Foot-and-mouth Recovery Plan (Dumfries and Galloway)
If we are all sitting comfortably, we can begin.
The final item of business today is a member's business debate on motion S1M-3171, in the name of David Mundell, on VisitScotland funding of Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board foot-and-mouth recovery plan. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with extreme concern the failure of VisitScotland to allocate the necessary £280,000 to fund the second year of the foot-and-mouth recovery plan prepared by Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board; believes that funds allocated nationally to VisitScotland by the Scottish Executive to help the tourist industry recover from the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak should be targeted on those areas most affected by the disease, and considers that the Scottish Executive should enter into urgent dialogue with VisitScotland to review their funding allocation to the board in the expectation that the necessary funding will be made available to support the Board's foot-and-mouth recovery plan which has already had considerable success in its first year.
First of all, I pass on my good wishes to my fellow south of Scotland MSP, Adam Ingram, who had a heart attack today. He is recovering well. Adam was a signatory to the motion and has shown a great deal of interest in the aftermath of the foot-and-mouth crisis.
I welcome the chance to introduce the motion for debate tonight. Although the particular topic is important, I hope that the debate will give us the opportunity to reflect on the awful experience that last year's outbreak brought to every single person who was caught up in it, in Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders and elsewhere in the UK.
The Royal Highland Show goes ahead today and it is a tribute to the fortitude, resolve and sheer strength of character of many of the farmers who lost stock that we see them at the show, restocked, presenting their animals in show categories. Despite the fact that times are so difficult in agriculture, those farmers are looking forward as they develop their agricultural businesses.
As members have often pointed out, however, the foot-and-mouth crisis affected not only agriculture, but all related trades and services. Indeed, some of the people who suffered most were self-employed contractors. Of course, the crisis affected shops and everyone involved in providing local services, but it had a particularly hard effect on the tourism industry. Along with the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway was thrust into the centre of the public spotlight at a time when—as everyone accepts—there was great confusion over whether people were to be allowed into the countryside or whether they were to be restricted in their access. Night after night, people saw pyres burning on television. They were told in graphic detail of culls and related activities, and the national media were not kind in publishing stories with headlines such as "Valley of Death". That particular story highlighted the Moffat area, where I live.
Throughout that time, the local tourist board and the tourist industry itself showed great stoicism. Although many benefited from some crisis-related activities, many attractions and businesses, particularly in the west of Dumfries and Galloway, suffered very badly. The full extent of that financial suffering is only now becoming known.
That is why the loan scheme that Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway introduced has been taken up by so many tourist businesses. The worst-affected businesses were those that had been innovative, that had invested and that had borrowed money. In particular, I have always felt for the people who were new to the tourist industry when the crisis struck.
Members from all parties across the chamber argued for the Scottish Executive to give appropriate support to Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders. In general, all the parties representing the south of Scotland were able to work together towards what we thought was a commitment from the Scottish Executive to provide the necessary support, not only for agriculture, but for tourism as it recovers.
The purpose of tonight's debate is to highlight the fact that we feel that we have been let down in one aspect and that the spirit of and intention behind the funding that the Scottish Executive made available to VisitScotland for foot-and-mouth recovery are not being followed through. Despite the fact that VisitScotland funded the first phase of the tourist board's three-year plan for marketing Dumfries and Galloway—a plan that it knew about and had seen—and despite having seen the success of that first year's funding in aiding recovery, it has now declined to pay over £280,000 for each of the next two years to Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board from the £4 million that the Scottish Executive allocated to VisitScotland for foot-and-mouth recovery.
Not only can the local tourist board not complete its three-year plan, which will mean that the money that has already been spent on the first phase will have been wasted; it will not be able to attract matched funding from Europe and other agencies for its activities.
Various efforts have been made to lobby VisitScotland—so far, to no avail. Therefore, not because it is a party political issue, but because I am a representative of Dumfries and Galloway, I felt that it was necessary to bring the issue before the Parliament. I hope that tonight's debate, in which members can set out the rationale for our argument and, I hope, secure ministerial support for it, will persuade VisitScotland to change its mind. I also hope that, when Mr Philip Riddle, the chief executive of VisitScotland, next week follows through his offer to meet local representatives, he will tell us not that VisitScotland is to stick dogmatically to its original decision, but that it has seen the error of its ways, that the decision that has been made is not the right one and that VisitScotland will go ahead with the allocation of the necessary funds.
