fly people in on British Airways to a BAA airport down in London and thereafter disperse people north. If people are happy to go beyond York to Edinburgh, we may benefit, but the prospect of their going north of Edinburgh—even beyond the Trossachs—is rare.
On the area tourist boards, it is simply unacceptable for the minister to say that he has kicked the review into the long grass and that a decision will be taken some time after the election. As in other aspects of Scottish society, the Executive is compounding study by consultancy and reviewing us to death.
I have a time line. In February 2000, a new strategy for tourism was launched by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—I think that it was Henry McLeish. The decision to launch that strategy was correct. In October 2000, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report was published. In November 2001, Wendy Alexander announced an area tourist board review at the "Scotland united" tourism conference. In May 2002, the ATB review commenced. In September 2002, the consultation period for the review closed. In December 2002, Mike Watson announced at the "Scotland united" tourism conference in Crieff that he hoped to make an announcement on the ATB review early in the new year.
Today is 13 February and we have been told that, despite the launch of a new strategy in February 2000 and the fact that we have gone through three ministers, no decision will be made until after the election. That is simply unacceptable. There is unity in the industry on what needs to be done. We need a decision, not a minister who is afraid of deciding and is again postponing, studying and consulting us unto death. He is presiding over the death throes of businesses because he will not decide.
I will start on a warmer note than that on which Kenny MacAskill finished. I praise the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and its members, clerks and adviser on the work that they have done. I sympathise tremendously with them over the efforts that they made to go to sunny lands, warm lands and cold lands to find out what tourism is like abroad. I know that that was a hard part of their working year.
I might as well mention another bit of good news. I was delighted to hear today that the tourism expo will move to the north-east this year. I am sure that the industry will be made welcome there. That is a boost for the north-east and the role that it plays in the tourism business.
The key point that I took from the report was the importance of a leading role for the industry. I think that we all knew how important it is that the industry play a leading role, and it was long overdue for that to be stated firmly in a Parliament document. Without the industry's involvement, there will be no future for the industry. If we expect businesses to take an entrepreneurial approach, we cannot enforce on them a regimen that is set down by the centre. It is important that alliances are made. The minister mentioned alliances when he talked about the BTA, and I will come back to that point.
We must ensure that all levels of the industry—including support systems, communications and so on—and all its varied sectors, whether large or small, are involved in the process. Either that involvement must be on a consultative basis or, in particular in VisitScotland, all levels and sectors must be represented as part of the management. Without that connection, VisitScotland is not the exchange and interchange between the industry and the world outside that it must be. I know that work is being done on that aspect in the restructuring, but much more must be done.
Another issue is the amount of money that is being spent on tourism around the world. We do not spend a lot. I will not use the Irish model as an example, because that might cause problems for certain people. However, it is important to recognise that in many parts of the world the money that is spent on tourism comes from businesses putting their hands in their pockets and looking to the state to provide other things. Here, we have an unusual tourism industry, in that a mixture of the public and private sector delivers the product and the taxpayer puts in support. It is important that the Parliament ensures, on behalf of the taxpayer, that the money that is spent is focused meaningfully, in a way that is of use to the industry.
David Davidson mentioned the democratic scrutiny of money that supports the industry. In an alarming development, the Government has taken a decision on the future of the ATB structure but does not want the election and democratic scrutiny to get in its way. Will Mr Davidson comment on that, or at least consult his colleagues on it? What is the Conservatives' position on that development? The election and democratic scrutiny are being viewed as bad and troubling things, but surely we should hear now the Government's plans for the future of the ATB structure. Will the Conservatives back the SNP in calling for a decision now rather than after the election?
I was about to make exactly that comment about the Parliament's role in the review process. I find it insulting that the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport can come to the Parliament and say that the Executive has made a decision but is not going to tell the Parliament. The minister is talking about a vital industry for Scotland. The industry, which is Scotland's largest, has great potential. It has the largest employment base—far greater than whisky and oil and gas put together. We are not getting an answer. That is a great disappointment to all those who are involved in the industry. Many people are waiting to see what direction the Government might go in and what decision will be made, because after the decision has been made, we will have to reconsider how we structure support for tourism in general.
My colleague, David Mundell, was particularly concerned—I would not say upset—about one point. He was pushing for recommendation 361 in the committee report on how the enterprise agencies are tuned in to working to the common agenda. On that point, I wrote to the minister recently about a problem with the teaching company scheme for industry placements for postgraduate students. I found out from a constituent that one of the students worked up a programme but was told that tourism is not covered by the scheme as it is not business. We must address that lack of joined-up thinking.
I look forward to the minister responding to that point; perhaps he has not had time to respond to my letter on the matter. I asked for a meeting, and perhaps that will come. We need to sort out the joined-up issues, because Government cannot operate in isolation. I hope that the minister will give a better response in his winding-up speech on why the decision on the ATBs will not be announced today.
We must get people into the country—that is the job of national and international marketing—but we also need a proper dispersal programme to get visitors away from the hot spots and gateways. Tourists must be dispersed, not only throughout the central belt, but to the Borders, the Highlands and the north-east. The Executive has a role in that—it must help to produce an integrated transport system with through-ticketing and to tackle the direct flight issue. Local government also has a role.
Credit must go to BAA for its £60 million investment through the international route development fund. The issue is how the money can be applied to fit the processes that are ahead of us.
Is the member aware that BAA proposes to increase landing charges, which will mean that people from Scotland who fly to London will have the privilege of paying for the construction of Heathrow terminal 5, which will cost £3.8 billion? Is the member aware that whatever BAA has put into the route development fund will be offset by what we will have to pay and that those payments towards Heathrow terminal 5 will help to ensure that we always have to fly into Heathrow?
That goes back to the point that I made about the Executive's role as a facilitator in the discussions that must take place with the industry, carriers and other transport operators.
The report does not go far into VisitScotland's role. That body must focus more on international marketing and research. I agree with the minister that we must develop a national quality assurance standard so that people from abroad can see what they will get. I agree with Mr MacAskill that we do not want a police force, but we must support and encourage skills training and development.
