Tourism and the Economy
Today is an Opposition day, with two Scottish National Party debates.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Since the Minister for Environment and Rural Development gave his previous statement to the Parliament on foot-and-mouth disease, an enormous amount has changed, both on the ground in Dumfries and Galloway and in relation to national policy. Given that tomorrow's discussion on the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) (No 2) Bill is liable to fall short of its time, is it in order to ask the minister to give a full statement to the Parliament on the foot-and-mouth crisis?
It is always in order to ask for statements, but they are out of my hands. However, I can advise you that I have already selected an open question to the First Minister on foot-and-mouth disease for tomorrow, as is my prerogative. Therefore, members will have an opportunity to discuss the matter.
We come now to motion S1M-1797, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on tourism and the economy. There are two amendments to the motion. Judging by the number of members who have already indicated that they want to take part in the debate, we will be tight for time.
We are delighted that the apparently overworked and overwrought minister—if the papers are to be believed—is with us today. How could I possibly quibble with such an impeccable source? I wonder whether the Executive is now utilising the traditional Mutt and Jeff routine. When bad news is to be issued, or a committee stonewalled, Mutt is sent. However, when apparent largesse is to be dispensed, or credit sought, Jeff appears.
Normally, when goodies are being dispensed by Governments, it is done in well-trailed and well-trumpeted statements. Lo and behold, in this case, a written answer to a hurriedly written Labour patsy's question is followed by the minister responding in a debate initiated by the Opposition.
Excuse me.
That simply confirms—
Excuse me. Will the member give way?
Give way.
Are you giving way, Mr MacAskill?
I am not giving way.
On a point of order.
That simply confirms—
Order. Sorry, Mr MacAskill—there is a point of order. I hope that it is a point of order, Dr Murray.
Yes, it is a point of order. Is it in order for that gentleman there to insult me across the chamber? Is that in order?
I am sorry, but I did not hear anything. What was the remark that you are objecting to?
I am objecting to being called a patsy. I asked a question of the Executive that was extremely relevant to my constituency.
Yes, but—[Interruption.] Order. That is not in dispute, but what was the remark that you are objecting to?
I object to being called a patsy.
A party?
A patsy.
We treat each other with courtesy, Mr MacAskill, so that was not quite in order.
That simply—[Interruption.] May I continue?
On you go.
That simply confirms what we on this side of the chamber and many outwith it have feared. Despite the fact that a national crisis in tourism has been brewing, the Executive has been sleepwalking through it.
We appreciate that the principal cause of the crisis is the foot-and-mouth epidemic. However, it would be remiss of us not to point out that problems in tourism have been endemic under this Administration, as a result of Labour's high pound and high fuel cost policy. There is, and has been, a need for urgency and action. However, what we have now is both belated and inadequate. No one is surprised by what has been proposed by the Executive—after all, most of it has already been intimated south of the border.
Rates relief was documented last week in England. We do not think that that is adequate—and we will go into detail on that. Why did we have to wait? The crisis is not simply about the loss of revenue, but about the loss of jobs. It is not simply a rural problem, but an all-Scotland problem. That is disclosed when we consider the scenario that is faced by Edinburgh zoo. It is not in a high-risk area and it is the third most visited attraction in Scotland. Yet, if it remains closed next month as well as this, it will have lost £0.5 million, and 50 employees who would have started next month will remain idle. That is why we need urgency and action, not belated and inadequate gestures.
What is on offer? The offer is rates relief, not rates exemption. The buck has once again been passed to local authorities. The offer is restricted to rateable values up to £12,000. Moreover, it is restricted by local authority area. Stirling and Argyll are included, but Dunbartonshire is excluded. Has Loch Lomond moved? Are the bonnie banks now restricted to somewhere around Balloch? East Lothian is in, but Edinburgh is out. How does that deal with Edinburgh zoo? It is absurd. The proposals are belated and inadequate.
What must be done? First, we need immediate measures to address the crisis. We have the worst situation tourism in Scotland has ever known; yet it was only yesterday that the new chairman of visitscotland was appointed. Moreover, when a steady hand is needed on the tiller, the minister can tell us that a new chief executive will be appointed within a fortnight, but is apparently unable to tell us when he or she will actually be able to start work on a day-to-day basis. Some crisis management.
The Government tells us that an advertising campaign will ensue—but no wonder, because misinformation and disinformation are the cause of a significant element of the difficulties. Abroad, it took until last week, apparently, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to instruct British representatives in a clear, coherent and consistent line.
Meanwhile, at home, problems in the countryside were exacerbated by conflicting messages from a multiplicity of offices—even Government quangos were not consistent in their actions and advice. Why did not the Executive ensure that quangos in Scotland spoke with one clear, coherent and consistent voice? It is no wonder that into that void entered mistruth, rumour and gossip. It is for that reason that the Executive must ensure that it gets a clear, coherent and consistent message across.
In the 21st century the mass media are television and radio. The Executive can ensure that it produces public information broadcasts about lagging pipes in winter and arranging flu vaccinations for the elderly. Why cannot it address the matter of public information broadcasts about the crisis? For an Executive that is so obsessed with spin, it is sadly lacking in substance on that matter.
Measures must be taken to safeguard the industry through the immediate crisis. The current announcements are better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but they fail to provide the answer for many businesses and individuals throughout the length and breadth of the country.
The measures that the SNP proposes come with a cost but—as has been admitted—we have a national crisis. That is why the resources for those measures must come from the UK national reserve. A sensible individual puts money aside for a rainy day and a prudent Chancellor of the Exchequer sets aside funds for national emergencies. We have a national emergency. If individuals become unemployed and businesses close, tax and national insurance contributions are not paid and VAT is not received. Moreover, claims for social security will follow. We must invest in our industry in order to harvest a return; that would merely be prudent.
Why not remove the burden of rates from businesses for the months of April, May and June? Those months are fast approaching and they follow a winter close-down. There is no money in businesses' banks and, in many instances, there is little prospect of visitors coming through their doors. Those businesses cannot pay out what they have not taken in. It is not the granting of relief that is needed, but the lifting of the burden.
Not everybody will benefit from rates relief—some businesses will be above the threshold and will be excluded from rates relief. However, bankruptcy beckons the big businesses as much as it does the small businesses—another Labour poverty trap. Many individuals and some businesses do not pay business rates, but they still face the possibility that they will go under. A hardship fund is needed as much for the mountain guides in Glencoe as it is for the zoo in Edinburgh. Both are in difficulties, both need our assistance and both are currently neglected. Interest-free loans must be made available, as must financial and practical support for a marketing drive that will allow businesses to contact known customers. Those are among a range of measures that are not simply a wish list from the Opposition; they are the demands of the tourism industry, which met the Executive recently.
