Tourism
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2543, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, on the committee's sixth report in 2008, "Growing Pains - can we achieve a 50% growth in tourist revenue by 2015?"
I find myself in a strange situation, because one of my first duties as the new convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee is to move a motion on a committee report even though I was not a party to drawing it up. However, I will do my best.
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor as convener, Tavish Scott, for his work on the committee, and particularly for the work that he did to pull together its good, valuable and important report on tourism. I thank Professor John Lennon of the Moffat centre for travel and tourism for the help that he gave the committee as its adviser, and I also thank the clerk to the committee, Stephen Imrie, and his team, and all the members of the committee for their hard work.
Tourism is vital to the Scottish economy. The industry is worth about £4 billion a year. It employs nearly 220,000 people in Scotland, which represents about 9 per cent of all people in employment. In some areas, such as the Highlands and Islands and rural Perthshire, the proportion of working people who are employed in tourism is as high as one in eight. Tourism is one of the six priority industries for growth that the enterprise agencies have identified. It is a critical sector whose growth is central to meeting the Scottish Government's gross domestic product target.
The committee's report is the culmination of a 10-month inquiry. I understand that the inquiry was often arduous, involving as it did fact-finding visits to Iceland, Austria and the north-east and north-west of England. I thank committee members for undertaking that hard work. The central question for the committee was whether it is possible to meet the aspiration to increase tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015. That ambition was established by the previous Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration and adopted by the predecessor SNP Government.
Successor.
Successor, rather. My clerk made a slight error there.
When the target was set in 2004-5, it did not seem unreasonable. However, one must now look at our current situation: falling overseas visitor numbers; exchange rate challenges; the washout summer; the recent closure of airlines such as Zoom and XL; and the turmoil in the financial markets and the threat that that poses to all sectors of the economy. It is going to be a tough time for tourism, but it is not all doom and gloom.
The committee recognised that our nation is blessed with an exceptional tourism product and that, compared with some nations, Scotland has an identity and brand that is second to none. Consider my constituency of North East Fife, where we have some of the finest tourism products anywhere in the world, not just the infamous Old Course golf course but our fantastic coastline and many fine historical buildings.
The committee identified a significant number of challenges that lie ahead if the industry is to meet the target and grow. Central to those challenges are the four key areas on which our report focuses: investment in the product; skills, training and education; transport and connectivity; and relations between the public and private sectors. I will talk a little about each area in turn.
We are all aware that although we have many excellent tourist attractions and accommodation providers, unfortunately the days of, "You'll have had your tea," and, "The chef's away hame," are still with us in some places. We all know of places where we or visitors have tried to get a meal and been told, "No, it's after 8 o'clock; you're too late." The committee was clear that we simply must drive up investment and quality standards in the sector. The investment must be driven by the industry, which must share in the ambition of increasing tourism revenue by 50 per cent. Without the industry realising that it must invest in facilities and staff, we will never realise our shared aims.
The public sector has a role to play, too. I welcome the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism's agreement to our recommendation that VisitScotland and our enterprise agencies should produce a national tourism investment plan, which should identify gaps in our products, such as the lack of five-star accommodation and the poor use of our coastal resources, and be used as a marketing tool by bodies such as Scottish Development International to tout those investment opportunities throughout Scotland, the United Kingdom and the world.
Investor confidence is critical to the success of the investment plan. There is no point in encouraging investment if, for example, the investor gets bogged down in planning. The committee was well disposed towards the model that is used by Glasgow City Council to identify investment opportunities so that they can pre-clear all the possible planning and regulatory issues by getting all the key bodies on board at the outset, and then aggressively market the investment opportunities worldwide. That is what we want to see at national level, which means that we need there to be joined-up thinking and working between VisitScotland, the enterprise agencies, regulatory bodies and key local authorities on the national tourism investment plan. In that regard, we welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to examine the Austrian and Swiss models of a tourism bank to help small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in our businesses. We remain open to helping the minister with contacts to make that plan a reality.
Skills, training and education are perhaps the most crucial areas that we need to examine. Perhaps the most damning evidence of all that was presented to the committee was from Shirley Spear of the Three Chimneys restaurant on Skye, which is one of Scotland's finest award-winning establishments. Shirley told us that despite her reputation, the awards that her business has received and the endless contact with colleges and universities, she has never been approached with an offer of the pick of the best graduates from hotel and hospitality schools. That is not good enough. We also heard from People 1st, the sector skills council for the hospitality industry, of the 400 or so different courses throughout the UK in 40 different establishments.
Our report notes:
"former qualifications under SCOTVEC and more recently SVQ have seen reductions in practical training. This in turn has led to much criticism of qualified students' practical ability and competence. In response some celebrated chefs such as Andrew Fairley at Gleneagles, (Scotland's only 2 Michelin Star Restaurant) insist on the former City and Guilds qualification as an essential for entry into his operation. At a UK level, Gordon Ramsay has indicated that he will set up a private training school under the auspices of his restaurant and pub chain, such is his level of frustration and disenchantment with the capabilities of students emerging from UK colleges."
It is clear to the committee that we continue to churn out people from our schools, colleges and universities with qualifications and skills that, by and large, are not the ones that the industry wants. The damning statistic is that only one in three graduates of hotel and tourism courses go to work in the industry. The Modul hotel school in Vienna, which the committee visited, has three applicants for every place and 75 to 80 per cent of its graduates join the hotel and hospitality trade.
I welcome the minister's agreement in principle to our recommendations and caution him not to rely on the sector skills council alone to give him the industry view. It is better to go and ask the real industry in, for example, the Three Chimneys, Gleneagles, the St Andrews Bay hotel, the Old Course hotel in St Andrews and the Balmoral. We should ask the big players in our industry what they need.
I welcome the minister's agreement to convene a meeting of the key public sector bodies to take that forward, which is a useful first step. However, as the committee concludes, we want the Government to organise
"a review group consisting of leading industry specialists (e.g. hoteliers, restaurateurs etc) and chaired by one such figure. The review group should also involve government officials, VisitScotland, the Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland Ltd. This review group should make recommendations to the Minister on the type and number of education, skills and training courses for the future. A starting principle for such a review is a wholesale rationalisation into a model that suits Scottish needs and has industry buy-in."
Will the minister give a commitment today that, following the meeting of all the public agencies, he will move towards such an industry-led review to reprioritise and declutter the skills and training sector?
Transport and connectivity are vital to the tourism industry. If people cannot get to the tourism product, there will not be many tourists. Until such time as it had a rethink, VisitScotland's own website noted the challenges that are faced by visitors to Scotland who want to get out of the central belt by rail or road. As the constituency member for Argyll and Bute, the minister must know better than most just how hard it is to encourage a visitor on a short or weekend break—the key growth markets—to get out of Edinburgh and Glasgow to see all parts of Scotland.
A travel industry rule of thumb is that if short-break travellers cannot reach a place within 3 to 4 hours of their home, they probably will not go. Just imagine how a Spaniard, German or Italian feels when they have spent a few hours on a flight to Edinburgh or Glasgow and then face the same again on a train to get to Inverness or the rural Highlands and Islands.
We simply must do better in relation to the visitor experience. I welcome the minister's agreement to most of the recommendations, but I am disappointed that he failed to agree to the recommendation on common ticketing. We all know of examples from our holidays of places where we can buy one ticket that lets us into all sorts of visitor attractions and lets us use all forms of public transport in the area. I am sorry that the minister did not agree to a summit to bring all relevant parties together to see what could be done nationwide to build on the one or two examples of good practice at local level.
I want to say a personal word on transport. I remain disappointed that the Government abandoned the Edinburgh airport rail link project, which would have been a great boon to the tourism industries north of the Forth, including Fife. It is disappointing that that flagship policy was abandoned by the present Government. That is a personal comment; it is not a point that the committee made.
I will conclude by talking about the relationship between the public sector and the private sector. I do not agree with the recent report by the Royal Society of Edinburgh that called for VisitScotland to be shut down, but I agree with its finding that VisitScotland must do more to engage with local industry and local partnerships to market all parts of Scotland. We do not need to return to the days of area tourist boards, but VisitScotland must not allow itself to become too centralised.
I, like the committee, welcome the growth of destination management organisations such as Destination Loch Ness, and city marketing bodies such as that in Glasgow. Perhaps in time, with ministerial support, they will appear in other cities in Scotland, such as Edinburgh. I want VisitScotland to embrace and support those area or region-based attempts to increase the quality of what Scotland can offer.
Finally, I welcome the fact that the minister has agreed with the vast majority of the committee's recommendations—he agreed with 20, agreed in part with two and disagreed with only four—but, like the committee, I want to see delivery on the ground. We give the minister notice that at key points in the coming year, we will be looking for progress notes, and we will hold him, the accountable officers in VisitScotland and the enterprise agencies, and the key industry players, such as the Scottish Tourism Forum, to account for delivering on the recommendations that were agreed to.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee’s 6th Report, 2008 (Session 3):
Growing Pains - can we achieve a 50% growth in tourist revenue by 2015? (SP Paper 141).
I put on record again the Government's welcome for the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's identification of tourism as an important industry for Scotland. That supports the Government's thinking, as set out in our economic strategy, that tourism is a key sector for sustainable economic growth.
In holding its inquiry, the committee increased attention on the main tourism issues and on how the industry can work to achieve the shared ambition of a 50 per cent growth in revenues. The Government was impressed by the inquiry's depth and by the professional way in which it was conducted. We welcome the input from representatives of the industry and the public sector, and the work of the committee, its clerks and its advisers in drawing that together.
As members know, the Government's response to the committee's report was published last week. I am sure that many members have studied it, but I will reaffirm its main points. It is pleasing that much of the committee's report was positive about tourism and that the Government agreed with the vast majority of recommendations. I am sure that that is a sign that tourism in Scotland is in generally good shape and that all parties are working well together. I contrast that with the recent equivalent committee report on tourism at Westminster, which contained significant criticism of the United Kingdom Government and its tourism policies.