This is a cross-party effort. I was awoken this morning by the sound of Dr Murray speaking in my ear—not because she was in my house, but because she was on the local radio—saying how strongly she felt and that she very much hoped that VisitScotland was not using Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board as a political football in an attempt to leverage more funds from the Scottish Executive. Rather, she hoped that VisitScotland was considering the decision objectively. I also read in yesterday's local press the headline:
"First Minister pledges help for tourism".
Indeed, Mr McConnell is quoted as saying:
"I am absolutely determined the Dumfries and Galloway area gets at least the resources it was expecting for tourism purposes. I will go back and I will ask the questions I have been asked to ask. If any action is required it will be taken."
I am sure that, after visiting Dumfries and Galloway, Mr McConnell will know that the £300,000 that is being paid by the Scottish Executive's environment and rural affairs department to fund an eco-tourism project in the area is nothing to do with promoting the area and is not, in any shape or form, the equivalent of the £280,000 that we believe is due from VisitScotland. Those are completely separate pots of money. I am sure that the Deputy Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport is aware of that and I hope that there has been no attempt to brief her otherwise.
Nor is it the case that Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board will receive any meaningful extra resource in its role as the lead area tourist board in developing the freedom of Scotland product group. That, too, is a red herring and I hope that the minister will not waste time in rehearsing those claims, but will use her wind-up speech, in her unique position as a representative of one of the constituencies that is affected, to endorse the legitimacy of this call for additional funding for Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board so that we can complete the recovery from foot-and-mouth disease.
As David Mundell says, tourism is a very important industry in Dumfries and Galloway. It is the single most important industry in Scotland. Opinions differ about whether it is the most important or the second most important industry in Dumfries and Galloway, but it is pretty near the top of the list. As David Mundell implied, tourism has an impact on many other businesses that would not categorise themselves as specifically tourism-related. Interestingly, it is one of the main routes of diversification for people in the agricultural sector who want either to get out of agriculture or at least to hedge their bets and bolster their agricultural income, which, as we all know, is subject to ups and downs—mostly downs.
In an attempt to recover from the ravages of foot-and-mouth disease, which effectively closed off Dumfries and Galloway not just from England but from the rest of Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board put together a coherent recovery plan. As far as we can tell—the board has the evidence, which it has evaluated in a sensible and rigorous way—the recovery plan has been very successful. The board's advertising campaigns in the north-east of England, in Glasgow and on the buses have brought a significant number of visitors back to Dumfries and Galloway. We have all been gratified by the number of people who have returned to the area in the spring and in what so far passes for the summer.
However, we cannot rely on that trend continuing. The board has planned a coherent strategy that was to last for three years. It has also planned what it intends to do with the rest of its budget. It is not the case that money that the board will not now receive for the remaining two phases of the plan can be taken from somewhere else. The board made its plan on the basis that the money for the next two years would be forthcoming. It believed that it had been promised the money, but now it seems that that money will not come.
We are talking about fairly small sums of money—sums that form a negligible proportion of the Scottish Executive's budget and that are small even compared with the overall budget of VisitScotland.
I am glad that David Mundell referred to the sum that has been made available for eco-tourism, which is almost the same as the amount required to fund the foot-and-mouth recovery plan. We have been told that the eco-tourism money is in some way a substitute for the money that the board is seeking, but it is not the same thing. An eco-tourism scheme that has hardly gone beyond the evaluation stage cannot be equated with a scheme that exists to encourage and foster a mature industry. Neither does the eco-tourism scheme accord with the belief of Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board that the region should play to its strengths by focusing on the strong niche markets that have been identified.
When the foot-and-mouth crisis occurred, Dumfries and Galloway and—to a lesser extent—the Borders held the line for the rest of Scotland. All of the pain was borne in Dumfries and Galloway—physical pain, emotional pain and financial pain. Real pain was inflicted on the people and industries of Dumfries and Galloway. They deserve no less than to have the recovery plan that they have been promised brought to fruition. They will feel betrayed if the money for that plan is not forthcoming.