Tourist information centres—TICs—have not been mentioned. I believe that the report could have gone further on the issue of modernising TICs through the use of touch-screens and other measures. If touch-screens are set up abroad, will VisitScotland run them or, if they are run in Scotland, will the ATBs run them? We will not know about that until we have an answer on the ATBs.
I would like a thrust in the direction of making membership of ATBs or quality assurance schemes compulsory for those in the industry. Such a measure is long overdue and could be a major factor in raising the quality of the product.
The report shows that we need better responses from the minister and better co-ordination. We also need more action on the ground between the industry and the support bodies for which the minister is responsible. The minister cannot walk away and say that he will be in one place making decisions while the industry is out there struggling. There must be better co-ordination between the two.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I gave you brief notice of this point of order, which arises from the remarks that Lord Watson made in the closing part of his speech. He said that a decision has been made on the future of area tourist boards. We have waited for that decision for a long time and it will affect the lives of many people who work for the boards. However, the minister said that, although the decision has been made, it will not be announced until after the impending general election.
Surely people—not least those who will be affected—are entitled to know what the decision is. Under standing order 13, it is up to the Executive to initiate a ministerial statement, but are not there circumstances in which the Parliament and the public may appropriately expect a ministerial statement to be made? Will you invite the minister to reflect on whether that option should be pursued as soon as possible?
Further to that point, Presiding Officer—
I will rule on the point of order, Mr Watson, although you may make your own point.
I am grateful to Mr Ewing for giving me notice of his intention to raise the matter. In effect, he answered his point of order when he said that it is for ministers to decide when a ministerial statement is due. I do not believe that anything in the standing orders entitles me to instruct the minister to issue a statement. Whether a statement is merited and whether a decision has been made and should be announced are essentially political matters and, as such, they are matters for proper political debate, not the subject of the standing orders.
That is my immediate reaction, but I will reflect further on the point of order in case I have overlooked anything in the standing order in question. Does the minister wish to make a point of order?
I do. I will provide some clarification, because, in their anxiety, Scottish National Party members have not listened to what I said. I will quote two important passages on the issue from my speech:
"We are now close to final decisions on the outcome of the review."
All right?
"So the new structure will be finalised"—
I point out to Mr Wilson that I said "will be finalised"—
"but an announcement will be made as soon as possible after the new Parliament has convened."
I hope that that is clear.
Further to Mr Ewing's point of order, it is clear from rule 13.2 of the standing orders, which deals with ministerial statements, that the chair has discretion to respond to a request from the Executive to make a statement. It is not for the chair to prescribe or to instruct.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I beg your pardon, but the issue is of grave democratic importance, because the minister—
Yes, but that is a political matter, Mr Wilson, not a matter for the standing orders.
The minister is already on the record as having said that there would be an announcement early in the new year. Now we are told that there will be no announcement. Did the minister know when he said that there would be an announcement early in the new year that he was misleading Parliament, or is this another example of the Government running roughshod over democracy and playing fast and loose with what should be a democratic chamber?
Mr Wilson, that is not a point of order.
It was not—
Order. The matter is one for political debate, as we can see. Members should refer to the issue in their speeches. It is not a matter for a ruling. The standing orders are clear. If members wish to make political points about the matter, they should do so in their own time. The exchanges have already impacted severely on the time that is available for back-bench speeches and I will have to express regrets to various individuals later in the day.
It is unfortunate that the committee debate will now be overshadowed by the spat over the decision. Of course the matter is important, but to raise it in such a way is unfortunate. Members can make such points in speeches. I wish that they would.
I am hugely grateful to Annabel Goldie for her introduction. I am sure that Gordon Jackson, Alex Neil and I are particularly grateful for her recollections of our foreign jaunts. I associate myself particularly with her remarks on the work that so many people—our clerks and advisers, as well as committee colleagues across the spectrum—put into the inquiry.
That is why Kenny MacAskill's speech was so disappointing—SNP committee members engaged constructively in a good report and it is unfortunate that Kenny MacAskill did not talk to his party colleagues about the way in which the inquiry was carried out. His speech reminded me of days of yore, when Sarah Boyack had to deal elegantly with debates on transport and we used to hear rants of the same order.
The committee sought to answer three fundamental questions with the recommendations that are in the body of the report. How do we bring more visitors to Scotland? How do we help visitors to travel to and around Scotland? How can the Government and the other relevant bodies enhance the business environment for tourism operators?
I will deal first with the "more visitors" theme, on which the committee sought to examine the BTA's role. I share the view of many members that the BTA is a positive force for Scottish tourism. That came out clearly not only in the case studies that Annabel Goldie mentioned, but in the evidence that the BTA gave to the committee.
There have been some concerns about the way in which changes took place—I know that other members are interested in that point. It struck me that Westminster's Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been more vigorous on the point than we have.
The answer to the problem lies in paragraph 19 of the committee's report, in which the recommendation is to
"set specific targets for BTA in attracting tourists to Scotland".
The minister referred to that in his remarks. It is entirely right. Scotland must vigorously ensure through the agencies that are under our responsibility that the BTA delivers for us, however the service-level agreement is described.
Does Tavish Scott—unlike Mr MacAskill—agree that there is a real opportunity for Scotland to be a bit mercenary, if nothing else, in our relationship with the BTA? We could piggyback on the infrastructure and expertise of the BTA and gain the best advantage from it, adding value through its activities.
I share Brian Fitzpatrick's view. There is indeed an opportunity—that is how we should look at it—to achieve a lot more than was achieved in the past. That is the focus that the committee is encouraging the Government to take.
The minister and others have spoken about the fact that more visitors are coming through business tourism. That struck the committee, too—I refer in particular to the evidence that Rhona Brankin, Adam Ingram and I took. Business tourism presents a huge opportunity. The minister mentioned the 18,000 midwives who will come to Scotland in 2008—that strikes me as a good year in which to have a baby. [Interruption.] I am not going there. Business tourism is an important development for Scotland. The sector is growing; it already accounts for 25 per cent of Scottish tourism spend. For VisitScotland, the average return on the leisure market is about £12 for every £1 of spend; the average return on business tourism in Glasgow is £110 for every £1 of spend. There are significant advantages to be gained in the business market. The committee report's recommendations, particularly at paragraph 27, are important in that regard.