We agreed that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee correctly identified the key issues in its report. We were pleased that the committee concluded that the 50 per cent growth ambition should be retained. That target, which was established after much discussion and was adopted by the industry, is a useful focus for partnership working throughout the industry and between the private and public sectors. However, it would be unrealistic to ignore the prevailing economic circumstances, which differ from those when the ambition was adopted. Many in the industry have questioned the wisdom of having the target when they feel that tourism must run hard to stand still or survive.
Achieving the ambition should be a longer-term plan, even though it is clear that short-term growth might be unfeasible in the current climate. It is worth noting that VisitScotland has already upweighted its marketing of Scotland in UK markets by bringing forward some £1.5 million of marketing spend. Many members might recently have seen television adverts encouraging everyone to visit Scotland and its different parts.
The work on homecoming Scotland 2009 will help to boost tourism. There is no doubt that we can make 2009 a special year for Scots and for those who love Scotland. The programme of events is growing and the word is spreading. We expect to show the world that we can throw a great party, and we expect many visitors to come to join in. The year will also provide an opportunity to show the world what Scotland is made of.
We agree that it is important for the public sector agencies that support tourism to face in the same direction and work together closely. We will consider whether further alignment is necessary, in the first instance through more effective joint working.
I will not repeat everything that the Government said in its response, but I will talk about the skills issues, which Iain Smith correctly identified are important. The committee expressed concern about the volume and relevance of the qualifications that are on offer to the hospitality industry in Scotland. Our skills strategy makes it clear that the skills that individuals learn must be the skills that employers want. Providers of qualifications need to engage employers properly in the development and design of qualifications at all levels, but some qualifications have not benefited from such engagement.
It is unfortunate that some evidence to the committee on qualifications was inaccurate. The committee was told that more than 4,000 qualifications are on offer to the tourism industry, but that figure was later revised to 400. That is still incorrect—the figure is likely to be closer to 100, if we are talking about Scottish Qualifications Authority qualifications and higher education courses.
People 1st's sector qualifications strategy acknowledges that much more progress has been made in Scotland than in England on rationalising qualifications in the industry. It states that the completion rate for apprenticeships in the sector is considerably higher in Scotland than in the rest of the UK and that it intends to learn from the Scottish system to improve the performance of apprenticeships in other countries.
Employers are in a strong position to influence SQA provision, given that the agency now involves sector skills councils in the design, development and validation of its qualifications.
Will the Government find an opportunity to revisit its decision to reduce the number of apprenticeships in the hospitality and tourism sector, which it is doing to focus purely on the construction sector? At the very time when the committee report recommends an extension of apprenticeships and skills, there will instead be a net reduction in the number of hospitality and tourism sector apprenticeships. What is the Government response to what the committee said?
Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the SQA and People 1st are working together to consider that. The member may also have noted that level 2 apprenticeships are being introduced in the hospitality and tourism sector.
Will the minister give way?
I must make progress.
Of course, the qualifications that are on offer matter little if young people choose not to enter the industry in the first place. The committee acknowledged the real and perceived barriers to people choosing to enter and remain in the hospitality and tourism sector. Fundamentally, that is something that employers in the industry need to address by making the industry attractive to young people. For example, they can offer successful work experience and industry placements, and treat school pupils who have weekend and evening jobs as potential long-term recruits to the industry.
There are good examples of schools, colleges and universities working closely with the hospitality industry. For example, not far from here, the HBOS museum on the Mound is working in partnership with the Royal high school on an excellence in education through business links programme. Such partnerships help young people to become more aware of the tourism industry. The Giuliano's on the Shore restaurant has worked with Pilrig Park school to help all first to third-year secondary students to design and make their own pizza—a fun challenge from a real employer and one that relates to the world of work. We need more such examples.
Young people in Scotland are positive about their country. Such experiences with employers build on that confidence and often translate into young people entering an industry that they had not previously considered. However, such examples are the exception rather than the norm. More employers need to engage with schools, colleges and universities to bring industry relevance into the education setting.
The committee concluded that Scotland should establish a small number of dedicated hotel schools along the lines of those in Switzerland. Leading figures in the industry are developing a proposal for such a centre of excellence. I welcome this excellent example of an employer-led and industry-funded initiative to tackle our skills needs.
North Highland College, in partnership with other colleges and the UHI Millennium Institute, is in the process of establishing a hotel training school in Dornoch to provide the half a million people in northern Scotland with access to university-level courses. The proposed centre for hospitality and tourism will be a training facility that will be run as a fully operational hotel, occupying the refurbished Burghfield house hotel. The college will lead a new degree programme in tourism and hospitality management and offer skills-based qualifications in areas such as front of house. Good work is being done in colleges.
I repeat that the Government places importance on supporting the tourism industry in achieving the shared ambition for growth. We welcome the committee's report and its general support for the policies that are already being followed. I look forward to hearing members' views on this important issue.
It gives me pleasure to welcome the committee's new convener to his first debate. I also welcome Maureen Watt who has, I think, just spoken in her first debate on tourism, as John Park will do later. On this occasion, only the Conservative party is out of step.
The inquiry was thorough and resulted in a wide-ranging report. As we have heard, there was general agreement that those who make a living in the tourism sector should continue, where possible, to take the lead in adding value to Scotland's fantastic natural and cultural assets, and that the Government and its agencies should continue to work with the sector on the shared objective of future revenue growth.
There was general, if not unanimous, agreement that the structures of VisitScotland are about right and that the agency is fit for the purpose of marketing Scotland at home and abroad. It is a pity, therefore, that this week's draft Scottish budget confirms that VisitScotland's budget will be £1 million less next year than this year. If it is the right agency to do the job, it needs to be properly resourced by Government, especially when growth will be particularly difficult to achieve.
On the role of Government agencies, our report notes at paragraph 267
"the potential loss of local expertise in tourism in terms of local business involvement in the enterprise networks."
The jury is still out on whether the much-reduced enterprise networks and Skills Development Scotland will be able to continue the effective support for tourism businesses that was praised by a number of witnesses to the inquiry. The committee has agreed to examine the enterprise aspects next summer and has made some specific and radical proposals on skills, which have been referred to already.
Another area of concern was connectivity, both electronic and physical. I am pleased to learn that visitscotland.com has entered into discussions on how it might change its approach in line with the committee's recommendations. We may hear more about that shortly. If the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry gets back to business soon enough to protect its market share and survive, that will be good news. However, as Iain Smith said, it is not the only direct link to Scotland to be put in peril in recent months.
That is the context in which the report states at paragraph 210:
"Almost all of the witnesses heard by the Committee were supportive of the Air Route Development Fund (ARDF) model and called for a replacement initiative."
We called on ministers to consider
"establishing destination marketing initiatives, targeting customers on potential new flights into Scotland"
in a way that
"would involve clear branding and marketing and air route development."
I am happy to acknowledge that some of that is now happening. VisitScotland and easyJet are spending £1 million on attracting visitors from London. However, at a time of such weakened global economic confidence, it is important that Scotland's devolved Government is seen to back such initiatives. That is why clearly branding marketing initiatives as Government backed is important.
We called on ministers to organise an urgent summit of transport providers and tourism operators to innovate further on joint ticketing arrangements for visitors. Like Iain Smith, I am disappointed that ministers have not yet jumped at that suggestion. They acknowledge that there is good practice from which to learn but, instead of bringing industry together to see how that good practice can be rolled out, they propose only to discuss it among different bits of the Government machine. I hope that that discussion will lead to such action as the committee suggests.
I hope that ministers will also respond to our call at paragraph 274 for the international passenger survey to
"record all the relevant international visitors to Scotland through all major ports of entry, specifically including Aberdeen airport."
The failure to do so currently means that Scandinavian visitors in particular are undercounted when VisitScotland is planning future marketing campaigns. Although the statistics are collected on a United Kingdom-wide basis, there are implications for devolved Government agencies, therefore I hope that ministers will have something to say on the recommendation.
Ministers are more directly responsible for some of Scotland's transport providers and tourism operators. The committee drew attention to ways in which public enterprises such as CalMac Ferries and public agencies such as Historic Scotland might improve the visitor experience. I am sorry that ministers did not respond enthusiastically to those suggestions. It is easy to say that Government should get out of its silos and work across portfolios to achieve sustainable economic growth, but it is harder actually to do it. Ministers need to give a lead and support practical suggestions for better joint working, which is all that the proposed reviews are intended to achieve. I hope that ministers will also respond positively to the suggestion that they consider all funding options to enhance the programme of homecoming Scotland 2009.
We heard a lot during the inquiry about investment decisions. Scotland needs more quality hotels across the whole price range, particularly outside Glasgow and Edinburgh. There are some models of good practice where tourism projects have benefited from being fast-tracked by planning authorities. I hope that ministers will support measures to spread that best practice as well as back the national tourism investment plan.
The conclusions of the report are cautiously optimistic about Scotland's potential for meeting its targets on growing tourism revenues in the next few years. The report recognises the roles of both the industry and the Government and its agencies. I hope that ministers will go beyond those areas in which they have met the committee's recommendations and consider seriously those areas in which they have not, and will think again about the resources that those recommendations will require.
I start by putting on record my thanks to the committee clerks who did an excellent job and helped committee members all the way through the inquiry. I would even go as far as joining Iain Smith in saying that Tavish Scott did a good job with the report and in convening the committee. He would not have enjoyed the debate if he had heard Iain Smith promise £500 million for the Edinburgh airport rail link and Jeremy Purvis promise more apprenticeships. His tax plans have been well and truly torpedoed and we are just 20 minutes into the debate.
The Scottish Conservatives are hugely impressed by the Scottish tourism industry. We are passionate about the potential for tourism and optimistic about what it can achieve in future if the right conditions are put in place. However, we have to be realistic about the results that we have seen since 2005.
I will focus on Scottish tourists within Scotland, because their numbers have dropped dramatically in the past two years. I will also pick up on three of the key issues in the report: the skills agenda, investment in planning, and visitscotland.com.
Before I go on to the reality, I have two quick points to make. I acknowledge and am pleased that everyone on the committee thinks that tourist information centres are important to Scottish tourism. That has universal support. There are 106 centres today, and we specifically asked if there would be 106 in 2015. My understanding of what we heard from VisitScotland and the minister is that those tourist information centres are safe and they will play an important part in the future.