Although the motion mentions Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board specifically, I hope that David Mundell and the minister will recognise that the issue that we are debating is also relevant to the funding of Scottish Borders Tourist Board.
The minister will recall that I contacted the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department some months ago, when this problem first came to my attention. I know that in recent weeks there have been further contacts between the department and Scottish Borders Tourist Board.
One of my first concerns was that the absence of second-year funding might make it impossible for Scottish Borders Tourist Board to draw down European funding that was dependent on matching funds. I understand that to some extent that problem has been solved. Nevertheless, it is more than unfortunate that Scottish Borders Tourist Board and Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board had clear and reasonable grounds to hope and expect that second-year funding of more than £200,000—in the case of Scottish Borders Tourist Board—would be forthcoming. The two boards became aware that that would not be the case only late in the day, when marketing initiatives were on the stocks and ready to go.
Scottish Borders Tourist Board is very successful in promoting niche markets and in targeting groups in the short breaks market. However, such marketing requires high-quality and well-directed promotion schemes. It needs to be planned well ahead.
The first tranche of money was spent early and effectively, after the foot-and-mouth outbreak had decimated the tourism industry in the Borders throughout the spring and summer months of 2001. Strenuous efforts were made to compensate for that at the back end of the season.
The second tranche, which will now not be delivered, would have been invaluable in reinforcing the message in the new tourist season. The effects of foot-and-mouth disease cannot be overcome during the back end of one tourist season. A plan was in place and there was an expectation that funding would be made available. The Executive told us that VisitScotland had been given money to fund recovery from foot-and-mouth.
I recognise that VisitScotland was not allocated as much funding as it expected. The body made a strategic decision that generic advertising for the whole of Scotland represented the best value for the industry as a whole. However, it is unfortunate that more generous funding was not made available to VisitScotland in an important recovery year. I regret the fact that even the money that was given was not passed on to those two authorities in the manner expected.
I hope that ministers will endeavour to draw any extra money that can be found in the Scottish block towards the tourism industry, which is so important to our economy. I also hope that the ministers and the ATBs, which work with VisitScotland, will try to squeeze out of VisitScotland whatever money is left in its budget in order to draw that money towards the two ATBs.
My final plea is to ministers and to VisitScotland. I want them to discuss the issues that have been raised in the debate and to do whatever they can, with whatever funds are available, to recognise the unique way in which Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders were affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak, as Alasdair Morgan said. I urge them to look for ways to direct funding for particular projects or niche marketing exercises towards the ATBs. Both the ATBs have worked hard to overcome massive difficulties and they deserve our full support.
As previous speakers have already graphically explained, this time last year Dumfries and Galloway was a virtual wasteland. A region that was famed for its livestock was almost denuded of it, as the aftermath of foot-and-mouth revealed its stark legacy. I described the area at the time as resembling a green desert, and that is almost exactly what it was: mile upon mile of empty fields where normally sheep and dairy and beef cattle roam in abundance. The area even seemed to be emptied of people, as the hundreds—if not thousands—who had come to assist in the cull left, but were not replaced by the holidaymakers who normally come at this time of year. In other words, those who did not usually come went, and those who usually came did not. At the time, there was a strange, eerie feeling, and it was a strange, eerie place to live in.
Even during those darkest of hours, the talk was of recovery. Farmers whose livestock had been culled planned restocking programmes; those whose livestock had not been culled had to plan a survival strategy, as, in many ways, they may have been the financial victims of foot-and-mouth.
The tourism industry, which is so vital to that region and to the Borders—to which Ian Jenkins rightly drew attention—wondered how it could survive a season that might never happen. In fact, it was a non-season, during which the industry's only lifelines were the offer of £5,000 interest-free loans from the enterprise company and a nine-month rates relief package from the council. The latter was a genuinely meaningful measure, but the former was a measure that was grasped because of desperation. Even as I speak, businesses are having to repay those loans, although some of them are still struggling to survive, never mind repay loans.