Measures must be put in place to secure the coming summer season, including a proper marketing strategy with an adequate marketing budget. There is no point in sounding a fanfare for the new chief executive of visitscotland if the situation remains that the marketing budget of the Irish Tourist Board is greater than the entire budget of the Scottish Tourist Board. In addition, visitscotland must move from being a regulatory body to becoming a marketing organisation. There is a national obligation to sell Scotland.
Finally, for the coming and future seasons the matter is not only about the marketing of Scotland, but about access to Scotland. The shameful attitude displayed by the Executive towards air links and other modes of transport must end. We need visitors from overseas to come to Scotland directly, not as daytrippers from London. It is shameful that, under this Administration, less than 3 per cent of US visitors to the UK enter through a Scottish airport.
In summary, the SNP makes no apology for being hard on the minister and her parliamentary colleagues, because there is a crisis in our land and they have been dilatory. Although we are grateful to the minister for indulging us with her attendance, we think that it is shameful that it is only because the SNP recognises the crisis and has initiated the debate that she is here.
The package that has been announced is paltry. Scotland the Brand is wilting, and the minister has, so far, been tried and found wanting. The minister must return to the chamber in early course and in proper fashion, to make a ministerial statement to announce a package of measures that is adequate for the crisis in hand. If not, it is she who must go, not the tourism industry.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the grave impact which the foot-and-mouth crisis is having on the tourism industry; believes that conflicting information about the disease both at home and abroad further jeopardises Scottish tourism; believes that more must be done to secure the future of the tourism industry and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to implement the following recovery plan— (i) immediate action to enable and ensure efficient crisis management, including a public information campaign through the press and broadcast media to make people aware of what can and cannot be done in the crisis; (ii) interim support measures to prevent bankruptcy throughout the duration of the crisis including a rates relief package for the months of April, May and June; interest free loans for affected industries and an exemption to be sought by the Scottish Executive from Her Majesty's Treasury for VAT and National Insurance contributions over a similar period for crisis-affected industries; and (iii) a recovery strategy to ensure the success of the summer tourist season, beginning immediately and including an emergency Scottish advertising campaign in all key markets.
Before I call the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning to respond, I will return to the point of order that was raised by Dr Elaine Murray. I must admit that during Mr MacAskill's opening, I was busy writing down the names of those who wanted to be called, and I did not hear what he said.
I do not want to go down the road of Westminster and rule certain words out of order in the chamber, because I do not think that that is right. There are debating circumstances in which the word "patsy" might well be in order, but I draw members' attention to rule 7.3.1:
"Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner".
In a situation where the member with the constituency that is most affected by foot-and-mouth asked a written question, she had a legitimate point of order, and I find Mr MacAskill in breach of that courtesy requirement.
I will use my speech to respond to the crisis in the tourism industry. That is important because of the extreme difficulties that many Scottish businesses are facing as a result of foot-and-mouth. I note that Elaine Murray, as the local MSP for Dumfries, has been in almost daily contact with my office with an update about the severity of the crisis that that part of the country is facing. There is no doubt about the seriousness of the crisis. In the past 24 hours, I have met representatives of the industry and, this morning, I met the new leadership of visitscotland; no one was in any doubt that what was required of the Parliament and of the nation as a whole was unity in tackling what is a crisis without precedent.
Let me leave aside the partisanship for the moment and talk about the announcement of an emergency relief package that my colleague Angus MacKay and I were pleased to make this morning. Before I outline that package, I wish to say that the Parliament has the opportunity to respond in a more effective way than is possible in other parts of the United Kingdom.
We have one ministerial committee, which brings together Ross Finnie's expertise in agriculture and the environment, the work of my department on tourism and enterprise, and finance and local government interests. We have shorter lines of communication, which helps us to respond more effectively. We have seen the advantages of that in how it has allowed the crisis to be isolated in an agricultural context. Locally in Scotland, we also have the opportunity to respond more effectively and to be closer to the ground through the existence of the enterprise network and the area tourist boards. We do not have the difficulties that are faced in other parts of the UK, where responsibilities are split between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Small Business Service.
Scotland is calling for a degree of unity in how we respond and it is calling for financial support. We have therefore announced today a Scotland-specific package of additional resources, which the Executive has found to respond to the crisis. I stress that the package is an emergency one, which deals with the entirety of the rural economy and not only with the impact of the crisis on the tourism or agriculture industries. We are clear that a longer-term response will be needed, but this measure lets us rise to the emergency.
I will outline what that package involves. We are going to find it necessary to get the revenue line back up. The way to deal with the crisis is to get people to come back to Scotland, so we are making £5 million available to visitscotland to refocus the marketing campaign and to emphasise the message that we were asked to emphasise, which is that Scotland is open for business. We can and we are addressing the issue of public information. "The Comeback Code" is published widely in the newspapers and resources are now available if visitscotland wants to take it into the broadcasting arena.
Does the minister agree that the problem is not only financial? Financial support is important for the tourism industry in this critical situation, but part of the problem is a lack of accurate information about access to the countryside. Will she please get the message across to potential visitors from home and abroad that the Scottish countryside, or at least most of it, is open, despite the difficulties that certain areas are facing because of the foot-and-mouth crisis?
I agree whole-heartedly with the member. We have "The Comeback Code", and we have been in discussions with the tourism industry about how we promote that information. There is already a press campaign and we are making an additional £5 million available to visitscotland to promote the code. Indeed, the First Minister, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and I will next week be in the United States, which is our largest market, to get the message across internationally.
Will that information be included in television and radio broadcasts, particularly local ones?
We have asked visitscotland to consider that. We made £5 million of additional money available this morning. We have asked visitscotland to consider how "The Comeback Code" provisions can be widely disseminated to one and all, including those who work in the tourism industry and potential visitors.
I will deal with the other parts of the package. One problem is that the crisis now affects all rural Scotland. The local butcher or taxi firm is as likely to be as affected as the local tourist business or bed and breakfast. For that reason, we are asking the enterprise network to run a series of initiatives on our survival packages for businesses. Those survival measures introduce initiatives for cash-flow management and for dealing with creditors. They also introduce additional business advisers and bespoke sector-by-sector schemes.
We are introducing a rates relief package that suits Scottish circumstances. We make no apology for meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and working out how we get right the details of a scheme that will provide a hardship package of 95 per cent for some businesses that have been affected by the crisis. I correct the point that was made earlier. In every affected part of Scotland, there will be 75 per cent relief for those businesses that have access to the scheme. Instead of going into the details of that, I will move on and talk about what else we have done.