I also highlight the fact that everyone on the committee thought that the bed tax as proposed for Edinburgh is a bad idea and should, quite literally, be put to bed as soon as possible. I hope that the Liberal Democrat members will follow Tavish Scott's lead on that and say to their City of Edinburgh Council councillors that it is a terrible idea. I hope that the Scottish National Party members will do the same with the SNP councillors in Edinburgh. It is a bad idea for Edinburgh and, if it was replicated throughout Scotland, it would be bad for Scottish tourism.
The reality is that Scottish tourism is marginally down since 2005, when the target was set. Back then, the figure was £4.2 billion. The most recent figure for 2007 is £4.179 billion, so there has been a small decline. However, if our target is a 50 per cent real-terms increase by 2015, we have some distance to go, and the starting point has to be for the Government to acknowledge where we are. I gently point out that the minister told the committee that tourism was marginally up on 2005, but the latest figures look as if that is not correct.
One of the key points that came out of the committee inquiry is that achieving the target has to be industry-led. The target is one for the industry. It is up to the private sector to deliver it; it is not something that the Government has to deliver. Does the member agree with me?
Of course I agree with that, but my point is that when the Government has access to the figures, it has to be clear to the committee and to others what they say. We were told that tourism was marginally up, but when the figures were published it was marginally down, which is quite significant.
We want more people to holiday in Scotland. However, the number of Scottish tourists within Scotland stands out as a figure that has been down since the abolition of the area tourist boards. The two issues might be connected. Revenue from tourism is down from £900 million to £800 million. At the same time, figures for revenue from tourists from Wales and Northern Ireland in Scotland have gone up to about £50 million to £60 million. We cannot just blame the credit crunch for the decrease; there is some other reason, and the abolition of the area tourist boards might have played a part. We are not calling for them to be brought back—no one is doing that—but we are calling for VisitScotland to do a little bit more in areas of the country where it is currently not doing things.
Will the member give way?
Not at this time.
We heard such calls being made particularly when we visited the north-east to take evidence.
Investment in planning is a serious issue that took up a lot of the committee's time. Far more effective systems need to operate on the ground. Glasgow City Council's system, which involves a 12-point fast-track plan, appears to work well, and seems actively to try to ensure that developments happen. That contrasts with the evidence that we took from a former City of Edinburgh Council planner, who said that consideration of a development proposal could not be completed in 12 weeks. Across the table, his Glasgow counterpart said that that had been done in Glasgow only a few months previously.
On skills, I was interested in the minister's comment that there were only 100 different tourism-related courses. We were told by experts that there were 3,000 or 4,000 such courses. The Government did not challenge that information in its written response to the committee. I would be interested to hear—after the debate, if not during it—where the figure of 100 came from. I would be surprised if businesses were as confused about the situation as that figure suggests—I would be astonished if it turned out to be correct.
We hope that changes will be made to visitscotland.com, because only 1,000 of its 8,000 residential offerings can be booked through the site. It would be much better if the site were an information portal that passed customers directly on to the tourism providers.
We are optimistic about the situation for tourism, as long as the correct actions are taken.
Like other speakers, I congratulate the committee on its excellent report. It might be career limiting were I not to mention the key role that the committee's former convener, Tavish Scott, played in the inquiry and the production of the report.
As the report makes clear, the extremely stretching 50 per cent target for tourism growth, which was set by the previous Executive and adopted by the current Administration, is the subject of a genuinely lively debate about its achievability. I believe that when targets are appropriate, they should be ambitious, but it is inevitable that questions will arise about the extent to which such targets are realistic.
However, the Scottish Government and the enterprise agencies have, quite rightly, identified tourism as one of the six priority industries and one that is well placed to enjoy considerable growth. Achievement of the growth target will require collaborative effort on the part of the public, private and voluntary sectors. It will also rely on Scotland playing to its strengths and each section of the market and part of the country realising its full potential. That last point is crucial. In turn, that will require a constant and ruthless focus on improving the quality of the tourist experience through investment in facilities, infrastructure, including transport, and the skills of the people who work in the sector.
Ultimately, the success that we all wish to see will be possible only if we place greater trust, in the shape of responsibility and resources, in the hands of those who best understand each market. That is very much the conclusion of the report by the Royal Society of Edinburgh that was published last week, although I agree with Iain Smith that VisitScotland's abolition is neither sensible nor desirable.
In reference to our renewable energy resources, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism likes to proclaim that Scotland has won the rollover jackpot in the lottery of life. Although that is not a phrase that I would use, I agree with the sentiment, and that applies equally to our tourism potential. Continuing with Mr Mather's lottery theme, I would suggest that, as with marine renewables, Orkney provides more than its fair share of the winning numbers. According to the traveller's bible, the Lonely Planet guide, Orkney represents the
"glittering centrepiece in Scotland's treasure chest of attractions".
Even the weather, which is perhaps perceived to be Orkney's Achilles heel, has delivered of late. During a summer of almost biblical storms everywhere else in the country, Orkney and Shetland topped the sunshine charts. In fact, the only time that I recall it raining was the day that Christine Grahame paid us a visit. There is a moral in there somewhere.
However, there is mounting anger in Orkney about how and, crucially, where decisions about the marketing of the islands are being taken. That will not be news to the minister, as I have raised the issue with him many times in the Parliament and in correspondence. Sadly, the response has always been a mix of bland assurances and baffling management-speak.
The minister saw for himself the level of frustration when he was in Orkney last month. Businesses that are involved in the tourism industry are dissatisfied. Orkney Islands Council, which invests almost £200,000 in VisitScotland, remains unconvinced that it is receiving value for money. An urgent meeting has been set up with VisitScotland's chief executive officer to clear the air. Last month, Councillor Ian Johnstone, who is convener of the council's economic development committee, stated his expectations in the local press:
"If we don't get progress we will have to go back to the Minister, though it might be that we will get more autonomy for VisitOrkney from the meeting".
We shall see.
Even more worryingly, tourists themselves are highlighting shortcomings in the overly centralist approach that the Government has adopted. Earlier this summer, a regular visitor to Orkney from the United States wrote to me incandescent about what she considered a downgrading of the local tourism office. In her letter, she said:
"I am writing because of frustration with VisitScotland. If [my husband and I] had our way, VisitOrkney would leave the system".
She described how VisitScotland's failure to understand the local market and local businesses had left her husband with no option but to contact each individual self-catering provider. That reduction in the quality of the visitor experience is compounded by the loss of potential income to VisitOrkney.
Sadly, that lady's experience is not unique, but VisitOrkney is not at fault. The team has worked exceptionally hard alongside the local industry and the council to deliver year-on-year improvement. Barbara Foulkes, who heads up the Orkney office, commands tremendous respect and has done a great deal to enhance Orkney's profile. However, we now have the ludicrous situation in which the head of the local office has no line management responsibility for anyone in that office. I can think of no other organisation that would tolerate, much less consider introducing, such a system of management.
Meanwhile, control over crucial marketing spend is held centrally. Orkney is an acknowledged destination for which passing tourist trade is understandably a limited feature of the market, so the inability to direct a sizeable proportion of the marketing budget will inhibit its ability to attract visitors. The loss of management accountability and control over marketing also runs the serious risk of demoralising staff.
In the past, the minister has assured me that tourism offices would remain in the islands following the restructuring of VisitScotland, but it is questionable whether, without more control and accountability, the Orkney office can provide more than a name-plate and a place for tourists to shelter should the rain—and Ms Grahame—return.
The previous Scottish Executive took steps to restructure VisitScotland. It was a difficult and sometimes painful process that some local communities felt went too far; VisitScotland felt that ministers had not gone far enough. However, the proposals were considered over many months by an advisory group that was made up of a wide range of experts who examined all the evidence. That is precisely the sort of forum in which the minister would have his flip charts out in a jiffy before one could ask, "So, Jim, what book have you been reading this week?"
By contrast, the present Government agreed to the demands of VisitScotland's management without any prior consultation. We are all now left rueing that decision, which has served only to add to Scottish tourism's growing pains.
I, too, welcome Iain Smith to his first debate as the committee's convener. I thank the clerks, my fellow committee members, the previous convener and the previous deputy convener for their positive contributions throughout the inquiry.
There is no question about the importance of the tourism industry to the Scottish economy—the statistics have been bandied about already. We have been doing tourism for years, and the unique attractions of our rural and urban areas are rightly renowned within the United Kingdom and around the world. Over the years, our tourism industry has received significant amounts of public funding and undergone numerous relaunches, reorganisations and rebrandings. However, despite all our experience in the sector, standards of accommodation, catering and service still vary wildly. The best is excellent and rivals anything that is on offer in countries with which we compete; the worst can be truly dreadful.
That is hardly surprising when, as the committee's report highlighted, there are numerous hospitality training courses in Scotland, many of which appear not to produce the skills that hotel and restaurant businesses require. Although I am sure that they all have the best intentions, the plethora of public sector bodies and initiatives seems to duplicate and confuse rather than improve matters.
The report contains many good recommendations. I look forward to swift progress on two that are particularly important to addressing the issues that face the tourism industry in Scotland. First, I was delighted to learn from the Scottish Government's response to the report that the industry, working with officials, has taken the lead in developing proposals for an industry-led and funded hotel school and that a business plan is expected to be ready soon for presentation to potential investors. However, I hope that we will have more than one hotel school.
During the committee's fact-finding trip to Austria earlier this year, I had a first-hand insight into the hugely positive impact that hotel schools can have on skills levels and professionalism in the industry. I am convinced that the development of such schools along the high-quality lines of the Austrian model would be of real and lasting benefit to the Scottish industry. It would be a huge step forward towards bridging the skills gap that has bedevilled the industry for years.
The ideal location for one such centre of excellence would be the Highlands, where tourism is a particularly vital element of the economy. If there is to be only one centre, we must have it. In the proposed development of a new campus for the UHI Millennium Institute in Inverness there exists the ideal opportunity to develop that much-needed facility on the scale required, although there are a number of other options.