A number of bodies are undertaking much proactive work on the subject of travelling to and around Scotland. Given what has been said, it is only fair to quote from the letter that all members received from BAA Scotland in the past week. I was pleased that Annabel Goldie mentioned that the committee would be returning to the matter, as there is more work to be done, and not just by us—there are also important matters for Westminster. BAA's letter says:
"BAA's best financial interests, and those we believe of the travelling public, are best served by promoting more direct international services".
That strikes me as an important sentence. We should look to the opportunity there. On the next page of its letter, BAA points out all the destinations to which Scottish travellers can now fly directly and adds:
"New routes to begin later this year include Barcelona, Cologne and Prague".
It strikes me that that should be encouraged and enhanced, rather than denigrated.
Does Tavish Scott agree that it would be of advantage to the business community and to everyone in Scotland if BAA were out the road? BAA has a monopoly, the effect of which is that the landing charges at its Scottish airports are on average 50 times higher than those at its London airports.
I refer Mr Paterson to what I have just read out:
"BAA's best financial interests, and those we believe of the travelling public, are best served by promoting more direct international services".
Another important recommendation, to be found at paragraph 189 and thereafter, is on attracting visitors and relates to internal transport. We recommend an evaluation of public service obligations, a subject that is close to my heart. I acknowledge that the minister has picked up on that point, but I draw to his and the Parliament's attention what a travel company told me the other week in a letter. The company takes Americans—a very important market—on a bonnie Scotland tour, spending 13 days and 12 nights in Scotland at a cost to the individual American of $3,645. The tour includes two nights in Stirling, two nights in Kyle of Lochalsh, two nights in Inverness, a night in Kirkwall, two nights in Lerwick and back home via Edinburgh. The constraint for that travel company is the internal cost of flying around Scotland. That is why I commend in particular the committee's recommendation on public service obligations, which I hope the minister will consider in consultation with his colleagues.
The minister referred to the foot-and-mouth outbreak and the events in New York in 2001. As colleagues have said, contingency planning is vital, especially given the international situation and the importance of the American market to Scotland. There is a natural tendency to concentrate on the domestic market, given that it accounts for 90 per cent of the visitors to Scotland. However, the USA spend of £201 million in 2001 is significant. I encourage the minister to be proactive with the appropriate agencies on that issue.
I commend the report to Parliament and encourage colleagues to contribute to a lively debate that is important to the future of the Scottish economy.
I advise members that business must end at 1 o'clock, which will restrict the number of speakers whom I am able to call.
I echo the words of Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott in thanking the clerk to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the committee's adviser, those who attended meetings of the committee, committee staff and those who took the time to give evidence. The committee has provided people with a real opportunity to get into the entrails of the tourism industry—to find out exactly what is happening and whether the auguries are auspicious.
I thank the committee convener, from whom I hope we will hear at some stage. Obviously there are issues on which we could or should split. It pains me to say this, but—compared with the rant that we have heard today from the nationalist front bench, especially from Mr MacAskill—Alex Neil is often a still small voice of calm. Yesterday, we were told that we should be prepared to have a national consensus, but when Kenny MacAskill came into the chamber today the mask slipped. We might have been more impressed if Mr MacAskill had made a submission to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, of which he is no longer a member. There was a problem with his attendance record at committee meetings, but we are pleased to see that he is present for today's debate.
Tourism should not be allowed to become the subject of party political spats. It is one of our largest and fastest-growing industries. It generates £4 billion annually and employs 8 per cent of the work force—more than the oil, gas and whisky industries combined. It is crucial to our economic and cultural well-being and will be of growing importance to the economy. We must all bear in mind the labour-intensiveness of the industry and its purpose and function as a creator of wealth and jobs. We have great assets—culturally, in our cities, in our people, in our scenery, in our history and in our welcome. We must ensure that we get best value out of those for the industry throughout Scotland.
As has been mentioned, a companion exercise to our inquiry was undertaken by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which scrutinises the work of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Its inquiry, like ours, was spurred on by the effects on tourism both of foot-and-mouth disease and of the events of 11 September 2001. The committee's report was published on 4 February and it is interesting to compare it with the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. Both inquiries were conducted independently, but they have reached substantially the same conclusions on a number of key points. I take some pleasure from that, as it shows that we are probably travelling along the right rail tracks.
In our report, we probably did not quite capture the diversity of businesses in the tourism industry. We need to discuss more broadly what tourism is. Is it a discrete, distinct business, or is it an amalgam of businesses? We also need to consider the diversity of our visitors—why they come, how they come and what they come for—and the diversity of places in Scotland. It is hard to distil those issues into the text of a committee report, but members did their best to capture the flavour of what is available in Scotland.
As I mentioned, the report covers the impact of foot-and-mouth disease and 11 September. We do not have time for victory laps, but we concluded that Government action had helped the industry to deal with those crises. Although nothing good could have come from either of them, it is clear that they raised the profile of tourism in the Government, in the media and across the country. A spotlight was shone on structural problems in the support for tourism. The challenges of recovery must be met and the report contains some recommendations for doing so.
In the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report, it is accepted that there was unsatisfactory consultation on the merger of the BTA and the English Tourism Council. SNP members should read what a number of members of the Westminster committee said about the consultation that took place on the issue. They should also read what the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport said to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. If, for a moment, we can get out of the trenches and seek solutions, we will do the industry the kind of service that it deserves from the Parliament.
As a member of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I support the report's key recommendations. I acknowledge the need further to develop and strengthen the tourism industry. Naturally, the committee tended to focus on tourism matters that are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, but it would be idle to pretend that reserved issues are not of vital interest to the future of the Scottish tourism industry. Westminster controls the exchange rate policy and a whole swathe of fiscal policy from fuel tax to air passenger duty to VAT. At their current levels, those all have a major impact in putting up the price of the Scottish tourism product and in reducing the competitiveness of our industry in the international marketplace.