Will the minister confirm that the percentage of businesses in Scotland with a rateable value of more than £12,000 is 86 per cent, which proves that only 14 per cent of businesses—according to the Executive's figures and as confirmed by the Federation of Small Businesses this lunch time—will benefit from the measures that she is introducing at the top end of the relief? Will she reconsider that?
I do not recognise Mr Hamilton's figures on the number of businesses that will be included. What is critical—we make no apology for this—is that the relief is targeted at the smallest businesses, which we all know face the most acute cash-flow difficulties.
Will the minister give way?
The minister is in the last minute of her speech. No more interventions can be taken.
The package of emergency relief is available. Yesterday, we put in place new leadership for visitscotland. Those people have industry expertise that stretches back many years and they want to take forward leadership of the industry. We were asked to introduce plans to deal with a rates relief scheme, which we have done. We were asked to support a Scottish Tourist Board recovery plan, which we have done. We were asked to ensure that visitscotland provided industry leadership, which we have done. We were asked to work with Whitehall colleagues to get the message out internationally, which we have done. Ministers are travelling abroad next week.
We were asked to seek the support of the enterprise network to ensure that the initiative covers all Scotland, which we have done. We were asked for a hardship fund for visitor attractions and we have instructed the enterprise network to consider that. We were asked to relax the Benefits Agency's procedures, which has been done around the UK. We were asked to encourage landowners to reopen access. We have announced "The Comeback Code" and we are using visitscotland to get the message across. All that is happening.
I say to the Opposition that I have no desire—and I detect no desire out there in Scotland or in the industry—to turn the issue into a political football. It is rich for the SNP to call on Gordon Brown for a handout, given that last Friday—merely five days ago—the party published its tax plans, which devoted not a penny to extra support for tourism. The SNP's taxation document says that
"new measures to increase the overall burden of taxation or increase the rate of income tax"
will not happen
"without consulting the people first".
Before we scream for £100 million—as Kenny MacAskill did a few moments ago on television—and before we make such claims for uncosted promises, we should say where we would find that money. The Executive has found the money to bring the relief to the tourist industry in Scotland. There is a desire for unity out there. We are keen to make progress on the basis of unity and not to make false promises to those whom the crisis has affected. If the SNP wants £100 million, why did it publish a tax plan five days ago that did not suggest how that would be funded?
I move amendment S1M-1797.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"recognises the impact of the Foot and Mouth outbreak on the tourism industry; welcomes the Executive's measures to minimise the effect on tourism through public information; endorses the support to businesses in the form of hardship relief, and supports the commitment to appropriate and effective marketing by visitscotland."
Mr MacAskill's buccaneering language and swaggering demeanour come as no surprise to the chamber. However, when I read his motion, I felt that in some respects it did not go far enough, which surprised me. His analysis of the problem that confronts Scotland is inadequate and the remedy that he proposes is unfocused. That is why I felt it appropriate to lodge an amendment in my name, which I hope encompasses the Conservative party's concerns.
Tourism employs about 180,000 people throughout Scotland and injects approximately £2.5 billion into the Scottish economy annually. Tourism is a giant in the Scottish economy. The sector provides about one in every 15 Scottish jobs, compared with one in 18 jobs in the UK as a whole. That demonstrates the significance of the industry to Scotland. However, in recent years, the giant has been, far from striding forward and going from strength to strength, visibly limping. With the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Scotland, that giant has been brought to its knees with its head bloodied. Something has to be done.
The crisis in Dumfries and Galloway, with all the appalling consequences for those who are caught up in it, should not by cack-handed incompetence and crass confusion be translated into and represented as a national disaster for Scotland. The Scottish Executive and the relevant tourist agencies have been the instruments of that confusion, either by generating it themselves or by allowing to go unchecked and uncorrected the deeply damaging images and misinformation about Scotland that are presented by other countries worldwide.
Before we lecture other countries, we have to get our house in order. Two things have to be done immediately. We should acknowledge publicly where the heart of the problem is—Dumfries and Galloway—and designate that as a crisis area. Urgent and emergency help should be focused on business in that area by establishing a moratorium, by which I mean a deferral, not a cancellation, of liability. There should be a moratorium on liability for business rates and council tax where the business is run from the personal dwelling house of the business owner and a moratorium on liability for payment of national taxes.
Annabel Goldie began by stating that the Conservative amendment goes further than the SNP motion, but she now states that a moratorium means deferment—it does not mean a rates amnesty or the waiving of any element of business rates; it merely means a putting-off or a deferment. Surely that shows that her amendment does not go as far as the SNP motion. Her amendment does not address the immediate hardship that businesses in Dumfriesshire and elsewhere will face.
I disagree with Mr Ewing. My amendment is different from the SNP motion in that it is a little more responsible. I am trying to further the debate on how we focus help where it is needed now. We need to be utterly blunt on where the problem area in Scotland is.
We should provide a moratorium on the liability for business rates and a moratorium on the liability for payment of national taxes such as value added tax, the employer's element of pay as you earn, national insurance contributions, income tax and, as appropriate, corporation tax. If we provide for the establishment of a hardship loans scheme to address the cash-flow problem that faces many essentially sound businesses in that designated crisis area, the provision of interest-free funding will, in my opinion, go a long way towards arresting the imminent closure of many businesses that are now in their death-throes.
Having identified where the heart of the problem is in Scotland, we must take action to market robustly and vigorously the positive scene in the rest of Scotland, where tourism can safely be encouraged and visitors and holidaymakers be made welcome.
Will the member give way?
I am short of time and there are still two or three points that I wish to make.
Only by being totally frank about a very difficult situation in part of Scotland can we convincingly become positive about the many opportunities that exist for the remainder of Scotland.
For tourism in general, and for the businesses in the crisis area, the time for words, initiatives, statements and declarations is over. If the giant that tourism is to our economy is not immediately revived with the recuperative measures that I have mentioned, it will not rise again. Indeed, it will not be present in any recognisable form.
I find myself uneasy with the Executive amendment, which seems unfocused and imprecise in what it seeks to do. I appreciate that some flesh was put on the Executive's plans in the minister's press statement this morning, which was made in response to the parliamentary question lodged by Dr Elaine Murray. However, although I am glad that we have £13.5 million to address the problems, my concern is that the help that is necessary in Dumfries and Galloway is unlikely to be provided quickly or in a focused manner by the enterprise network. To give visitscotland £5 million at this stage is not the best way of providing immediate help to the ailing businesses that are confronting such great problems. The aspect of the statement that I welcome is the increased provision for rates relief, which is why I phrased the amendment as I did.