Secondly, raising skill levels and investment in the industry must be reflected in pay rates for tourism workers. According to a report by Futureskills Scotland, our hospitality, travel and tourism sector is characterised by part-time working, a younger workforce, high labour turnover and low pay. Most folk agree that low pay means that pay is less than two thirds of the median hourly earnings. In 2006, that equated to £6.50 an hour. Peter Kenway of the New Policy Institute think-tank estimates that no less than 75 per cent of Scottish hotel workers receive low pay. That hardly makes hospitality an attractive career choice. Efforts to grow the revenue of the industry must not be made at the expense of its workforce.
The demise of area tourist boards has seen the emergence of a growing number of private sector-led destination management organisations around Scotland. The first DMO was set up in the Cairngorms area in 2006 and many areas have since followed that lead. The fact that their arrival on the scene has evidently not been universally welcomed in the industry serves to highlight one of the long-standing and damaging problems within it. As a recent newspaper article put it:
"The effective retreat from top-down centralisation that the rise of DMOs represents points to a still-unresolved power struggle at the centre of Scotland's tourism".
If the industry is to grow in the way that it must, there can be no room for such turf wars. Partnership rather than power struggles between those who promote Scotland is the only constructive way forward. I believe that the main promotion should be done at a Scottish level, while DMOs should concentrate on driving up standards.
Another basic question that we face if we are to grow Scotland's tourism industry is: how do we get people about? Perhaps that is not the most important issue in our cities, but it is certainly significant in the Highlands and Islands. I am a wee bit disappointed that the Government response does not refer to improvements to the transport links between the central belt, Aberdeen and Inverness.
In the area that is served by the Highlands and Islands transport partnership, there are 63 railway stations and 8,664 miles of roads. Unfortunately, getting off the train and on to the road is not always as straightforward as it should be. Difficulties in integrating train timetables with other transport types and a lack of interchange hubs for bus and rail services outwith the main centres present real obstacles to tourists using public transport.
Despite all the complex issues facing the Scottish tourism industry, I believe that it has the potential to achieve real and sustainable growth, despite the current economic crisis, and that it can reach the target of 50 per cent growth by 2015.
I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, as I am still a member at the moment of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which produced the report that we are debating. I, too, associate myself with the remarks about the conduct of our previous convener, Tavish Scott, and our previous deputy convener, Brian Adam.
May I surprise the minister by warmly welcoming the Scottish Government's comments that it regarded our report as a thorough and professional piece of work? That is perhaps one of the few things on which I have agreed with Mr Mather recently.
Setting a target of 50 per cent growth in revenue by 2015 is ambitious, but there is nothing wrong with being ambitious, especially when we know that we have a good product to sell. I intend to focus my remarks on parts of the report where I think the message that tourism is everyone's business needs to be re-emphasised. I have already welcomed the Government's comments on the report, but it would be wrong to think that it agreed with everything that we said. At paragraph 52 of the report, we comment on the institutional reluctance to change things to help create a team Scotland approach by public bodies. We recommended that the Scottish Government review the marketing and promotion strategies of Historic Scotland and instruct it to play a more active role in tourism promotion through its unique properties.
I am surprised that the Government does not agree with that recommendation. The Government says that Historic Scotland is active in various working groups and several DMOs, including those in Edinburgh, Stirling and the Borders. Its response states:
"All of this … is in addition to the core Historic Scotland work of promoting and marketing its own portfolio of 345 sites, which in 2007/08 had their best year ever".
Minister, that is exactly the point that the committee was trying to make. Sites such as Edinburgh castle, Stirling castle and other top tourist attractions bring in visitors in record numbers, so it should be incumbent on them to help to sell other attractions in the neighbouring area. Staff who work in Historic Scotland attractions should be able to answer questions and make suggestions to visitors about other things that they could see and do in the neighbouring area.
My colleague Marilyn Livingstone will deal with the skills shortages that we heard so much about, but I want to comment on the committee's recommendation for the establishment of a small number of hotel schools similar to those in Austria and Switzerland. I was a bit surprised that Mr Thompson seems to think that Dornoch—where it seems that the school will be established—is not in the Highlands. With Mr Thompson and other committee members, I was fortunate enough to visit one of those schools in Vienna as part of an evidence-gathering session. Youngsters aged 14 can apply to attend that prestigious school, where they receive a fantastic training in all aspects of the hotel industry. Such schools do not just provide the next generation of managers—important though that is—but offer a real focus on cooking, waiting and bar work. Students at the school are regularly used to represent their country at international trade fairs across the world.
In the course of our evidence gathering, my colleague Lewis Macdonald and I visited the Macdonald hotel in Aviemore, where it is also hoped that a hotel school will be established. We also heard about proposals from the town centre hotel group in Edinburgh. I hope that the minister will consider all those proposals as they near the business plan stage.
I welcome the fact that the Government agrees with our recommendation to review the workings of the Austrian and Swiss tourism investment banks. As we have heard, such institutions have a clear role in providing the finance for investment in tourism infrastructure. For example, we were told that a huge demand had arisen for artificial snow machines to combat the effects of climate change on the ski resorts. There has also been a big demand for spa facilities in hotels because nowadays people who stay in a hotel want to use its associated leisure facilities. Such investments were funded through the tourism investment bank. VisitScotland's idea that we should decide what kind of facilities we want and then find those who are willing to invest in such facilities would be all the more attractive if we had a financial vehicle to turn those ideas into reality.
Finally, I draw attention to the curious behaviour of Caledonian MacBrayne, which brings me back to the need for a team Scotland approach. During an evidence session, we heard of one small operator who was literally priced off Caledonian MacBrayne's ferry because it insisted on charging a commercial rate for his minibuses instead of a rate similar to that for a mobile home. He wrote to CalMac's chief executive but did not receive a reply. As a result, instead of too many tour buses taking people across to Mull, there is only one—that is all that he could afford. As a state-owned operator, CalMac should also be part of the team Scotland approach to tourism. Apart from that, it could probably do with some lessons in customer care. Will the minister reconsider the committee's request for CalMac to review the pricing structure for small coach operators? Instead of dismissing the idea out of hand, CalMac could at least meet the operator to discuss the problem to see whether an arrangement could be made that benefits both parties.
Having taken part in the inquiry, I certainly need no convincing about what a great country Scotland is to visit and what a tremendous impact the tourism industry has had. However, as with everything else, lessons can be learned and we can do better still. Can we grow our tourism revenue by 50 per cent by 2015? Yes, but we will need a concerted effort to do that. I look forward to seeing many more visitors to our country in the years to come.
I was glad that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee took up this important topic as I have been something of a tourism entrepreneur myself at Tübingen and Freudenstadt in the black forest, where I have run an international conference at a local hotel for the past 17 years—at a cost, I must say, of roughly half that of running a similar conference in Scotland.
In retrospect, I am less happy about our timing. In spring, we were preoccupied with cheap flights and promises of plush hotels and golf courses; from where we stand in September 2008, all that activity reminds me of the Queen Mary in 1931, sitting on the stocks in Clydebank until things got better. We must remember that the slump in 1929 happened in a period before mass motoring, holidays with pay, holiday camps and youth hostels.
As a result, I have some scepticism about the 50 per cent target, which has been induced by something that I have been predicting for long enough and which has finally happened.
I am grateful to Christopher Harvie for giving way and for yet another lesson about what happens in Germany. We in the committee have found his history lessons very illuminating.
The member mentioned the 50 per cent target. Does he not recall being told during the inquiry that Glasgow and Edinburgh were predicting a 60 or 80 per cent increase in tourist revenue? Surely it is better to be optimistic rather than pessimistic.
I will come back to that point in a moment.
The UK—and, indeed, world—economy has been hit by earthquake-like changes. The party is over. The situation must inevitably impact on our society in its leisure as well as at its work. However, we can foresee fewer ambitious trips to overseas tourist destinations, fewer low-cost airlines, fewer big cars and a shift towards developing our own resources for people in these islands. In that respect, there is some room for manoeuvre.
We have an embryonic alternative tourism market and, although I am not saying that it will be all too easy to activate it, I certainly think that doing so will be manageable. The strength of Scottish tourism, particularly for many tourists in the British islands and in Europe, lies in its small scale: its villages, its small towns, its islands and the outdoors. We need look only at the numerous guides that can be found in French or German bookshops. For example, in a shop in Tübingen, I found 17 guides to Scotland and only 14 guides to England. That is remarkable, given its proportion in population. The Irish have also done superbly well with the Germans through publications such as irland journal and by building up fan clubs for their country in German organisations, churches, schools and so on.
However, what are those tourists going to see? That is where I have my worries. Last week, I took the 60 bus from Melrose to Berwick. As we passed through Earlston, I saw that the post office had been closed and that one pub in three was up for sale; in Gordon, the only hotel was closed; in Greenlaw, one of the two hotels was closed and the magnificent town hall was derelict—although I hope that it is about to be restored—and in Chirnside, a hotel was up for sale. At the Scottish Tourism Forum open meeting at Perth racecourse, people raised issues such as the smoking ban, increased licence fees and the growth of supermarkets. The situation cannot have been helped by the fact that the weather this summer was perhaps the worst for 40 years.
However, with the homecoming celebrations and the 250th anniversary of Burns in mind for 2009, I visited Ayrshire. Initially, I did not find the trip any more reassuring than my trip through the Borders. I counted eight empty shops as I crossed the New Brig into Ayr, which shows the mark of the supermarket. The Tam O' Shanter Inn closed for meals at 7 o'clock. There was vandalism and graffiti. However, as I travelled into the back country on the remarkably good bus services, I found a tremendous stand-by-your-bard spirit embedded in the community, which made one feel that these people should be given their head and have their ideas backed by Burns clubs, the National Trust for Scotland and Historic Scotland. Why, for example, can we not appoint a homecoming commissioner who can be the motivating force for the year and preach the message? We could isolate or even co-opt the neds and nuisances and get them to smarten up the place. If we used the buzz to generate interest, we could slip into the mix some preliminary education in tourism and a constructive statistical analysis of what happens.
Our criterion should be that of the Open University, founded 40 years ago: what will people be able to do at the end of homecoming and Burns 250 that they were not able to do before? By "people", I am talking about not only experts in tourism, but people in the community. This tremendous opportunity for popular education is somewhat in the style of that suggested by our great social innovator Patrick Geddes 100 years ago.