Action to cut VAT on hotel accommodation is long overdue. All the research shows that, in a highly prized, sensitive industry such as tourism, there is a clear negative correlation between high VAT and consumer demand. With VAT on hotel accommodation more than double the European Union average of 8 per cent, the UK is the odd man out in Europe. If the Scottish Parliament had the powers, it could follow the Irish example. Cuts in VAT that were introduced in the late 1980s, together with other initiatives, quadrupled tourism revenues in Ireland.
Perhaps the most impressive part of the report is the internal research that was conducted by Stevens and Associates, which identifies lessons to be learned from comparable competitor countries that are performing much better than Scotland. The clear message from that research is that strategic intervention and leadership on the part of the Government combined with a fully engaged private sector are critical for success. I suggest that we still have a long way to go in that respect.
For example, our Burns heritage is a key part of Scotland's brand image. A year or two ago, Allan Wilson suggested that Burns promotion was to be a major focus for Executive action. I assume that he was not talking about putting up statues. However, I have seen little or no action apart from the setting up of a small-scale Burns festival in Ayrshire. In the meantime, the Burns museum and visitor centre project in Alloway is being endlessly delayed as funding applications grind through the system and the definitive collection of Burns artefacts deteriorates for want of appropriate accommodation. There is not much evidence of joined-up working within the Executive in that instance.
Still wearing my Ayrshire hat, I emphasise the importance of developing direct air links to provide easy access to Scotland for international visitors and I highlight the continuing success of Prestwick airport in attracting low-cost operators to do that. I trust that the Executive and its agencies will not stint in offering any support that is required to build on that success.
I welcome the committee's report. As an economist, I was drawn to specific figures in paragraph 58 of the report. I was alarmed at the reduction in tourism in Scotland between 1997 and 2001. The minister talked about the situation in 2002—perhaps the figures have improved, but I can judge only by what is in the report.
In 1997, there were 23.3 million trips to Scotland; in 2001, there were only 19.1 million. In 1997, there were 97.3 million nights' accommodation in Scotland; in 2001, there were only 78.2 million. In 1997, tourism expenditure in Scotland was around £5 billion; in 2001, it was down to around £4 billion. This week, the Scottish Tourism Forum's manifesto confirmed that there was a decline of 24 per cent in the number of overseas visitors to Scotland between 1997 and 2001, along with a 21 per cent loss of spend in that period. I am, therefore, delighted to speak in the debate, as I think that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report has come not a moment too soon.
The committee acknowledged the challenges, but we also have to acknowledge the good things that are going on. In the past four years, Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Tourist Board has increased its annual convention sales by more than 200 per cent. We must acknowledge the good things that are going on and consider how we can encourage and support them. I hope that Mary Scanlon will agree with me on that.
Yes, I certainly welcome any increase. However, Mr Fitzpatrick's statistic emphasises the problem—if business tourism in Glasgow is going up by 200 per cent while the overall decline in Scotland is 24 per cent, we must ask what is happening in constituencies such as Jamie Stone's and elsewhere. If the average reduction is 24 per cent but there is a 200 per cent increase in Glasgow, there are serious problems outwith Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Paragraph 104 of the report says of Estonia and Slovenia:
"Both countries saw an increase of around 25% in 2000 compared to the previous year."
It continues:
"Scotland on the other hand, experienced the largest decline in ITAs"—
international tourist arrivals—
"of 11% in 2000".
We certainly need to work together to do something about that.
An issue that is guaranteed to infuriate people living in the Highlands is extortionate air fares, particularly those for going to the Highlands. Things have improved in recent years, but when airlines advertise seats at £29, for example, they do not always tell people that the price applies only to a few seats, which must be booked months in advance. I note that the committee report states that low-cost airlines have
"created a new dynamism within tourism."
I acknowledge what members have said about PSOs, particularly the PSO that safeguards the air link from Inverness to London. Given that tourism contributes to more than 11 per cent of employment in the Highlands, the recommendation that the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning should aid HIAL is fitting.
I have prepared so much but I do not have enough time.
There was great enthusiasm for doing business with Ryanair because all its seats are cheap and the airline would give people in the Highlands the same access to cheap flights as is available to people in cities elsewhere in Scotland.
I will leave the issue of HIAL just now by saying that the problem always was that HIAL cried for more subsidies. However, I bring to the minister's attention a farmer in Orkney called Andrew Banks, who bought a second-hand Caledonian MacBrayne ferry, built two piers, offered cheaper trips to and from Orkney and, as a result, increased tourism enormously there and gave local people the opportunity to visit the mainland at a reasonable price. That example shows the difference between public organisations waiting for more subsidies before doing anything and a true entrepreneur working to benefit his business and his community of Orkney and the Highlands. The difference could not be starker.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the members and the clerks of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on the report. I am particularly pleased that the committee took the opportunity to get out and about. The committee visited Shetland—I hope that that visit was as enjoyable as the visit to California was. I am sure that the Shetlanders were delighted to host the committee and to make their views known. I have never visited California, but I have often been to Shetland and I am always delighted to be there.
I am pleased that the committee recommended re-examining the PFI contract for Inverness airport, which inhibits the development of budget routes. I ask the minister to explore that matter seriously, although I realise, as the SNP obviously does not, that contracts cannot be changed just by waving a magic wand at them. However, attracting new direct air services to the Highlands and Islands is one of the keys to the development of tourism. The air industry has experienced turbulence lately, but there is still an appetite for flying. However, the downturn in transatlantic travel is well documented and the current international situation will not improve matters.
Maureen Macmillan referred to direct links. Does she realise that, since easyJet started its service from Inverness to Gatwick on 5 February, it has carried 1,000 passengers? The difficulty with the PFI is that other airlines that would be interested in coming to Inverness cannot negotiate appropriate terms.
Yes, I realise that, which is why I asked the minister to consider seriously whether the contract could be changed. However, as I said, a contract cannot be changed just by waving a magic wand at it.
For the Highlands and Islands, the Inverness to Gatwick link is key. In our submission to the consultation exercise on air transport, Rhoda Grant, Peter Peacock and I made the case for retaining the link and asked for the imposition of a PSO. I hope that ministers at Westminster will give the matter full consideration. I know that the Scottish Executive backs us. Moreover, as Margaret Ewing said, we must be able to persuade budget airlines to operate out of Inverness as frequently and on as many routes as possible.