I move amendment S1M-1797.1, to leave out from "on the tourism industry" to end and insert:
"in Scotland on the tourism industry and businesses within the affected areas; believes that conflicting information about the disease, both at home and abroad, further jeopardises Scottish tourism; further believes that more must be done to secure the future of the tourism industry, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to implement the following recovery plan for tourism and businesses within the affected areas: (i) immediate action to enable and ensure efficient crisis management, including a public information campaign through the press and broadcast media to make people aware of what can and cannot be done during the crisis, (ii) a moratorium on liability for business rates and council tax, (iii) a moratorium to be sought by the Scottish Executive from HM Treasury on liability for payment of national taxes, (iv) the establishment of a designated crisis area within the local authority area of Dumfries and Galloway to which the foregoing moratoria would apply, (v) the establishment of a hardship loan scheme to address the problem of cash flow facing many essentially sound businesses in the designated crisis area and (vi) a robust recovery strategy to be implemented by the Scottish Executive and relative agencies to market Scotland as a world class tourist destination."
The crisis strikes at the heart of Scotland's rural economy, because agriculture and tourism are fundamentally interlinked. We can see from the knock-on effects of the foot-and-mouth epidemic in agriculture that rural tourism is bearing the brunt of the crisis.
I welcome the measures that have been announced today to help the tourist industry, but I seek clarification on some points. First, on the rates relief scheme, how do businesses demonstrate hardship? Is it through the size of their overdrafts or through the number of outstanding bills? What criteria should businesses use when they ask for rates relief?
Secondly, devastating damage has been done to our overseas markets by the publicity and comments in the media. What action will the minister take, especially in the American market? Will there be a Scottish marketing strategy, or a UK strategy, to rebut the damaging reports that have come out?
Thirdly, the package is a broad one that covers the whole of Scotland. Although I am sure that the members from Dumfries and Galloway will speak for that area, I say on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that, once the foot-and-mouth crisis has been resolved, Dumfries and Galloway needs much more than the package offers. I hope that the Executive will undertake to consider closely putting together another package that will deal specifically with that area, once we have controls in place.
To clarify that point, which has come up twice, the Executive is seized of the need to consider, on a UK basis, the special case of Dumfries and Galloway, along with the other areas that have been profoundly affected by the crisis. That is being considered at the moment. We will not carve money out of the settlement for Dumfries and Galloway, which we recognise is a special case.
That is good news for those in Dumfries and Galloway who are suffering severe hardship as a result of the disaster.
Although many businesses will welcome the support measures that have been announced, the reality is that the package will just hold the industry together—it will not solve the fundamental problem. As I said, tourism and agriculture are inextricably linked; the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth is crucial to the recovery of both. The two issues cannot be separated—control and eradication is an essential prerequisite to the return to normal of the tourism industry.
People who seek to imply that agriculture should be sacrificed to save tourism or that tourism has been forced to pay the price for agriculture are ignorant or naive. They do not understand that agriculture and tourism in rural Scotland are fundamentally interlinked. We cannot separate them and blame the problems of one on the other—such propositions are ridiculous. It should be recognised that the bed-and-breakfast owners in places such as Islay and Mull are also the farmers and crofters. Indeed, that is the case throughout much of rural Scotland.
Those who try to turn agriculture and tourism against each other in this crisis are fundamentally wrong. It is an urban view of the world to say that tourism can flourish without farming and crofting. I do not believe that that view is right. The foot-and-mouth crisis has brought home to us all just how interlinked the industries are. The salvation of both will be the control and eradication of this most hellish disease as quickly as possible.
I welcome the aid package as a step forward in the attempt to hold the tourism industry together. However, the solution for tourist businesses is to get business back through the door. Everyone wants people to come and use those businesses. That can be achieved only by getting control of foot-and-mouth and by ensuring that it is eradicated as soon as possible. Even getting control of it will let the message go out that things are starting to get back to normal. I believe that that will be the salvation of both the tourist industry and the agriculture industry, which lie side by side.
Mr MacAskill's attitude in today's debate and at yesterday's Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee meeting has been an utter disgrace. He is desperate to make political capital out of a crisis. He puts politics first and the plight of the industry second and, as we have seen today, he uses personal abuse as a substitute for policy.
We come now to the open debate. If everyone who wants to speak is to be called, we must be tight on time, at four minutes apiece. I call Alex Neil.
I am speaking as the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, which is responsible for tourism.
I am afraid that your time limit is still four minutes.
Okay.
I will deal with the substantive points, but I begin by saying, in a non-partisan way, that I think that the measures that were announced should have been the subject of a ministerial statement, with members having the opportunity to ask detailed questions. I hope that we will have that opportunity in the not-too-distant future.
We are now facing a crisis in the tourism sector. In his evidence to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee yesterday, Alasdair Morrison suggested that, in Scotland alone, between £100 million and £300 million-worth of business could be lost this year. That is a substantial negative impact on the Scottish tourist industry. I ask that, in their negotiations with the Treasury, ministers give serious consideration to the suspension of air passenger duty as a clear message to the international community that we are open for business and can attract tourists into Scotland. I realise that that may involve a substantial cost, but that measure alone would give a clear indication to international tourists that we want to see them here in Scotland, and indeed in other parts of the UK.
I have a number of specific points about Wendy Alexander's measures. Leaving aside whether the figures that Duncan Hamilton mentioned are absolutely right, which I believe they are, the minister told him that the aid is targeted at small businesses. We need to know what is meant by small businesses, because many of the businesses affected might, under certain definitions, be considered medium-sized businesses. All those businesses are absolutely vital to the economic lifeline of rural Scotland. If we define small businesses as businesses that employ fewer than 50 people, well over 90 per cent of the businesses in Scotland are small businesses. However, it seems as though less than 20 per cent of them will qualify for relief. That issue must be addressed seriously.
We need to know about the knock-on effect on local authority expenditure of that hardship relief and whether local authorities will be reimbursed by the Executive on a pound-for-pound basis.
The Executive has allocated £5 million to Scottish Enterprise. I do not believe that Scottish Enterprise's priority should be to send in more business counsellors and more advisers. People do not need a diagnosis of their problem; they need hard cash, now, as part of the solution. I would like a good chunk of that £5 million to be allocated to provide interest-free loans to businesses in crisis, with flexible repayment terms, as that is the kind of hard cash that businesses need now.