We need to get local and tabloid editors to elevate their eyes from soap, sex and crime, and partner local papers and communities in sponsoring fests. Let our first big fest be on the day that the ferry steams again from Zeebrugge, next to where Scotland had its medieval staple of trade, to Rosyth to connect us with the continent. We ought to celebrate and learn from the process of celebration.
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, and welcome the Scottish Government's remarks on the professionalism of the committee's work. I thank the clerking team, the committee adviser, fellow members of the committee—I should say past and present members—and, of course, everybody who took time to give evidence to us.
The committee's sixth report clearly describes the importance of tourism to Scotland's economy and the crucial role that it plays in delivering sustainable economic growth throughout Scotland. According to VisitScotland, the most recent statistics show that Scottish tourism is worth just over £4.1 billion and that it employs more than 218,000 people. As such, it is and will continue to be critically important to the Scottish economy.
As members have heard, the committee's remit was to consider the feasibility of fulfilling the Scottish Government's ambition of increasing revenue from tourism by 50 per cent by 2015. We tried to identify the key challenges and suggest measures to overcome those challenges.
I turn to the Scottish Government's response to the committee's key recommendations and conclusions, and ask the minister for clarification and further information on the issues that I will raise in the time that is available to me.
First, I want to ask about the future relationship between the public sector and the private sector. What support and funding will be made available to areas such as Fife to develop public-private partnerships? In evidence to the committee, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism said:
"New partnerships in places such as Fort William and Aviemore",
which is in the Highlands, "are positive", and that he favours a
"multitextured Scotland, in which different localities sell themselves in different ways and bring in others such as local golf clubs and local authorities—even local churches—to help them to achieve that end."
He also said:
"I favour destination management over destination marketing".—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 28 May 2008; c 879, 886.]
However, he did not rule out local partnerships being involved in local marketing, provided that DMOs operate at a level below that at which VisitScotland operates.
I ask for clarification because VisitScotland's position is clear. It argues that there should be no change from the position that was set out in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. That argument is in direct opposition to the minister's view, and is not shared by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and most of the local authorities that gave evidence to the committee; they, too, support a multitextured approach. We need clarification on that complex issue. I ask the minister to support local partnerships so that a multitextured policy can be followed and so that the evidence that we took that backs up such an approach will be seen to have taken forward such an important policy.
I want to address the crucial issues of skills, education and training. I agree with Dave Thompson that we need to address the pay, working conditions and career structures of those who work in the tourism industry. As we have seen, we cannot continue to rely on migrant workers; we must make our industry attractive to everybody.
The report recommends that the Scottish Government reconsider the provision of adult modern apprenticeships in tourism, and says that it is vital to reinstate funding for them. The minister says that she agrees with that, but there is nothing in the Government's response to suggest that funding for adult modern apprenticeships will be restored. Will the minister give a firm commitment on ensuring that that vital funding will be restored and that those industry-led qualifications, which she says that she supports, will be available to adults in the hospitality sector who wish to progress to level 3 in tourism, and that they will not be discriminated against? I hope that the minister will follow up her support for industry-led qualifications.
Concern about the provision of quality skills and training in the sector was expressed again and again in committee evidence-taking sessions. Recommendation 246 in the report clearly outlines the concerns that we found and the way forward.
Given the importance of a highly skilled workforce to meeting the Government's targets and to the success of the industry, will the minister outline what steps will be taken, when he further investigates, to ensure that all key stakeholders, including Scotland's colleges, are involved in discussions on the future skills and education provision in the sector? Will he also ensure that the committee is kept up to date with progress? It is unclear what the further investigation that he mentioned in his response to the committee's report will be.
It is important that the minister clarifies the Government's position on the web-in-a-box tool. Will he provide free software and training to improve take-up, as has happened in other areas? Only 1,000 out of 8,000 tourism businesses have made use of the technology. The response to the report states that Scottish Enterprise is
"currently developing a new tool for businesses for gathering and utilising customer feedback."
No doubt that is needed, but surely we need to focus on the take-up of the web-in-a-box tool and training for that before we develop a new tool. As my colleague David Whitton said, we need a team Scotland approach.
As the committee convener and other members said, we must take a joined-up approach—we must all work together to achieve our goals of supporting and growing the sector, which is a key one. I hope that the minister will take on board the committee's recommendations and that the Government and its agencies are in the best possible position to work together to deliver Scotland's aspirations.
I join other members in congratulating the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee on its excellent report into our tourism industry. As we have heard from many members, tourism is Scotland's biggest industry, and that is certainly the case in the Mid Scotland and Fife region, which I represent. In parts of rural Angus, Perthshire and Stirlingshire, and in parts of Fife, tourism is by far the largest employer. If we are to have a strong economy in those areas, we must ensure growth in tourism.
The committee examined the previous Scottish Executive's target of growing tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015. The committee accepts that the target
"should not be an immense challenge",
but points out that progress towards meeting it has been slow and that there was a decrease in revenue in 2006 compared to the baseline year of 2005. Although there is evidence of an increase in 2007—we await the details of that—the anecdotal evidence that I have had this summer from tourism operatives in my area is far from encouraging. The combination of the credit crunch and poor weather has meant that many in the tourism industry in Perthshire, Angus, Fife and Stirlingshire have had a difficult year thus far and are not optimistic about the coming autumn season. It is all very well for Governments to set targets, but when the results are subject to so many external factors, one sometimes wonders whether there is much point. Nevertheless, targets can be useful in focusing minds in Government and its agencies.
It is interesting that the committee's report refers to criticism from all sorts of external organisations such as Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and various private sector operators about the lack, at Government and agency level, of a joined-up approach to the promotion of tourism throughout Scotland. We all know that VisitScotland has been through several changes in structure in recent years. The Conservatives were a lone voice in the Parliament in opposing the scrapping of the area tourist boards and the formation of the new centralised structure for VisitScotland. I well remember arguing in the Parliament and in committee that the moves were going in the wrong direction. I remember the evidence that the then Enterprise and Culture Committee took from the sector, which was negative about the proposed changes. Nevertheless—I gently remind Liam McArthur of this, although he was not in the Parliament at the time—the then Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive, supported by the then SNP Opposition, went ahead with the changes. I believe that the evidence that we have today shows that the effect has not been positive. I hate to have to say, "I told you so," but I told you so, and the facts have proved us right.
The member will recall that, in that revised structure, local VisitScotland offices had their own budgets, management, focus, priorities and accountability in their relationship with councils. From spring this year, those offices have been diluted into more generic areas, a move that the Conservatives supported—I told you so.
The rot set in when Mr Purvis and his colleagues voted to scrap the area tourist boards. That is when we had proper local accountability. There is no point in Mr Purvis trying to pass the buck to anyone else.
In the past couple of weeks the Royal Society of Edinburgh has published its report on the future of Scotland's hills and islands. It was produced by a committee of inquiry chaired by the highly respected Professor Gavin McCrone. One of the most significant sections of the report deals with tourism and it is highly critical of the centralised structure of VisitScotland. The RSE argues for the introduction of regional tourism boards that would essentially replicate the previous structure. I recognise the RSE's concerns, which reflect many of the comments that I have received on the ground, but it is not yet time for another structural reform of VisitScotland, with all the pain, upheaval and expense that that would involve. Government has to learn that moving towards a centralised structure and having constant change in an organisation such as VisitScotland is simply not beneficial. The Conservative party believes strongly in local accountability and that the recent moves in VisitScotland have been in the wrong direction.
The best illustration of the difficulties that have been created comes when we consider the future of tourist information centres. Having local TICs is essential to the success of the tourism industry. They are the shopfront for VisitScotland and for the tourism industry more generally, and, even in this internet age, they are still well used by visitors. Often, the TIC is the first port of call for people coming to stay in an area or simply visiting on a day trip. Sadly, we know that—certainly in the recent past—VisitScotland has not valued TICs highly and there is on-going concern about rationalisation programmes for the TICs. The TICs that I visited in Perthshire—in places such as Blairgowrie, Dunkeld, Aberfeldy and Pitlochry—have knowledgeable, well-trained, local staff who can provide advice, guidance and information to visitors that simply would not be available from a call centre or from the internet. That is why it is essential that we fight to retain those TICs. I am pleased that that is reflected in the committee's report.
If we are to have a successful and growing tourism sector, we need to ensure that the physical infrastructure is in place. The committee report refers to evidence that it received, calling for improvements to be made to various key trunk roads, notably the A82 and the A9. I have long campaigned for an upgrading of the A9 to dual carriageway status from Perth to Inverness. Improving connectivity between the Highlands and Islands and Perthshire and the rest of the UK would enhance the tourism industry and it is encouraging that the committee referred to that in its report. It is an excellent report. There is much to learn, and I hope that the Government pays heed to its conclusions.
I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members interests, in which I declare that I am a joint owner of a small self-catering establishment in the Highlands.
I add my congratulations to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee on producing such a stimulating report. I intend to cover two aspects in more detail. First, a huge variety of organisations and individuals are involved in tourism and are listed in the report. It has already been mentioned that we are discussing an industry that is worth more than £4.1 billion a year in revenue to Scotland and which employs almost one in 10 of our workers—truly a vital industry. Yet we have allowed the ramshackle edifice associated with it to develop unchecked. Organisations duplicate work, get under each other's feet and cause general confusion all round.
That guddle encompasses not only the marketing of tourism in Scotland, but the development of the industry. We urgently need to focus on the fact that a healthy and growing tourism industry is vital to Scotland, but it will not remain healthy unless we make radical changes and learn lessons from other countries. Inward investment is vital if our tourism industry is to prosper. We can learn a lesson from the Republic of Ireland here. Some years ago, I took part in an exercise by another large industry to determine why the republic was attracting investment that it was thought should have come to the United Kingdom. The main conclusion was not what I had expected—that generous European Union funding was the bait—but that it was much easier to do business with Ireland. From the moment that a company showed interest in inward investment, it had to deal with only one organisation, and often only a single person in that organisation, and help was given with location, planning permission, manpower and all the other 1,001 obstacles that have to be overcome before a factory or business can be up and running. The Irish Government sees to it that delays in the process are kept to a minimum—if only that would happen here.