In all the debates on tourism, the same issues seem to crop up. At yesterday's meeting of the cross-party group on tourism, the Scottish Tourism Forum expressed concerns that there is not enough profit in the industry to fund training, which, in turn, affects the quality of service that can be provided—small profit margins mean that quality is cut and that refurbishment is put off for later years. The Scottish Tourism Forum would like VAT on tourism businesses to be reduced. Perhaps the minister could raise that issue with Westminster colleagues.
Some of the most effective marketing is done by word of mouth. The converse of that is that, if people have a bad experience, they will pass that information on to friends and family. Quality, therefore, has to be improved and I hope that the Executive will seriously consider compulsory registration on licensing. Although education and training is one way of driving up standards, we might be getting to the point at which compulsory registration is the only way in which to ensure a step change in quality and standards so that Scotland does not lag behind other areas. The Scottish Tourism Forum would like a common quality standard across Scotland and the UK.
The report makes important recommendations with regard to the Executive's strategy and targets. Evaluating the effectiveness of VisitScotland's marketing is important and I know that the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board is keen that there should be greater integration of marketing between it and VisitScotland. Marketing makes a difference and I am confident that VisitScotland is focusing on the right targets, such as ancestral Scotland.
With the current international climate, there is a critical need to encourage the English, Welsh and Irish to holiday in Scotland and Scots to holiday at home. I know that VisitScotland has turned its attention to the matter.
We must capitalise on Scotland's assets and recognise the importance of the tourism industry to Scotland. Communities that are dependent on the industry for income need to view tourism more as a community activity than as something that is of interest only to individual businesses. There should be more community-based TICs.
I have to hurry you.
I have great optimism for the future of tourism in Scotland and I am sure that it will be an important factor for many years to come.
I am pleased to be taking part in a debate on tourism. There is no doubt that tourism in all its forms is a major part of the Scottish economy. That was clearly demonstrated by the critical decline in visitor numbers into the UK, particularly Scotland, which was aggravated by the events of 11 September 2001 and by the restrictions imposed throughout much of the country in the attempt to control the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. Many tourism businesses and those related to them struggled to survive at that time; only by their hard work, determination and willingness to adapt to the changing circumstances were they able to continue in business.
Does John Farquhar Munro agree that one problem for businesses in the Highlands, particularly in Inverness, is the burden that is placed on them by high business rates? The Forum of Private Business argues that rateable values of hotel premises are higher in Scotland than they are in England. Does the member agree that that serious burden must be addressed?
I agree that the rates burden is a significant element of the problem. I am glad that the report suggests that the rates burden could be reduced considerably. I am sure that that would be good news.
As I was saying, and as others have said this morning, Scotland has a unique experience to offer, which could and should be promoted on the world stage. Much has been done but more needs to be done to ensure that we have a vibrant and viable tourism industry, which is essential—I do not think that anyone would argue with that.
I accept that the BTA continues to promote the UK as a tourist destination. However, we have our own agency in VisitScotland, which has been tasked with attracting visitors to Scotland. It must be given the support and resources to promote Scotland not only in the United Kingdom and Europe, but worldwide. VisitScotland has the relevant experience and capability and, in my opinion, is best suited to undertake that function on our behalf. It should not be under the direct control of the BTA.
The BTA and travel agents must be made aware that Scotland has its own identity on the world map. We have excellent airport facilities, which can be accessed from all major international airports. Visitors to Scotland do not have to be directed through London Heathrow, as tends to happen currently. I have talked before about all the difficulties that that creates for increasing the number of visitors to Scotland. Our peripheral airports are capable of accepting increased traffic, so let us promote that.
As we develop all sections of our tourism industry, let us make sure that our tourists enjoy their visits and that their experience of Scotland is unique. That is how we should promote our industry. We should extend an invitation and welcome to the world at large and say that Scotland is now the place to visit.
Any strategy to improve our tourism industry will have to operate on at least two levels. We have to improve the product and to take a hard look at, for example, quality control and the proper development of skills. I am not entirely sure that the committee got to grips with that properly.
We must also be clear about how we market Scotland as the product—it was in that context that Alex Neil and I made the much talked about visit to California. I say right away that that visit was tough. We learnt a great deal from visiting the British Tourist Authority and other marketing agencies that Scotland has out there and we were also able to consider some set-ups that market California's local facilities in the United States and internationally. We did that in Pasadena, we saw the Californian state set-up in Sacramento and we were able to go to the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau. Those operations were all different but they were all there to market either a city or the state of California. It is fair to say that we were impressed on each occasion. Even making allowances for the the-grass-is-always-greener syndrome, we felt that there was something to learn from each of the operations that we considered.
Alex Neil and I often disagree, but today Annabel Goldie moved a motion in Alex Neil's name and if that is the sort of day we are having, Alex Neil and I can agree about one thing that stood out from the trip. We might disagree about the role of the private sector in some contexts, but we agreed totally that the main lesson from each visit was the pivotal role of the private sector and industry. That has been mentioned by David Davidson and other speakers and it appears at the beginning of our key recommendations on the first page of the report—that is how important the committee thought the issue was.
The importance of the private sector was reflected in the structures of the local organisations, which were designed to maximise the ideal of working together; it was interesting to see how that is done. The structure of the California state operation in Sacramento is innovative and demands a much longer discussion than we have time for now, but the success of the operation was not just about its structure, but about attitudes. That applies equally to the industry and the Government.
What we saw was a real sense of partnership and shared common interest and purpose. Indeed, the overwhelming impression was not only that the private sector is truly and genuinely involved, but that it is actually driving the process. We got the impression that that partnership and emphasis is vital. I know that that is understood here. Not only is Peter Lederer chairman of VisitScotland; he is a major figure in the industry. I looked again at his evidence and he understood clearly that the partnership must work properly and is committed to that. I also got the clear impression that he accepts that there have been weaknesses. I could read what he said. I do not really have time—
Do not.
He said:
"The industry must speak with fewer voices and pull together".—[Official Report, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, 11 December 2002; c 3011.]