Ministers should try to persuade the Treasury to offset tax losses this year and for at least another one or two years, so that people do not come under pressure from the Inland Revenue in the months ahead.
The emphasis of the debate has been on tourism businesses, but we must not forget the people who are employed in tourism and related sectors. This is not only about the proprietors of businesses; it is about people who work in the businesses and are adversely affected. I ask the minister to consider taking additional measures, on top of the changes to the jobseekers allowance that were announced at UK level.
Alex Neil said that he was speaking on behalf of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
I said that I was speaking as convener of the committee.
Right. So Alex Neil is not speaking on behalf of the committee.
I am trying to make constructive suggestions on the way out of the crisis.
I will finish with another constructive suggestion. The minister should consider using other measures to help, such as the partnership action for continuing employment programme, which is usually applied where there are large-scale redundancies. A small-scale version of that in rural areas is urgently required to ensure that we maximise job opportunities for those who are affected by the crisis.
Alex Neil benefited from following Kenny MacAskill, because anything that he said was bound to sound reasonable after Kenny MacAskill's astonishing speech. Kenny MacAskill is becoming the Calimero of the SNP, saying, "Oh, woe is me. The world is falling upon my shoulders. I cannot say anything positive; I cannot be constructive about anything." Hard on the heels of trying to bankrupt the Scottish economy with wild and uncosted spending on roads, he now wants us to write the biggest blank cheque that Scotland has ever seen. I found it intriguing that the Tories and SNP were arguing, "Our blank cheque is bigger than your blank cheque."
I am not going to enter into a debate on comparative grossness; I think that I would come off poorly. If Mr Henry were to read my amendment, he would find that I am trying to achieve the opposite effect of Mr MacAskill's uncosted spend commitment. My amendment makes it clear that our spend commitments are contained and quantifiable.
I understand why Annabel Goldie does not want to be associated with anything that Kenny MacAskill has said.
There is an obligation on us to consider the seriousness of the situation, which affects many parts of Scotland. Unless we are directly affected—my area is not—we cannot begin to understand the devastation that many people in Dumfries and Galloway must feel. Equally, I cannot begin to understand the fear and anxiety that must apply in other parts of rural Scotland at the prospect of the disease spreading.
I can well begin to understand the fear and anxiety of some of the small tourism-related businesses in my area. They want support and assistance from the Parliament, in two ways. One is—as Alex Neil said—hard cash. I welcome the commitment that the minister made, which was a direct response to the seriousness of the situation.
No thanks, Duncan.
Businesses also expect the Parliament to make some positive noises about what is happening. We have a duty to be careful about the language that we use. We must talk Scotland up. We must stop promoting fear, as that message goes abroad. The misrepresentation in the press, not only in this country but elsewhere, is alarming. The press feed on careless remarks made by members of the Parliament. We must be careful about what we are saying. We must get across the message that Scotland is open for business. We want to promote the country and welcome people to it. Clearly, we will want to stand up for Scotland, unlike those who want to talk it down.
It is incumbent on the Executive to introduce practical measures. I welcome the minister's statement that this is not the end of the story and that there will be further assistance for Dumfries and Galloway and others directly affected. This debate shows the difference not only between the destructive and the constructive elements in the Parliament, but between those who are willing to abandon the people who are most in need of help and those who are willing to support them.
Members should reflect on the fact that this debate is being transmitted live. People are watching it in their homes in Dumfries and Galloway—some farmers have been holed up for five or six months—and we must think about how they perceive what their parliamentarians are doing about their problems.
In that vein, I want to dissociate myself wholly from Kenny MacAskill's opening remarks. No parliamentary constituency in Scotland has been more affected by foot-and-mouth disease than Dumfries, and Dr Murray has worked alongside SNP members such as Mr Alasdair Morgan to resolve the real difficulties that people are facing in that area. However, I want to associate myself with Mr Fergusson's earlier point of order. It is not helpful for Mr Finnie to decline to make a statement about the current foot-and-mouth situation, which has changed markedly since he spoke in the chamber last Thursday.
Although this debate is focused on tourism, the issue is wider in Dumfries and Galloway and affects every business and individual. A general depression has descended on the area, and I am afraid to say that the culling operation is intrusive and again affects everyone. I am very pleased that the minister is coming to Dumfries and Galloway next week and hope that she will ensure that, where employment opportunities arise during the operation, local people will be preferred. There is some concern that contractors from outside the area have been brought in while local people who have been laid off because of the crisis are not securing employment.
I am happy to give that assurance to David Mundell and Alex Neil. The skills budget of the enterprise agency allows us to change and relax the conditions for the training to work scheme, which will in turn allow people affected by the crisis to participate in the scheme much earlier than normal and on different terms.
I thank the minister for that information. I hope that, by Monday, she will have some further detail about the special arrangements for Dumfries and Galloway. Yesterday, the deputy minister helpfully indicated that the local enterprise agency would receive more support, but this crisis is on such a scale that we need some out-of-the-box thinking to turn it around. I do not want to see the usual suspects implementing the same old schemes and packages. We must consider innovative solutions to this crisis. It would be wrong not to reflect on the fact that, even before the crisis happened, the tourist industry in Dumfries and Galloway and other parts of rural Scotland was in difficulty.
Wendy Alexander needs to resolve some issues such as the future of area tourist boards, their relationships with visitscotland and whether they can be membership organisations. Such fundamental issues for the future of tourism are helpfully identified in a survey that Alex Fergusson and I undertook earlier this year, a copy of which is available in the Scottish Parliament information centre if any member is interested.
There is a need for a specific hardship fund for businesses that face imminent closure. Such visitor attractions include the Kirkcudbright wildlife park, which, although it is not caught up in the foot-and-mouth crisis, has had no visitors. It is a small operation; however, the animals cannot be moved and without funding they will simply have to be put down. Although I welcome some aspects of this package, I cannot make a final comment on it until I have seen the detail of it as it will affect people on the ground in Dumfries and Galloway.
I apologise for missing Kenny MacAskill's opening speech. I was involved in a press conference on behalf of the Health and Community Care Committee. However, I understand that I did not miss much. My colleagues inform me that it was the same speech that he usually trots out, but with slightly different verbs, adjectives and nouns. That is a pity, as I hope that the one thing that will come out of this debate, in the summing-up speeches, is a clear and unanimous message that Scotland is open for business. If that message does not go out, but is confounded by anything that the Opposition parties say in their summing-up, that will be a great pity.