The other point concerns what we offer visitors to our country. We have some of the finest scenery in the world, but do we always give a warm welcome to those who come to see it? All too often, we seem to resent the visitors upon whom our economy depends. Stories of poor service, rudeness and not going the extra mile to help someone enjoy what we have to offer are, sadly, still around. I have seen visiting yachtsmen refused breakfast at a west coast hotel because they arrived five minutes after the advertised time. In the end, a local lady took them to her house to give them bacon and eggs. The proprietor of the hotel was technically in order, but is that the image that we want to project?
Warning bells should ring when we read reports like the one in The Scotsman earlier this year, which claimed that 40 per cent of visitors thought that Scotland was poor or very poor value for money and that nearly as many visitors said that they would not recommend our food. It is time to get our act together, before we lose out. Those in the service industries should appreciate that service does not mean servility; service given with efficiency and a smile is as important a job for their own and Scotland's future as working in any other industry. For our part, we must act to improve training for new entrants to the profession, as recommended in the committee's report. Training should be relevant and responsive to the needs of industry rather than to the needs of training establishments. I liked the suggestion that we should copy the examples of Austria and Switzerland in establishing hotel schools. I am glad to hear this afternoon that that seems to be happening.
We can also learn lessons from successful establishments. The Ritz-Carlton group of luxury hotels has seen sales increase at a rate of 12.7 per cent per annum, compared to an industry average of 1.8 per cent. How has it done that? By creating and reinforcing a customer-centred culture. It carefully selects and trains staff and empowers them as important members of the organisation. For example, individual members of staff are authorised to resolve complaints on their own and they have a budget to enable them to do that. Valuing staff and giving them responsibility, continued training and retraining, and encouraging them to have pride in what they do works to provide a customer satisfaction rating that encourages visitors to return another year and to recommend the experience to their friends. Small hotels and guest houses cannot on their own provide the working milieu of a large luxury hotel, but our training programmes can incorporate some of those principles, so that people enter the tourism industry with a sense of pride and fulfilment and see it as offering a worthwhile career rather than a temporary job.
The coming months and years will be times of great financial uncertainty, but threats can turn into opportunities and more and more families in the United Kingdom might decide to holiday nearer home as a result of that uncertainty. Let us take all the actions necessary to make certain that when they do, they will have the holiday of a lifetime. Then we might meet our target of 50 per cent growth by 2015. I thank the committee again for an interesting and stimulating report.
I congratulate the committee on the thoroughness of its inquiry and the coherence of its recommendations.
The committee's inquiry into and report on the target of growing Scotland's tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015, from their current level of around £4.2 billion, focuses on one of Scotland's greatest challenges and on one of Scotland's most significant industries. Given that, as we have heard, total current tourism revenues are stagnating, and in the light of the recent loss of some direct air links to key markets, the target of 50 per cent growth looks even more challenging.
Remarkably, Glasgow City Marketing Bureau, of which I was a founder member, has set my home city the incredibly ambitious target of 60 to 80 per cent revenue growth by 2015. Of all people, who am I to doubt the realism of Glasgow's amazing targets? After all, just last month, in what is generally regarded as a difficult economic climate, Glasgow's hotel occupancy rate was 86 per cent—a new high for August in the 10 years for which records have been kept. The marketing bureau attributes that record occupancy to the world pipe band championships that were held in the city that month and which alone attracted some 40,000 visitors.
As well as underscoring the significance of events as drivers for tourism, that example demonstrates the potential of online marketing campaigns, involving as it did both existing platforms such as expedia.com and lastminute.com and investment in tailored software. Earlier in the month, Glasgow City Marketing Bureau had invested in new computer software to add an accommodation booking function to the home page of its main website, seeglasgow.com. It was an immediate success. The cost of that investment was £900. Developing the website in that way was not rocket science.
As one who tries, every summer, to book accommodation in Scotland on the internet, I cannot help but compare the user friendliness of seeglasgow.com with the frustrations of navigating visitscotland.com or with the unmaintained websites and unanswered e-mails of too many individual establishments. Worse still, too many establishments do not have internet access at all.
I have said before in the chamber—and I make no apology for saying it again—that Scotland is as strong a brand as Coca-Cola but it does not have the same distribution network. Previously, I have said that in the context of emphasising the synergy between direct transport links and tourism, but today I say it in the context of the synergy between broadband and tourism. If we are to meet our ambitious targets—and we should be ambitious for our country—we should ask ourselves whether it is reasonable to expect potential tourists from Japan, Canada or elsewhere to telephone around accommodation agencies. The growing reality is that they expect to be able to check availability and book accommodation online.
As Ian McKee said, other challenges to the industry have emerged since the committee's report was published. The credit crunch might boost the domestic tourism market, but the crisis in banking might constrain much-needed investment in infrastructure, such as the new five-star hotels that Glasgow needs if it is to improve its competitiveness. The committee heard about that in evidence. Today, the Parliament united in its response to the crisis in banking. We must be prepared to respond in like manner to any consequences that undermine the vital industry that is tourism.
As far as I am aware, today's debate is unique in the nine years of the Parliament in that the members who opened and will close the debate on behalf of the committee were not members of it when the inquiry took place and the report was written.
I add my voice to the general approval of the way in which Tavish Scott led the committee. Although his party has done him the significant honour of electing him to lead it, the rumour that arose around the time of my resignation from the committee—the rumour of my imminent promotion—has not been fulfilled as yet. However, I put it on the record that I was removed at my own hand, as the chief whip of the party.
I will highlight some points from the committee's excellent report and the responses to it. The target is challenging, but it is not a Government target—it is an industry target. The Government supports the target and will do what it can to allow the industry to achieve it. The report refers throughout to a series of initiatives that will be led by industry. The hotel schools—and any other initiatives—will work only if the industry buys into them. That point is emphasised in paragraphs 36 and 37, early in the report. Paragraph 36 says:
"We agree that awareness of the ambition is still patchy and that there is a vast difference between a private company being aware of the target and actually being prepared to invest in its own business and its employees to achieve such revenue growth itself. It is important that both the public and private sectors work in partnership towards meeting the ambition."
The member is right to say that the target is an industry target, but will he acknowledge that, when it was first published in "a tourism framework for change", it was adopted by the Government at the time? I take it that nothing that he is saying takes away from this Government's commitment to achieving the target in partnership with industry.
Absolutely. The Government endorses the industry's target and will do what it can to help the industry to achieve that target. Before the intervention, I was about to say that public sector involvement has to remove the barriers to achieving the target.
I wish to endorse VisitScotland's suggestion that a national tourism investment plan merits further consideration. If we are to achieve growth, we will have to identify opportunities. It will not necessarily be a case of someone sitting down at Victoria Quay—or wherever Mr Mather has his office nowadays—and looking at a map and saying, "This is where we're going to put the marina," or any other type of development. However, there should be leadership along those lines. There should be an indication of where we want development, which should be linked with local plans. In my area, part of the new local plan makes provision for that type of planning. An area of the Banffshire coast has been identified as highly suitable for marina-type developments. That sort of approach is exactly what is required.
The committee took a lot of evidence in connection with detailed planning matters. Mr Gordon has rightly praised the successes of Glasgow. Glasgow planners and various people from the tourism industry came to the committee and extolled the virtues of their fast-track approach. The evidence that the approach was as successful as that of other cities did not quite stack up, I felt, and I was not absolutely convinced that it was appropriate to have comparators with other cities, but it is clear that we must send out a message that Scotland is open for business. I do not think that making it difficult to get planning permission will encourage the kind of developments of five-star hotels that we need.
To take ownership of the target and drive it forwards the industry needs a body that will speak with authority on its behalf. The committee's evidence-taking sessions led me to conclude that such a body did not really exist. The national tourism forum is reputed to be that body, but I do not think that it is there yet. A national, industry-led approach to delivering the target could be developed if the Government encouraged the industry to speak with one voice
I commend the members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for the depth of their review of recent developments in the industry and for their thorough assessment of the opportunities and threats that the sector might well experience in the coming months in trying to achieve the aim of 50 per cent growth.
I pay particular tribute to the members of the committee who were on the committee at the start as well as the end of the inquiry.
I had sympathy with the committee when I noted early in its report that it found that the witnesses had various ideas about what the 50 per cent target was. Some thought that the target was a 50 per cent increase in revenue and some thought that it was a 50 per cent increase in visitor numbers. Some believed that it was a Scottish Government target; some believed that it should be an industry target; and others believed that it was a joint target or an ambition. Some believed that it was easily achievable and others believed that it was impossible to achieve it. Given the evidence presented, it is a credit to the Parliament that the committee made a number of practical and constructive recommendations.
Any debate on tourism gives members the opportunity to promote their area. Christopher Harvie's interesting twist on that was to promote Tübingen. However, given his previous contribution to the promotion of Lockerbie, that was probably a wise move on his part.
I noted the convener's remarks on the need to ensure that Scotland's tourism industry is not just about Edinburgh or Glasgow. As a representative of the Scottish Borders, I would add that Scotland should not be considered as just the Highlands, either.
There is a perennial debate about what is the right promotional approach for Scotland, such as whether to take the geographical approach or whether we should go for activity-based promotion of destinations, which seems to be developing. Activity-based promotion would give us significant advantages over many of our competitors. I represent what I am certain will be the world's foremost mountain biking venue, in the Tweed valley. It already has a world-class reputation, primarily because of the vision, drive and passion of the two operators of the Hub in Glentress. As the committee acknowledged, it is often down to the individuals in the industry who are passionate about Scotland as well as about professionalism and quality. The Parliament and the Government must support that.
A former constituent of mine, Sir Walter Scott—
A former constituent?
I suspect that he might have voted Conservative, which might encourage Murdo Fraser. However, Sir Walter Scott can perhaps take credit for almost inventing the visitor experience in Scotland; trains to the Highlands were full of visitors from England who wanted to see the scenes where his writings were set. There were the same number of visitors to Abbotsford—his home—in the 1840s as there have been in recent years. There were more American visitors to Abbotsford in the Borders in the 1840s than there were last year. That is a sign that our industry needs additional support, such as support for the Abbotsford Trust, to make it not only a world-class gem but a significant offering for our economy.