He was prepared to be critical of his own industry, but there are two sides to that, and I would perhaps be more balanced than he was. The industry might not be properly engaging with its problems but, on the other hand, it is important that Government agencies do not just consult the industry; rather, they must include it properly as a main driving force in the process. It is not just about changing the structure—we must ensure that expertise and commitment are properly harnessed.
The industry must be involved not only in marketing its own hotels and businesses, but in marketing Scotland, because the two are not mutually exclusive. The Government must put in place structures—the committee recommended this—that will ensure that the industry is brought into the process. Alex Neil and I tried to emphasise commonality of interest following our visit.
Tourism is a key contributor to the Scottish economy, Deputy Speaker—I am sorry; old habits die hard. I meant to say "Deputy Presiding Officer". Despite an increasing budget for VisitScotland, Scottish tourism has declined in terms of visitor numbers and revenue since 1997. Given the industry's significance to the Scottish economy, that is clearly a worrying trend.
I congratulate the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee on addressing those problems and I welcome the recommendations on setting targets for attracting international and domestic tourists, attracting new direct air services and improving business tourism. Although those form a basis for progress, a great deal more will be needed to develop the cutting-edge tourism policy that is required to turn round the fortunes of this sleeping giant of an industry.
We must, in building for the future, fully utilise the latest technology. An estimated 9.3 per cent of the world's population are currently online, and online travel is one of the fastest growing areas of the travel industry. Over the past 12 months, nearly 30 per cent of UK internet users have gone online to access travel routes. In addition, 94 per cent of Ryanair ticket sales are made on the internet and easyJet makes about half of its bookings via the internet. Indeed, online travel sales are predicted to reach a total of $29 billion by 2003.
Scotland must be in there as a major player. How will the Government ensure that Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises are not simply squeezed out by major conglomerates and tour operators? How will e-tourism allow native Scots businesses to build up individual tourism enterprises and locally based projects, such as Pictavia in Angus, Seafest in Arbroath and other initiatives? Scotland must be in there as a major player.
I ask the minister to address those points today, and also to address the issue of how technology can overcome the massive language skills deficit in the Scottish hotel industry. One survey showed that 97 per cent of hotel staff could not answer a question in French or German. Such basic language skills are an essential part of a welcoming and helpful approach. That issue was ducked by the minister in his opening speech, but it must be addressed.
I am happy to note that already, some e-commerce initiatives are solidly coming through. This week, through ScottishGolf.com's "tee-time" booking system, any golfer anywhere in the world can book a time and pay a deposit through a secure internet connection, then all they have to do is turn up on the day and enjoy a round of golf. That system will soon incorporate courses all over the country. Using the internet to book golf tee times is just one example of how e-tourism should be utilised. There is nowhere better to do that than on the tremendous range of golf courses in Angus.
The visitscotland.com venture is a welcome development in Scottish tourism, but we must now ensure that it is developed ahead of competitor destination sites. We in Scotland know that we have a product that most other countries envy. The key question is about how to market it properly and that is the question that the committee's report asks. Marketing the product properly is the task of those who will act on the report.
I am obliged to two members who have removed their names from the list of speakers. We are still running behind time. Iain Smith has four minutes; I ask him to keep his speech tight.
No one can dispute the tourism industry's importance to Scotland for its economic contribution and the jobs that it creates. Furthermore, no one can dispute that the tourism industry has suffered from a decline in recent years.
It is important to bear it in mind that we tend to focus greatly on the overseas tourism market and that we sometimes forget that domestic tourism has the biggest share of the market and is its most important part. The domestic market supplies 90 per cent of our visitors and 80 per cent of tourism income. It is obvious that a 1 per cent increase in the domestic market could be matched only by a 5 per cent increase in the overseas market. It is important not to forget that.
Short breaks—particularly those that are taken by older people and people who take early retirement—are an important part of the tourism business. Some concern must be felt about their future, given the state of the pensions industry. Many of our businesses are also concerned about the trend of booking later, which causes them great uncertainty about the season ahead.
I come from north-east Fife, so I must refer to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's important visit to St Andrews to study golf and business tourism. The tourism businesses in St Andrews greatly welcomed that visit and the useful exchange that they had with committee members. Perhaps a little disappointment was felt at that study's not being reflected much in the report's recommendations, but the visit highlighted important matters.
I am sorry to say to Andrew Welsh that the Old course in St Andrews is the course that attracts visitors to Scotland. In places such as Carnoustie and Troon, people say that when the Old course is closed for maintenance or before the Open Championship, their businesses suffer. We should therefore recognise the Old course's importance to golf tourism marketing and the importance of encouraging golf tourists to visit and play on many of the hundreds of excellent golf courses throughout Scotland.
I am slightly disappointed that the result of the area tourist boards review is not yet known. That is causing uncertainty and concern in the industry. Those boards are important parts of the industry and are business led—the majority of board members are business people. The boards are not just accommodation agencies. As the committee's report says, the boards should reflect the interests of the retail, transport and visitor attraction sectors.
Transport links are vital. In the past year, we have welcomed the Rosyth ferry, which has increased tourism. Tourism businesses have seen car-based overseas tourists come to Scotland and travel not just in Fife, but as far as the Borders and the Highlands, although Fife has benefited from the ferry. I am pleased that, as part of its partnership with other tourist boards, the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board has attracted £4.1 million of European money to help to market tourism in some parts of Scotland. That will be used to attract up to an estimated £100 million of new tourism business.
The member has one minute.
That is an example of tourist boards working well together to attract money that might not be available from Government agencies. That is an important part of the tourist board network's role.
We must improve transport links and the quality of transport throughout Scotland. The links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are vital, but why should people have to go through Edinburgh to visit Fife? That is nonsense and must be sorted out. We must improve the integration of transport through the use of multimodal tickets and we must ensure that visitors to Scotland can buy travel passes that allow them to travel on any form of transport at a reasonable cost. That is all part of improving the quality of the service.