All the while, the message from the chamber, in countless ministerial speeches, was that Dumfries and Galloway would be treated as a special case. The then First Minister once bravely mentioned consequential compensation before those words were expunged from his dictionary. The message came across loud and clear: if people planned their strategies, the Executive would help them. To be fair, I do not doubt that some £25 million left the Executive's coffers in the direction of foot-and-mouth recovery. It is a tragedy that so little of that money reached the coalface, but that is the subject of another debate.
True to the modern ideal of working in partnership, the local council, the enterprise company, the tourist board and the Federation of Small Businesses produced a three-year recovery plan. Part of that plan involved a three-year tourism recovery strategy that was carefully designed to target the domestic short-break market in the hope of bringing about an autumn recovery last year, to be followed by a further two years of specifically targeted marketing. The amount of money involved was hardly huge. At the time, we described the situation as one in which tourism in Dumfries and Galloway had 90 per cent of the foot-and-mouth problem, but received only 10 per cent of the funding. Nonetheless, the three-year plan was put in place and it is important to note that the plan was approved and agreed by VisitScotland.
Alex Fergusson made a fundamental point. It had been everyone's understanding that VisitScotland had approved—or at least was well aware of—the three-year programme, and that, at the time, it recognised the continuing need to rekindle the tourism industry. Does he agree that that is why it is so regrettable that VisitScotland has not delivered the funding to the ATBs in the way they had anticipated?
The member is absolutely correct. I do not doubt that that argument is fundamental to the debate and to the motion. The fact that the plan was approved and agreed is important.
The plan was a great success, in that for every £1 spent on the campaign, £6.50 was brought back into the local economy. Alasdair Morgan rightly touched on that point. All those in the industry began to be buoyed up by the thought that perhaps they had the future that, at one time, they believed might not exist.
The obvious response by VisitScotland would surely have been to increase the funding in the wake of such success. The funding was a pitiful £280,000 for this year. However, VisitScotland's reaction was not to increase the funding. The funding was not cut by 10 or 15 per cent; it was cut off altogether. Is it any wonder that local reaction to that is one of utter devastation, that the talk is of betrayal and distrust and that the thinking is that this most rural of regions has been let down yet again by urban decision makers?
VisitScotland says that it can spend the money better, but can it prove a return of six and a half to one on its centralised schemes? VisitScotland will blame the Executive for cutting funding from £12 million to £4 million. The Executive will say, no doubt, that the distribution of VisitScotland's funding is a matter for that organisation. I inform members that the tourist operators of Dumfries and Galloway, and probably the Borders, do not care who is to blame or about the political niceties of the situation. They want the £280,000 that they were promised—I use that word advisedly—only last year in the wake of the greatest economic disaster that the region has ever seen.
The local tourist board once used a slogan that suggested that Dumfries and Galloway was Scotland's forgotten region. It is time that VisitScotland's short memory was reawakened by the Executive and that its promise was kept. I hope that the minister can tell us that the Executive will undertake here and now to ensure that VisitScotland honours its promise and that Dumfries and Galloway region is remembered again as the special case that it undoubtedly deserves to be. I support the motion.
I would like to start by associating myself with the remarks of David Mundell in respect of our colleague Adam Ingram who, I am sorry to learn, has been taken ill today. I hope that Mr Morgan will transmit to him all our good wishes for a speedy recovery.
I am grateful to Mr Mundell for securing this debate. It enables me to talk a bit about discussions that have been taking place on the matter. Obviously, as a local member in Dumfries and Galloway who was heavily involved, like other members from the region, in the foot-and-mouth crisis, it is sometimes difficult to look back and think how recently all that happened and how devastating it was to so many people in so many industries. It is a mark of the extraordinary fortitude of the people of Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders that they were able to pick themselves up, recover and work with a vision of a future, when it would have been so easy to slide down into the depths of despair.
I have met with several of the local stakeholder partners during the past few weeks and my colleague Mike Watson met with Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board on 20 May. As members will know, the First Minister visited the region on Monday and took the opportunity to meet with Norma Hart, the chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board, and Norma Findlay. He received a copy of a detailed analysis of how they spent last year's allocation, which totalled—when all partners were taken into consideration—something like £1.6 million. I am grateful to Mike Watson and the First Minister for the attention that they have given to the representations that they received on the matter and for bearing with my many complaints on the issue.