Gavin Brown tempted us to talk about tax cuts or tax increases. That is an important issue for hospitality and tourism businesses, given that the vast majority of them are small businesses, which will benefit from the Liberal Democrat 2 per cent reduction in income tax—Mr Brown is taking notes—which would come from our getting 2 per cent efficiencies from Scotland's £14 billion infrastructure plan, mutualising Scottish Water and scrapping new quangos such as Skills Development Scotland and the Scottish Futures Trust. I would like to think that Gavin Brown would support that approach, given that he has indicated that his Scottish Water policy would fund his own tax cut.
We heard Liam McArthur say that Orkney has become so sophisticated in its visitor experience that it can even turn on the taps for visitors who may be somewhat less welcome than others.
The frustration that we heard from Orkney about the slightly confused structure was touched on by Dave Thompson and Murdo Fraser. I share those concerns. Since April this year, because of decisions taken by the Scottish Government, there is no longer a VisitScotland operation focusing exclusively on the Borders; it is now a generic south of Scotland offering. As with Scottish Enterprise, there is a reduced focus. With a separate quango in Skills Development Scotland, there are separate approaches for business start-ups and for skills. Any business start-up in the hospitality and tourism sector will now go to its local authority for start-up information. If its turnover growth is forecast to be more than £1 million—very few start-up hospitality businesses have that—it can go to Scottish Enterprise. For skills support or training, it will go separately to Skills Development Scotland. Those bodies have separate operating boundaries, separate budgets and separate operating plans. That is a mess. The casualty of that is skills, as Marilyn Livingstone said.
Between the academic years 2000-01 and 2005-06, college enrolments in hospitality, catering and food technology courses increased by 34 per cent. Under the previous Government, the record was good. If we are to meet our target for revenue growth, that pace of change must continue. Unfortunately, it has stalled. The Association of Scotland's Colleges has made constructive proposals for business bursaries, for example, to breathe new life into activity that has—regrettably—stalled in the past year.
I am pleased that the final word in the report gives notice that the committee will return to the subject one year on, to find out whether the Government has implemented its recommendations. We hope that the committee's membership will be the same at that time, but we need Government action to deliver on the recommendations that the committee has ably produced.
I begin in the traditional way by thanking those who contributed to the report. The members who speak in such debates often take a singular interest in the subject, but occasionally—in contrast to what Lewis Macdonald suggested—a fresh-faced new contributor such as me arrives. I do not consider tourism to be one of my primary interests in parliamentary political activity but, having read the report and heard the debate, I have been well and timeously informed about the issues that face the tourism industry. For that reason, I thank the contributors to the report.
The Conservatives had a particular angle on the development of tourism in Scotland. We founded the area tourist boards in 1994, which established the concept of local representation and an area forum on which tourism operators could focus. It is unfortunate that the previous Government—I can say that in this Parliament—was determined to centralise that structure. It has been suggested that we were complicit in that to an extent, but the system now lacks local representation. From speaking to many people around the north-east, I know that tourism businesses no longer feel that they have a handle on the industry. Whatever is done through Government or as a result of the committee's report, we must ensure that people at the grass roots of the industry feel that they are contributing. Much that the report says requires that of us in the long term.
In presenting the report, Iain Smith highlighted the fact that Scotland's tourism industry has much to sell. We all know that golf, whisky and genealogy provide ways to hang Scotland's tourism industry on the top pegs along with anything that the rest of the world has to offer. However, as he said, the report identified one or two areas in which work needs to be done.
Investment in the Scottish tourism industry is necessary but, as is right, it needs to be industry driven. Tourism will always be led by the private sector, and any industry that wishes to succeed must be industry led. That is why it is important that we stick to the committee's recommendation on that.
I did not realise how bad the skills situation is. Figures that Maureen Watt quoted in her opening speech make it clear that we still lack the structure to train people in the necessary skills to make our industry the world leader that it could be.
A range of transport issues is involved. Transport is as important to the tourism industry as it is to any other industry, if not more important. If tourists cannot spread out from the central belt into rural areas and other cities and up to the tops of our mountains, tourism will remain a regional industry. We cannot allow that to happen, particularly if we consider, as Murdo Fraser pointed out, that tourism is now the most important industry in our rural areas. Nowadays, tourism far exceeds traditional industries such as farming and fishing.
The minister highlighted the fact that next year is the year of homecoming. I have a question for the Government, which the minister who closes the debate may be able to answer today or, if not, in the weeks and months to come. The beginning of the year of homecoming is now only a little over three months away. Has any assessment been done of the likely increase in tourism levels in Scotland next year as a result of this promotion?
The year of homecoming is a great idea, which should succeed. However, if it fails, Scotland will have failed a critical test that we must learn from very quickly, given that the next such opportunity may well be the 2014 Commonwealth games. If we get our international promotion for next year wrong, we may also go on to miss another significantly more important boat when the time comes for the games in 2014.
Gavin Brown pointed out that domestic tourism in Scotland is on the slide—only by a tiny margin perhaps, but it is dropping nonetheless. He also noted that tourism from other parts of the United Kingdom is rising. In these difficult economic times, we have to market Scotland to the very important UK domestic market—I would never suggest for one minute that we should turn that domestic market into a foreign market. Gavin Brown did not have time to point out that the £4.2 billion that we attribute to the tourism industry in Scotland is significantly down on the valuation of £5 billion that it had in the last year of Conservative government in the 1990s.
In response to David Whitton, I could repeat what I said in my speech last week on Caledonian MacBrayne: yes, we need a responsive ferry service, particularly in the Western Isles, and the way to get that is by letting the private sector in, because Caledonian MacBrayne is failing the tests. David Whitton pointed out another test that it has failed.
The target of 50 per cent growth is a huge ambition. If we are to achieve that, we will have to do everything we can for the industry. The Government must not take control but must offer the opportunities and encourage the private sector. Only by doing that will we achieve the 50 per cent growth target. Let us work together to ensure that that happens.
I have enjoyed the debate, which is the first that I have seen from the front bench. The view is a little different down here, but I assure members that my focus and perspective will remain the same over the coming months—and I hope that my time down here turns into a wee bit longer than months.
I welcome Iain Smith in his new role as convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. I pay tribute to the work that Tavish Scott and Brian Adam did in the past and to the work of Stephen Imrie and his clerking team. I congratulate the committee on the report. Over the past few days, I have read the report and the Government response with interest. Like Maureen Watt, I was impressed by the depth of the report.
I never fail to be impressed by the ways in which the committees of the Parliament engage with organisations that have an interest in the various areas of their work. Having been on the other side, I know that people feel that they can play a part in influencing what happens in the committee and in the chamber. I commend the committee for taking time to speak to the many organisations with an interest in the sector.
As members said earlier, the target of 50 per cent growth in tourism revenue is ambitious. It is a case of aiming high, but there is buy-in from the private sector and the target is endorsed by the Scottish Government. A former colleague told me yesterday that if we managed to do something about the weather, we could reach the target overnight, never mind in seven or eight years' time.
I was interested in what Liam McArthur said about the weather in Orkney—it is a pity that he is no longer in the chamber. What he said explains why he looks so bronzed after the summer recess. It is good to hear that people in other parts of the country did not have to suffer the same rain and poor weather that we suffered.
Before moving on to the substance of the report, I want to refer to the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry, which Lewis Macdonald mentioned. It is important to put on record that we have had a major boost today. I welcome the First Minister's announcement. The link is vital to the tourism industry not just in Scotland but throughout the UK, and to our haulage and logistics companies that use Rosyth, which will underpin the growth of that service when it is re-established in the spring. The next challenge for the Government is to ensure that any users who have gone away return, so that the tourism industry can see the full benefit of the passenger services that flow from that.
Maureen Watt spoke about the special year that we will have next year—the year of homecoming. Reading the report, I was interested to see that Philip Riddle, the chief executive of VisitScotland, was concerned about the modest budget for that. The Government might want to reconsider that. I listened to some of the interesting points that Christopher Harvie made about the homecoming, and I agree that we need to ensure that there is some form of legacy from it. There must be something to leave behind for the years after 2009.
I agree that we need a legacy, which is why the committee recommended that the issues be monitored. However, does the member accept that homecoming 2009 is to be followed by homecoming 2010 and so on? That is how it will work—it is almost a pilot programme for a long-term aim.
I agree. We have seen repeat visitors after major sporting and other events in Scotland—I am sure that facts and figures back all that up.
Gavin Brown referred to the recent reduction in the number of Scottish tourists, which is concerning, although Alex Johnstone mentioned one of the unintended consequences of the global slowdown and credit crunch—and more people who live in Scotland and the rest of the UK will not take their holidays overseas in the next year or so, and they may look at Scotland as a viable alternative. The emphasis on marketing Scotland to the UK by all organisations in the sector will be important in the coming months.
David Whitton touched on a recommendation about the promotional strategy of Historic Scotland and mentioned Edinburgh and other areas. I think that promotion would have a greater impact outside the central belt, especially considering the hotels and facilities near some of our historic centres in Scotland.
I will speak briefly about skills and focus in particular on migrant labour. As I have said before, we must take every opportunity to stress the importance of ensuring that migrant workers are treated properly and have access to their rights at work. Scotland must be a good place not only to visit from overseas but to live and work in.
Iain Smith and Lewis Macdonald both spoke about the huge challenge in skills. I agree that the work needs to be employer led, but it also requires stimulation from Government. If the industry is telling us that there are key shortages in trained chefs, supervisors and managers, we need to examine that. I understand the emphasis on construction and engineering in adult apprenticeships, but I have been told that the Government needs to look more closely at a route for adults into hospitality. The current funding system might take away the opportunity for a whole generation of people.
I welcome the report. I have enjoyed today's debate, and I look forward to the Government's response and the minister's comments. I look forward to working with the industry and helping businesses to grow and meet the skills challenge that we will have in future. We have much to be proud of as a country, including sometimes the weather.
I start by putting on record again the Government's appreciation of the work undertaken by the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee in its inquiry. I add my welcome to the new convener, Iain Smith, and to John Park in his new role, and I thank Tavish Scott for his input into the tourism inquiry and the committee generally. He will have left a positive legacy.