If we are to attract more visitors to Scotland, we must continuously improve the quality of the tourism product that we offer—that means not only accommodation, but attractions and packages. We must also examine the industry's competitiveness. We should note that many tourism businesses are small and locally based. They will benefit from the small business rates relief scheme that is to be introduced, but we must consider the fact that VAT on hospitality services in Ireland is only 5 per cent, which puts our businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
I must hurry the member.
We must also consider the euro. We should be in the euro, which would help our tourism businesses. As the report recommends, we must also do all that we can to assist Scottish tourism businesses in using the euro.
I do not know about the principle of introducing entirely new material after a member's time is up, but there we go.
I would like to ensure that the Official Report records the fact that I had the most glamorous assignment of all of the members of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I was sent not to California or Denmark and I was sent not even to St Andrews—I was sent to VisitScotland's headquarters in Ravelston Terrace for a day. However, that visit gave us an opportunity to analyse material on visitscotland.com, which has been highlighted today as being a very important initiative. I hope that the recommendations in the report in that respect will be followed through so that the website is monitored to allow us to discover how much real new business—not displacement business—is generated by visitscotland.com. Many people out there have reservations about visitscotland.com, particularly small accommodation providers.
I agree with Tavish Scott that it is very disappointing that the minister's announcement—or non-announcement—overshadows the debate, because the review of the area tourist boards has been under way for a considerable time. We have heard today how important business and business leadership is to tourism. One thing about business is that it knows that it has to make hard decisions, some of which are unpopular, but business does not bottle out of making decisions just because it thinks that the decision might attract electoral flak.
I understand why the deputy minister does not want to have to go around defending a decision to abolish Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board and to merge it into a larger board based in Glasgow, if that is to be the decision, but why not tell the Parliament the decision and allow the tourism industry to debate its future during the election period?
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I am very short of time.
I was very disappointed by the tone of Mr MacAskill's remarks, although they did not surprise me. Most of the things that he has said in the chamber on previous occasions could not be substantiated by the committee's inquiries. Mr MacAskill has come to the chamber time after time to slate the BTA, but the evidence that the committee took did not substantiate what he says.
The committee was, however, prepared to address the issues around, and the serious concerns about, the British Airports Authority. Rather than engage in a rant against individuals, we put forward the reasoned position that the BAA should be inquired into so that we get at the facts, but Mr MacAskill does not like the facts and neither does he like the committee system, hence his appearance at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee only as a tourist rather than as a substantial member. He does not like inquiring into the facts, because they do not back up his rants.
One of the most important aspects of the report, although I am disappointed that it does not appear at the beginning as a key recommendation, is that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise funding be co-ordinated within our tourism strategy. The reality is that funding for tourism from Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise is considerably greater than VisitScotland's budget. If those budgets are not co-ordinated, we will be missing a trick. I would like to see that important recommendation followed through.
At the end of the day, we must acknowledge the importance of tourism, as Annabel Goldie did in her opening remarks. Everybody says that tourism is important, but it is the most important indigenous business in Scotland and we must start proving that that is the case. The report is a good opening to that process, but we have to follow it through.
First, on a local note, my constituency and Dumfries suffered more than other areas from the decline in tourism that resulted from foot-and-mouth disease. The local tourist board made excellent use of the money that it was given; it ran an excellent campaign to get visitors back to the region.
Given that tourism is a major industry, it is clear that some of the figures in the report are not encouraging. The recent figures that Grant Thornton Ltd published also show a 143 per cent increase over the past year in insolvencies in tourism-related hotels and catering businesses. My friend Fergus Ewing spoke about the rating system and the differential burden that we have in Scotland, which might be relevant to that issue.
Mr Mundell referred to the enterprise network. I note the committee's recommendation in paragraph 361 of the report that the enterprise network's contribution to tourism should be "consistent." I highlight that paragraph because I have been receiving complaints about differences in the treatment that is offered by different local enterprise companies, and especially about differences between that which is offered by Highlands and Island Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. It is suggested that the former is much more flexible in its approach to helping out tourism development, although I do not know why that should be the case. It is clear that tourism is not simply a Highlands and Islands activity, although some people might think that it is. It is not even simply a rural activity because, as we have heard, city tourism is just as important, if not more so. We need, therefore, a consistent approach. The relationships between area tourist boards are clearly a difficult matter; there are tensions between membership organisations—perhaps this applies only to some members of the industry—and an organisation that has quasi-public duties. Any mechanism must have the industry at its heart.
Many people find it easy to see what is wrong with the current system but, as I am sure the minister is finding out, it is much less easy to come up with a better alternative. Boundary changes would not necessarily be the answer, and Mr Mundell made a valid point about the Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board.
Uncertainty is bad, so we need to conclude the review. It is a bizarre argument to say that we should not discuss the review before or during an election campaign—such discussion is what democracy is all about. If we were to extend that principle to other areas, we would be in for a very quiet election campaign.
I welcome the development of electronic marketing of tourism, because we in Scotland are clearly in danger of falling behind. The report refers to some initial difficulties in Dumfries and Galloway, which I think are largely down to a lack of communication. The vast majority of businesses in my region have now signed up to the idea to some extent. However, I am concerned that we still do not have a go-live date for the public version of the new website, which is important given that we are already into the season in which people make bookings over the internet. I am also not convinced that e-tourism will reduce work for tourist information centres—the two are complementary, rather than being alternatives to each other.
On the BTA, regardless of what has been said in the chamber, there is a fundamental incompatibility in one organisation trying to market two competing products. I think that that is unsustainable.
My final point is on skills. Tourism was the cinderella industry, but there have been changes made to increase its professionalism. I was worried by David Davidson's point that the teaching placement scheme still does not regard tourism as an industry. It is shocking that that attitude should still prevail. Tourism is a hugely important industry and I hope that the report will contribute to increasing its success.
Because of the business motion under which I am operating, I must have Alex Neil on his feet by 1 o'clock, so I call him now, and thank those members who co-operated in allowing this to happen.
It is an indication of the success of today's debate that Brian Fitzpatrick has joined the SNP benches for the final speech.