Let us make no mistake: the impact on the tourism industry, of which many members have spoken, is enormous. A trade survey for the Argyll, the Isles, Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs Tourist Board recently reported that four out of five tourism businesses have reported losses in turnover. The average loss per business is already nearly £6,000, and some businesses have lost between £70,000 and £30,000. The overall loss to businesses in the tourist board area so far amounts to some £10 million.
Is Richard Simpson aware of the announcement from the Argyll, the Isles, Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs Tourist Board that states:
"Within the last 48 hours one of our local coaching hotel operators who owns 5 hotels has confirmed the loss of £220,000 in forward bookings and one of our outdoor activity operators who specialises in providing walking holidays for the German and North American market has notified us that he has laid off 7 people due to massive cancellations"?
The tourist board is receiving reports of cancellations right through to October, which shows the scale of the difficulties that the Stirling area is facing.
Bruce Crawford is reading from the same letter that I have received, from James Fraser, which says exactly that.
No member in this chamber doubts that the situation is having a major impact throughout Scotland, especially in rural areas where the effects on tourism are enormous. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we are considering the problem in a rational way and providing immediate short-term help. I presume that the SNP will welcome that in its closing speech. The hardship fund is there for small and medium enterprises and the rates relief will be applied.
Will Dr Simpson give way?
No. I am sorry, but I do not have time. I have already allowed one member to intervene, and he pinched part of my speech.
We are talking to the banks. It is important that we involve the private sector in this, and that the banks are urged to do their bit to support small businesses. Some of the banks have already announced their support, and I hope that, through the discussions between the minister and the banks, that will continue. The banks can make a major contribution to alleviating the immediate cash-flow problems that these people face, as Alex Neil mentioned.
If the £5 million given to visitscotland allows us to advance its action plan and publicise the fact that we are open for business, I hope that that will have a significant effect in getting rid of some of the appalling publicity that we have received overseas. That has been beyond belief in some cases. Some of the website coverage in America has been ridiculous and inappropriate, and the factual errors in it are enormous. We must correct that situation as far as we can.
I welcome the minister's announcements and I call on the SNP to support the measures that we have taken. I welcome Alex Neil's speech, which was measured and tempered, and I am sure that the minister will respond to it appropriately. However, if the Parliament does not show unanimity in its support for "The Comeback Code" and the announcement that we are open for business, we will have done a disservice to the people of Scotland.
I do not believe that any member in this chamber, or anyone in the public galleries, does not feel the greatest sympathy for our rural communities at this time of crisis. Because I come from a rural background and represent a rural community, my heart goes out to those who represent the areas that have been worst affected—such as Dr Murray and my colleague Mr Morgan, who is in London today—and to the people in the Borders. I understand that, just before we came into the chamber, a further case of the disease was confirmed in the Borders community.
I speak with a great deal of feeling on this issue, especially as I think of the impact of what is happening throughout our communities. As someone said earlier, tourism and agriculture are inextricably linked. Our small businesses—not only in our rural communities but in our cities—are dependent on those areas. I know that all of us could talk at length about the situation in our constituencies, but a few brief phone calls that I made today indicated that in the Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey enterprise area, the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak has resulted in a loss of 7,650 tourism visitors and 206 bookings. That will cost our local businesses £130,000. That is only a snapshot.
We have to consider this situation creatively. In supporting the motion, I want to point out to the minister—and this might be considered as being my political point—that while £750 million went to the London dome, we are talking about a package of only £13.5 million. Is there a facility for us to access additional lottery money that can be directed towards our tourism industry and our small businesses? Whatever opinions about the dome people might have, we must all agree that £13.5 million, while being better than nothing, is not very much when compared with the spending on the dome.
"The Comeback Code" is welcome, but it must be publicised on TV and radio—not everyone has web access or understands those dotcom addresses. I pay tribute to those who have worked hard to counteract the bad publicity that the tourist industry has had. I suggest that Sky television and other organisations should not give the world the impression that we are up to our ears in pyres.
It is important to talk about the long-term recovery as we should not be debating only the tourism industry in a time of crisis. This is not a new issue for me—I have pursued it in other places—but the Scottish Licensed Trade Association says:
"It is principally decisions taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the U.K. which is making the cost of taking holidays in Scotland prohibitive, even to Scots. V.A.T. at 17½ % on accommodation and meals, the high cost of fuels, the exorbitant commercial rates and the strong pound have made Scotland too expensive for both British people and visitors from abroad."
That must be addressed in the long term if we are to continue to have our important tourist industry.
Beyond that, we have to examine issues such as the lack of direct flights into some of our airports. I could talk at length about the difficulties of getting from Dalcross airport to Heathrow and also about landing charges.
Water rates should be examined. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a huge war chest, perhaps he could consider the level of water rates, particularly in the Highlands. We also need to examine making it easier to access benefits as many of the people who are employed in the areas about which we are talking are either self-employed or on temporary contracts.
At this time of crisis, it is incumbent on all of us to speak responsibly and moderately. I do not want to waste any more time on the speech of the SNP's spokesman, Kenny MacAskill, because I want to be positive and I would have to be negative if I referred any further to his speech. He totally misjudged the mood of the chamber. He had a great opportunity to act in a statesmanlike way for once. Perhaps it is too much to expect Mr MacAskill to be statesmanlike, but how he managed to avoid doing so today beats me. Anyone else in the chamber could have grasped the opportunity.
I noticed that, as Mr MacAskill spoke, his leader was squirming in his seat. I am not surprised that he was, as his constituency largely depends on tourism. However, let me be positive. Some of us are trying to be just that, and that is the mood in other parts of the chamber.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not give way at the moment. What Mr Swinney should do is to have a reshuffle. That would be the most positive thing that he could do for Scotland and for tourism today.
I welcome the short-term package that has been announced by the minister. The STB figure of £335 million for the estimated loss of revenue this year is dramatic and we must do our utmost to reverse that. The minister says that we have to raise the revenue line. I am not sure that I would use that jargon, but I know what she means, and that is exactly what we must do.
I have been in touch with the four area tourist boards in Mid Scotland and Fife. My regional constituency is, in many ways, largely dependent on tourism. The boards all report cancellations in forward bookings of up to 25 per cent. We have to redress that. Bruce Crawford mentioned cancellations at one hotel that amounted to £220,000. I know of a self-catering facility in the region that has lost forward bookings of £131,000. That is a dramatic loss of revenue.
Will the member give way?
No, but I will gladly give way in a second. I want to finish my point, which is that it is crucial that we address the problems that are faced by the smaller businesses, such as walking group firms. We heard about those problems earlier and some businesses are now faced with closure.