I would not like members to go away with the idea that I do not support what VisitScotland is doing in terms of product-based marketing, because I think that there are many values to places such as Dumfries and Galloway in an approach that looks at a particular strength of Scotland, whether that be hill walking, wildlife tourism or arts and heritage tourism. There is a particular strength in that type of marketing because it flags up what Scotland is good at and, by advertising the product, benefits those regions that might be less well known. For example, Dumfries and Galloway might be less well known for hill walking than the Highlands. We in the south of Scotland know of and appreciate the strengths of our region, but other people may not know about them. Product-based marketing gives the opportunity for those strengths to be flagged up.
The First Minister made an announcement in Dumfries on Monday about the eco-tourism co-ordinator. As David Mundell rightly said, the funding comes from rural development department money from last year. The eco-tourism project is aimed particularly at helping farmers to diversify into tourism. Therefore, the money will be available for grants to promote an eco-tourism product. We want to enable people to diversify and enable farmers to become involved in environmental discussions. The initiative is not the same as niche market tourism; it is a different project. I am grateful to the rural development department for making available that money, which was disbursed through VisitScotland. I am sure that that project will bear great fruit and I was grateful that the First Minister took the time to launch it.
There is an increasing interest in eco-tourism. Although another area tourist board will take the lead on the niche marketing of eco-tourism, it is important that we develop it in Dumfries and Galloway for reasons that include the fact that we have the biggest wetland area in Scotland and therefore have a particular product that we can advertise.
Tourism is one of Scotland's most important industries, accounting for £4 billion of expenditure and 200,000 tourism related jobs, which make up around 8 per cent of the work force. Of course, it is much more important in rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway, where it accounts for more than 11 per cent of employment. One of the ironies of the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak was that Dumfries and Galloway's two most important industries, agriculture and tourism, were both badly affected.
From the conversations that I have had with colleagues, I know that Scottish ministers recognise that Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders were particularly badly affected by the outbreak. That is one of the reasons why a lot of money was put into the area last year, including £1.65 million from the Scottish Tourist Board, which I believe has been put to good use. I was impressed with the detailed analysis that Dumfries and Galloway area tourist board has made of the money that has been allocated.
The minister accepts that that money has been wisely spent, but does she accept that it was part of a planned three-year programme of identification of markets and that it must be followed up or else the £1.6 million that was spent last year will be good money down the drain?
I am coming to a point that might be of interest to the member.
Mike Watson and I have listened to the views that have been expressed to us and have considered them carefully. As I said, Mike Watson and the First Minister have met the ATB and have listened to what Norma Hart said. All of us, including VisitScotland, are agreed that the Dumfries and Galloway foot-and-mouth disease recovery plan should be funded from additional resources that we will endeavour to make available through VisitScotland. We want to do that and we will make sure that it happens. That will enable the area tourist board to proceed with additional marketing to follow through the work that was undertaken last year and earlier this year.
Would the minister repeat what she has just said, but include the Borders this time?
Mike Watson and I have been able to examine the detailed report that was provided by the Dumfries and Galloway area tourist board. If the Borders area tourist board could provide us with similar written evidence, we will give it the same sort of consideration.
It is important to build on what has already been achieved and I hope to see the benefit of the continued recovery of tourism in Dumfries and Galloway. That recovery has already been good, but I strongly believe that additional support is required to enable the recovery to continue and allow the region to get to the point that it would have been at if the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak had never happened.
I am convinced that VisitScotland's approach of product-based marketing will bring dividends for this country and for the less well known remote and rural areas. That will provide an opportunity to showcase and benefit the south of Scotland, which I still firmly believe does not get the credit and recognition that it should in tourism.
I hope that members will be reassured that we have taken the subject very seriously. I am very grateful for the support that has been offered to me on this matter by my colleague Mike Watson and by the First Minister. We will be doing our utmost to enable the recovery in Dumfries and Galloway to continue.
Meeting closed at 17:50.