I begin my reiterating and reinforcing the "thank yous" that Annabel Goldie read out at the start of the debate and I supplement them with three of my own. First, I thank Annabel Goldie for calling me gallant, which is the first and probably the last time when that will happen. Secondly, I thank Brian Fitzpatrick for saying that I am a calming influence. That is certainly the first time, and probably the last time when I shall be called that. Thirdly, in relation to the visit to Shetland, I thank Tavish Scott and Shetland Islands Council, which provided excellent hospitality. I got a feeling for Up Helly Aa.
I shall concentrate on two or three key issues. I say quickly, by way of background, that the inquiry took place about a year after the committee was being put under enormous pressure to hold the inquiry during a time of crisis—if I can call it that—in the Scottish Tourist Board, which was undergoing a change of chief executive and suffered the resignation of the new chief executive. The committee took a clear decision not to hold an inquiry at that time.
The purpose of our inquiry was not to hammer a nail into the coffin of the Scottish Tourist Board, to run down Scotland, to reinforce failure or to get a cheap headline. Instead, the purpose of a parliamentary committee is to examine a subject's long-term future. In this case it was the tourism industry—we had to find out where we need to be in four, five or 10 years and we had to consider our position in the international tourism market.
We are all aware of the problems of the past four or five years, such as the reduction in tourist numbers, the additional problems that were caused by the events of 11 September 2001 and other unforeseen circumstances, such as foot-and-mouth disease. However, the challenge to us all is not to sit moaning and groaning and wondering why all of this has happened; instead, we must look to the future and do something about the situation. The tourism industry in Scotland has enormous potential.
Last year, I did a calculation—on my own, believe it or not—based on Ireland's overseas visitor numbers, which include visitors from the UK mainland. If Scotland had the same overseas visitor numbers as the Irish, that would inject an additional £1 billion a year into the Scottish economy. That is the scale of the opportunity that is open to us through the tourism sector. So, the key question is: what do we need to do to get from where we are to where we want to be?
The committee report addresses three fundamental strategic issues in that respect. First, as the independent research that the committee commissioned concluded, it is high time that we stopped contemplating our internal navel over the Mason-Dixon lines between this area tourist board and that area tourist board. To be quite frank, tourists from Germany, Norway, America and Canada could not care less about where the boundary lies between this toon and that toon in area tourist board terms—they want to visit Scotland. They want to have the experience of coming to this country to see the scenery, meet its people, enjoy their ancestry and all the rest of it. The first clear message has to be that we should look outward, rather than inward. Our future lies in beating the competition in the international marketplace, not in examining our internal structures for ever and a day.
However, the question thereafter is how we can best promote Scotland. There has been a lot of discussion about the BTA. No doubt there is concern south of the border—as there is north of the border—about the way in which the Department for Culture, Media and Sport south of the border failed to consult on the recent changes and simply implemented them. Indeed, there is much concern about that among MPs in London whose report called for the establishment of an English tourism board. I support that proposal: England needs its own tourism board, but there must be a consequential change to the BTA's role.
We are simply saying—the BTA agrees—that we are not getting the benefits of the resources that have been invested in some hub offices to the extent that we could and should. VisitScotland needs urgently to piggyback on that resource much more than it is by putting its Scottish focus into those offices and promoting Scotland. If Gordon Jackson was able to promote to me the benefits of the private sector while we were in California, I at least got him to agree that, on the question of a Scottish focus, he was a nationalist. Indeed, he agreed with everything that the SNP said on that point. That was a real conversion.
Our proposal is very practical. Of course, it has budgetary implications, because there would be staff involved; however, perhaps only one person and a secretary is all that is needed. After all, the other resources already exist—we simply need a Scottish focus.
David Mundell and I took evidence from Eddie Friel, who used to run the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and now runs the Glasgow Tourist Board. Mr Friel was Northern Ireland's man in America at the time of the hunger strikes. During the year in which the hunger strike deaths happened, tourism to Northern Ireland from north America jumped by about 10 per cent. Eddie Friel went into the BTA office in New York as a Northern Ireland representative. He piggybacked on the research that had been done, but he put a Northern Ireland focus on it, as a result of which he was able to promote Northern Ireland. At that time, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board was much more independent than the Scottish Tourist Board.
There is a possible case for VisitScotland to have its own representation in some markets where the BTA has no representation—it is horses for courses. It is like running any business; one sends the sales and marketing people to where they can generate the most interest.
The second major point that I want to make before I wind up is on transport links. There is no doubt whatever that one of the two fundamental prerequisites to realising potential is encouragement of the growth of low-cost airlines. Some 80 per cent of the people coming to Scotland from Oslo are Norwegian. I know and others know that—we see them in the pubs in Ayr and even in Prestwick every weekend, Presiding Officer. They come from Norway for the cheap drink. It is £8 a pint in Oslo, but it is £2.50 a pint in Ayr and probably £1.50 in the Labour club in Allison Street. It is a lot cheaper for them to spend forty quid getting into Ayr for the weekend from Oslo and save a bob or two on drink. We are talking about tourists to Scotland spending money in Scotland.
I will be clear about what the committee is saying about BAA. It says that there is on the face of it, based on the evidence that we received, a prima facie case—as the Latin people used to say—for an inquiry into the monopolistic position of BAA. It does not have only one monopoly; it has two monopolies. It has a monopoly in Scotland and a monopoly in London. On the basis of the evidence, the combination of those monopolies might present the problem. We suggest that there needs to be a thorough inquiry, but BAA is coming back to us and saying that it is not true; however, if members owned a monopoly company, they would say the same. Unfortunately, monopoly and competition are—temporarily, I hope—reserved matters. Therefore, it is up to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee or whatever to investigate the matter, but it must be investigated. Our tourism industry is too important for the future of Scotland for us to continue to receive only a fifth of the number of flights that Dublin receives, for example.
This has been just a sketched conclusion of our report. I hope that the minister will take decisions based on our report. I do not care whether that happens before the election or whether someone else takes them after the election—as long as our report is implemented, the Scottish tourism industry will flourish.
I should have stopped that speech earlier, but I sensed that people were enjoying it.
The next item of business would ordinarily be the business motion, but as members will be aware, this week's business motion was taken yesterday. Therefore, there is no more business.
Meeting suspended until 14:30.
On resuming—