The debate is part of that legacy. It has been workmanlike and collegiate yet challenging, recognising that everyone in Scotland has opinions on and expertise in tourism and that everyone is part of tourism. As David Whitton said, it is everyone's business. I very much buy the idea of team Scotland—I hope to develop that as we go through.
I intend to respond to at least some of the points raised, although probably not everything as it has been a rich debate. A rich vein of ideas runs through the report and the debate. I confirm that the points in the report will be given serious consideration and will inform my engagement with VisitScotland and the industry as we continue our open-ended engagement.
I am delighted that the report confirmed and broadcast the fact that tourism is vital to Scotland. As Maureen Watt said, it supports the Government's thinking as laid out in our economic strategy. Tourism is one of our key sectors. We are keen to reinforce that point and to learn from the report and what has been said today. It is therefore right for me to re-emphasise that.
I will divert quickly to the year of homecoming issue. In essence, the resources that are available are not just from the Government but from local government, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland and the industry itself, which is also tooling up for it. We need more of a glass-half-full than a glass-half-empty attitude here. The goal is to continuously get the message out about Scotland, to increase awareness and to have homecoming as a perennial element in Scotland.
The industry could make a massive direct and indirect economic contribution to the country. The tourism industry is our shop window and the first connection that many people have with Scotland. Everyone in Scotland, including the industry, has an obligation to make a success of our wonderful attributes of heritage and history; evocativeness; arts and culture; stunning scenery; friendly, interesting and sometimes quirky people; lively events; iconic visitor attractions; and world-class food and drink—we have got it all.
VisitScotland has allocated some of its budget to attracting visitors from within the UK. During the committee's deliberations, VisitScotland described the £10 million budget for homecoming 2009 as a bit miserly. Given the current global problems, does the minister not think that it would be better for the Government to invest more money in getting visitors to Scotland? I say that as a glass-half-full guy.
We are investing big money and we are bringing together all the players to ensure that that money has even greater effect. The key thing is that the appreciation of that and of Scotland's attributes is very much to the fore in the mind of the sector, which is working hard. The tourism framework for change is a key example of the creation of healthy engagement between the Government, VisitScotland and other key players.
Next month, we will have the thistle awards. I would like those awards to become a showcase that will allow more and more people to see what is working and to see the models that can be replicated in their areas and be every bit as good as they are in their original areas. The beauty of it is that the committee knew that and got that message.
In holding the inquiry, the committee has increased attention on the issues, particularly on the key issue of generating 50 per cent growth in tourism revenue. The last time we debated the issue, we talked about collaboration to achieve that and said that, although the task and goal are for the industry, support from the Government and the public sector was required to make it happen, and it will happen.
In our earlier debate, there was an increasing awareness—and the committee's report fosters it—that, in pushing to achieve its goal, the industry has to be a bit more altruistic and offer an increasingly positive visitor experience, as many voices have said today, as well as improvements in terms and conditions and career opportunities for young people. Many voices have said that today as well. It is particularly true in a climate in which we are facing more challenges.
The Royal Society of Edinburgh's report underpins the committee's report. Indeed, when one distils the RSE report, it calls for more coherence, more focus on the consumer, greater alliances, more alignment between the industry and the public sector to benefit the target beneficiaries—that is the term that is used by the RSE—and more community-driven approaches. We buy into all that. The coherence is happening. The industry, Government, local government, communities, VisitScotland, the enterprise agencies, stakeholders and other passionate individuals—even deceased passionate individuals—are making a contribution to what we are doing. We are taking a multitextured approach.
I was also pleased that many members—Iain Smith, Murdo Fraser, Lewis Macdonald, Liam McArthur—suggested that further organisational change might be unhelpful at this time.
I was going to say that the SNP has twice tried, unsuccessfully, to kill me off at elections.
Does the minister understand that, for individuals, the structural environment is now more complex? Indeed, for very small businesses it is confused. People are appealing for the Government to make the structure, from which primarily start-up and small businesses need support, more streamlined and understandable.
I take the point. Although we were a bit ambivalent about the practicalities of joint ticketing, I am taken by the summit idea, which could move us towards what the member wants. My analysis is that some 44 categories of stakeholders are involved, including councils, coach companies, the Forestry Commission, Historic Scotland, the RSPB, Scottish Water and the unions. You get the picture—there are numerous players.
Given the richness of the report and of VisitScotland's focus, the report's merit is that, on careful analysis, it allows us to see with greater clarity where innovation is necessary, what needs to be improved, where investment is required, which inhibitors we could remove and, significantly, how we can break down the isolation and get more people working together closely.
We are coming to the end of Scottish food fortnight. Although it is undoubtedly the case that Scottish food is the best to be found almost anywhere in the world, the committee was provided with information—some of it might have been anecdotal, but some of it was from surveys—to indicate that food quality in the Scottish tourism industry is poor. How do we bridge that gap?
You are in your final minute, minister.
I recognise that—thank you, Presiding Officer.
We bridge that gap by bringing people together. We recently ran an event in the Corran halls in Oban, at which we brought together farmers, food producers, the retail trade, the wholesale trade and food distributors to start the debate about how to enhance the tourism experience through better food. Essentially, we need to augment the visitor experience and create a demand for food in the long term that will have a legacy beyond the visitor's holiday. To his credit, Peter Lederer is keen to embed food and drink, along with visitor attractions and culture and the arts, in the tourist experience. We can augment the product. Again, it is a question of breaking down the silos and getting people together.
I recognise the validity of the points that were made on skills and training. Movement is being made—Skills Development Scotland, which is a key player, is consulting on that. Members have come up with many good ideas; I wish that I had time to give them all due credit. Their efforts will not be wasted—all the information that has been provided will be sifted and utilised to frame our opinion and our activities as we move forward.
As a new member of the committee who has taken over the deputy convenership from Brian Adam, I am duty bound to thank the members who were on the committee throughout the process and the clerks who supported them. Today we have achieved consensus, not only on the fact that tourism is important, but on the direction of travel, which most of us see clearly. As the report suggests, we will be able to come back in a year's time to analyse what progress has been made.
The committee published its tourism inquiry report on 11 July. It was the culmination of nine months' work, during which the committee was supported by its adviser, Professor John Lennon. To date, the report has been widely welcomed. Supportive comments have been made by VisitScotland's board, the Scottish Tourism Forum—which is, of course, the main trade association—media contacts, the tourism innovation group and others. The only note of dissent came from the City of Edinburgh Council, whose notion of a bed tax the committee rejected, as several members have mentioned.
There is support in the country for the idea of trying to grow the revenue from our tourism industry by 50 per cent in the target period. It has been suggested that we must open up new markets if we are to achieve that target. Over the summer, writers in the Sunday papers and the like suggested that camping was becoming more popular because of the credit crunch, but given the weather in much of south and central Scotland over recent months, to which many members have referred, camping does not sound like a hugely attractive option. Nevertheless it is a cheap one, and perhaps we should ensure that visitors from London and other parts of the south, where VisitScotland has always had a strong advertising presence, should be offered the joys of camping in the midgie-ridden north. We will leave that suggestion for a little.
Many other countries are not quite so heavily affected by the credit crunch. We will undoubtedly have to look to persuade people from countries in the far east—such as Japan—or Russia to come to Scotland. Those markets are growing and we will have to target them. They may have airlines that could fly here directly, as we have fewer to offer now.
Decluttering the landscape has been a major part of the debate. The Government agreed that VisitScotland had to work more closely with the enterprise agencies but not that Historic Scotland should ensure that it plays an active role in marketing Scotland. The Government also agreed to
"review the myriad of publicly-funded initiatives such as Pride & Passion, Hospitality Assured, Tourism Intelligence Scotland, Scot -Land of Food and Drink etc and declutter and streamline where necessary."
I will take what some members said about Historic Scotland a little further. Many attractions throughout the country could provide a lot more information about what goes on in their areas—[Interruption.]
I am sorry, Mr Gibson. Less noise please. [Laughter.]
Thank you, Presiding Officer. When I was a teacher, it was just as bad trying to keep order.
We can monitor the decluttering. I believe that, as we talk through the issues, we will find ways in which we can stop the overlap, but if we are going to try to align the agencies better, we must acknowledge the fact that, because the enterprise agencies will focus on the major issues and major tourism projects, we will be required to look at the smaller businesses that will be helped through the business gateway in councils. We must monitor how that arrangement works, because it is new.
With this rowdy bunch not paying me any attention even yet, I will talk about education, training and skills. [Interruption.] Some members need some education at the moment. I am glad that ministers welcome the idea of a hotel school, based on the experience of the committee members who went to Austria and saw the Swiss and Austrian models.
We should keep in mind the idea of tourism being the cream on the cake, not the cake itself. The trouble is that we have some communities in more rural areas that are hugely reliant on the cream. That is one reason why we must ensure that the hotel school at Burghfield house hotel in Dornoch—which the minister mentioned and is in the Highlands—gets a major boost. The project will be a fully operational training hotel that provides students with opportunities to complete Scottish vocational qualifications in hospitality services such as reception, bar and restaurant service, food preparation and housekeeping in the context of a real hotel that caters for fee-paying guests. It is a good example of getting the private sector and a college together and it could be a model for several other parts of the country.
We need to embed the opportunity for young people—and more mature ones—to find a career in the various parts of Scotland so that the industry is not regarded as being staffed by migrant workers. They are important of course, but our own people from various parts of the country ought to have careers.
There is not much time to deal with the many suggestions about technology and marketing or events such as homecoming Scotland. The thrust of the debate on homecoming Scotland has been that the Government should hone more carefully the opportunities for local involvement in the plans for the event so that local groups can organise more events to fit into the major programme. As John Park suggested, if there is to be a legacy it will be the experience that they gain of getting a lot of support from visitors that time.
I have a huge job to do in this speech and I do not have enough time to do it, but members will have heard many of the arguments before anyway. The Scottish Government's response to the report was, in the main, very positive. It showed how it is possible for the Parliament and the Government to work collectively and collegiately on a matter of common interest.
The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism has agreed with almost all the committee's recommendations, mostly in full, which is very welcome. The key to delivery, however, is ensuring that the Scottish Government, VisitScotland, enterprise and skills bodies and the industry deliver on the recommended changes. Our Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee will monitor that as we go through this session.