In the past, Mr Raffan has set himself up as a champion of local government. He is well aware of the fact that local government is fairly stretched at the moment. Does Mr Raffan support the fact that 25 per cent of the burden of the measures that were announced today by the Executive will come from local authorities? Does he think that that cash exists?
I am a champion of local government. What is important, as the minister has indicated, is that she will work with local government to tackle the situation.
The negativity of the Opposition is self-defeating. No wonder someone from the media was saying to me earlier today that the SNP is an ineffectual Opposition. That is why some of us have to provide opposition from within the Executive. I have on occasion to take on that mantle. I will not oppose the minister today, although I do sometimes.
Will the member give way?
No. I have wasted enough time. I am trying to be constructive and make positive proposals.
The minister mentioned the £5 million package for visitscotland for marketing. I ask the deputy minister to address in his closing speech whether some of that money will be used by visitscotland to promote Scotland overseas independently of the British Tourist Authority. Visitscotland has that power. When I was an MP in another part of the country, we greatly envied that power. I put through a private member's bill in Westminster to give the Wales Tourist Board the same power. Visitscotland can use that power, but it needs the resources to do it. That is crucial.
The BTA is monitoring the overseas coverage of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The minister will be aware that the coverage varies from country to country. In some countries it is worse and more sensationalist than in others. For example, the latest BTA reports that I have seen show that it is much worse in Germany than in the United States of America and France, excluding the internet, which Dr Simpson mentioned.
It is important that we counter misinformation using our restricted resources and staff to best advantage. The foot-and-mouth outbreak in Scotland is, so far, less widespread than in England and Wales. We need to use our independent marketing power to get that message across.
Neither the SNP leader nor the deputy leader was squirming at all when Kenny MacAskill was speaking. We have been inundated by the concerns of our constituents who work in the tourist industry. They are very worried about what the future holds for them. We are both well aware that tourism makes the biggest contribution to the economy of Perthshire. We represent constituencies that are directly affected by the effect of foot-and-mouth on tourism, although there is luckily no foot-and-mouth disease in them so far.
I am surprised to hear members claim that such people are somehow not affected by foot-and-mouth disease. The tourism industry has already had a hard time in Scotland because of high fuel prices and the strong pound. The latest blow will make a lot of businesses go under completely. It is made even worse by the fact that many of the small operators in the tourism industry are farmers who have diversified in an attempt to supplement their incomes. They now face a double whammy.
Perth and Kinross Council's local economic development department estimates that the local authority area is losing around £1 million per week in the crisis. The crisis has already been going on for something like five weeks. Businesses are running 20 to 50 per cent below what they expect for this time of year and bookings for July and August are being cancelled.
The United Auctions mart in Perth has earned next to nothing for five weeks and 81 people have been laid off. From the start of the outbreak until 23 March, the visitor centre at that mart has received 3,500 fewer visitors compared to the same time last year. With no one coming to market, pubs and hotels are losing valuable non-tourist business. Will they be helped?
All ends of the market are suffering. The Baincroft Bunkhouse in Crieff has reservations for 25 bed nights for March this year compared to 349 in March last year. That is catastrophic for such businesses. The Crieff Hydro Hotel is suffering huge losses, with empty rooms, cancelled bookings and the familiar story of the phone not ringing. That represents an expected loss of £70,000 in March alone. Gleneagles Hotel has already had cancellations of more than 200 bookings from the United States. Gleneagles Hotel and Crieff Hydro will, as far as I can see, not be helped by the package that is to be put in place. The folk at Gleneagles and Crieff Hydro who lose their jobs will be as hard hit as anyone else who loses their job in this crisis, and will need help.
The problem all along has been a lack of consistent, accurate information. That cannot be emphasised more. Without exception, people have told me—whether they are farmers or people working in the tourism industry—that what is desperately needed is a single source of information, so that people know what is happening.
I will give a small but graphic example. The Perthshire Advertiser website announces no restrictions, for example, on the Knock of Crieff, which is one of the most popular walks in the area. However, the printed version of the newspaper says that the decision about the Knock has been put on ice. If people check with Crieff tourist office, they discover that none of the walks is reopening. That is a difficulty, because there are parts of the country where, in truth, much of what attracts tourists is not open and is not going to be open in the foreseeable future. That is what tourists will have to be told if they phone the Crieff tourist office. There is no way round that. There will still be a knock-on effect.
One of the major criticisms of the handling of the situation so far is that of the lack of clarity about what should and should not be closed, and about what visitors can and cannot do. As far as I have heard, nothing in today's announcement will change that.
The SNP's plan of action was published last week. The Executive desperately needs to get a real grip of the tourism industry and provide a single, authoritative clearing house for information. Most of all, it needs to put in place the extensive financial help that is urgently needed immediately. That must be expedited, because the losses are occurring right now, and need to be offset right now.
I associate myself with at least some of the comments that David Mundell made in praising the work of the constituency member for Dumfries, Elaine Murray, who has raised this issue at every opportunity that she has had at the Rural Development Committee and at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee—for example at its meeting yesterday. She has done so at times when few other people were interested in the plight of the tourist industry in the south-west of Scotland. Elaine Murray and others were shouting from the rooftops to ensure that the south-west of Scotland was put on the map, that we got involved in the tourism industry and that we tried to develop a strategy.
That is, unfortunately, unlike our colleagues over on the SNP benches, who used the opportunity of yesterday's Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee meeting—I attended it to listen to the points that were being made—to make personal attacks on Alasdair Morrison and to question whether he had the authority to take on the issues and to speak to the committee, rather than concentrating on the issues. Indeed, the convener of the committee had to remind Kenny MacAskill and Duncan Hamilton to get to the point of the exercise, which was to talk about the future of tourism.
My constituency borders on Dumfries and Galloway.
If the member wishes to go through her recollections of yesterday's Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee meeting, she will doubtless recollect the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic telling us that there would be a statement today, in which there would be a definition of consequential compensation and a commitment on the part of the Executive, one way or the other, on whether to support consequential compensation. The minister has not done any of that today. Why does Cathy Jamieson not have a go at it?
My recollection of yesterday's debate is probably quite different from that of Duncan Hamilton. Perhaps I was paying closer attention to what the minister said.
I want to return to the points about my constituency. People have approached me to discuss the effects of the foot-and-mouth crisis. As Roseanna Cunningham pointed out, there are people who have diversified from the agricultural sector into the tourism industry. They are now very concerned for the future. The real issue is that once again the SNP is promising a quick-fix solution, but there is no quick-fix solution. Of course we need resources to be made available. The Executive is making them available and has begun to put in place a package that will tackle the short-term problems, but longer-term solutions and a strategy that takes the tourism industry forward are required.
Frankly, we are in difficulty. On the one hand, we have to address some serious problems; on the other hand, we are trying to put out the message that Scotland is open for business. That is the message that I want to get across. I want people to come to Scotland. I want them to come to the south-west, Ayrshire and Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley. We have to get across the message that there are things that people can do. We have to support the industries that are there. We know that the rural economy in many areas is fragile. This debate is part of a wider discussion that has to take place on that subject.
It is not good enough for the SNP to promise everything, deliver nothing and talk about standing up for Scotland. I know who stands up for Scotland. The members on this side of the chamber are standing up for Scotland rather than running it down, and we will continue to do so. We have the ministers and the package of measures to do that.
There is no doubt that the foot-and-mouth crisis is having a grave impact on our tourism industry. It is estimated that 8 per cent of jobs in Scotland—170,000 jobs—rely on the tourism industry. Above all, we must ensure that the tragedy that has affected our farmers does not unnecessarily devastate our tourism industry. That is why I think that the tone and the message that we get across today are so important. I have been disappointed by the tone of some members today.
I welcome the Government's announcement dividing Scotland into three areas: the affected area, the at-risk area and the area provisionally free from foot-and-mouth disease. The area north of the Forth-Clyde line is provisionally free from the disease and is open for outdoor pursuits and tourism. That is an extremely important message to communicate today.
The advertising campaign that was launched in our newspapers on Monday highlighted "The Comeback Code". Despite what we have heard, I think that the code gives sensible and clear advice, which should encourage tourists to come back to the Scottish countryside. My only criticism of the Scottish Natural Heritage advertisement is that it did not appear in The Press and Journal. That newspaper covers the whole of the north-east and north of Scotland, which is a large part of the area north of the Forth-Clyde line, so it seems ironic that the advertisement did not appear in it. I was pleased to see that the position had been rectified by Tuesday.
I welcome the measures that were announced on support for businesses in the form of hardship relief. Duncan Hamilton got this wrong. Twenty-five per cent of funding for rate relief will not come from local government.
If he reads the entire press release, Mr Rumbles will realise that the decision on whether the proportion of relief that is funded by the Executive is 75 per cent or 95 per cent depends on whether the rateable value of a business is more or less than £12,000. As the rateable values of 86 per cent of businesses are on the wrong side of that figure, 25 per cent of the cost of relief will be picked up by local government.
I disagree with Duncan Hamilton. He is trying to say that 25 per cent of the burden will fall on local authorities, but it is quite clear from the Scottish Executive press release and the information that the minister provided that 95 per cent of the funding will come from the Scottish Executive.
I support the commitment to effective and appropriate marketing by visitscotland, but I have a further suggestion. As a minimum, all businesses should have their subscriptions to their local tourist boards refunded, at least for this year. That would be a direct link with businesses that pay their subscriptions and are suffering. It would be a good gesture by the Executive if funding could be found—I think that it would cost about £4 million. It would be a big help to those businesses and would send them a positive message.
I want to reinforce the important point made by George Lyon that tourism and farming are interlinked. We must not drive a wedge between the farming industry and the tourism industry. We cannot choose one or the other in this debate.
Hugh Henry made a succinct point when he drew a comparison between the two blank cheques that are being sought in the SNP motion and the Conservative amendment. Blank cheques seem to appear in such motions, which is inappropriate.
Richard Simpson made an extremely important point with which I heartily agree. He called for a message to come from all sides of the chamber that Scotland is open for business.
I will conclude by saying that the message that should be sent from the chamber is a simple one: Scotland is open for business.
I start by mentioning briefly some of the speeches made in the debate. The opening speech was distinctly inappropriate, but I welcome the SNP's statement that it is looking to the union for a solution to this UK problem.
I welcome the fact that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning agreed today to treat Dumfries and Galloway as a special case. We look forward to learning the exact details of the support that is to be sent there—I trust that they will be provided rapidly. She also talked about a hardship fund. Perhaps the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic will define exactly what she meant by that comment.
Mike Rumbles suggested that the area tourist boards should refund £4 million of subscriptions, but his sums do not add up, as the £1 million that that would leave is not enough for the marketing scheme that Scotland needs. I am disappointed that the minister did not mention ATBs, as the deputy minister suggested yesterday, in response to my question, that they would be reviewed.
I understand that the cost of ATB subscriptions is about £2.9 million. I have encouraged visitscotland to examine the £5 million package that it has received to ensure that some refunds of subscriptions are made to the most affected businesses.
I welcome that clarification, but the minister's intervention leaves unanswered the big questions of how to market Scotland and what support will go into the marketing exercise. I will return to that point.
I welcome one or two of the comments that were made in the debate. George Lyon was right to say that tourism and farming are intertwined. I gave up farming last summer. Many local businesses cannot avoid being interlinked. Alex Neil made some interesting comments and it might be worth while sending a note to the minister seeking clarification on the background to the crisis. I agree with only one point that Roseanna Cunningham made: businesses that are in crisis need immediate support. Cathy Jamieson ought to recognise that it is not just her party that is working in the south-west of Scotland on this situation—from the evidence that I have seen, a cross-party effort is being made.
The tourism crisis has been going on for some time. It is nothing new to say that there has been slippage in the industry, but that slippage has been accelerated by the dreaded disease that is with us. The cash-flow crisis affects not only businesses that deliver the tourism product but associated businesses, such as suppliers, and neighbouring businesses.
The Conservative amendment recognises the urgency that is required to deal first with the situation in Dumfries and Galloway. Our amendment does not offer only kind words; it offers direct, early action. I say to Hugh Henry that such action is readily affordable and would do little damage to a Treasury that is overflowing with taxpayers' money. We are calling for a deferment, rather than a permanent writing-off of rates and taxes and an easy-to-access payment system for the time that it takes to restore people's cash flow.
At yesterday's meeting of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic agreed that the tourism industry's funding structure will be reviewed, but I have heard nothing about that today. In the next few days, I expect to hear something—from the deputy minister, I presume—about how the review will work. Yesterday, he talked about deferred tax payments, which we have called for. I point out to him that he needs to discuss that with the Inland Revenue, which sent me an e-mail today that suggested that no deferment was available. He should take the matter up with the relevant authorities.
Many members spoke about the problems with definitions, such as how to define who will receive support. I hope that the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning will make an early statement on the details of how people will get support. The problem has two stages. Today, there is the problem of helping people who are in crisis; in future, we will have to consider how we market Scotland. I beg members in the chamber to consider our amendment carefully and to see whether they can support it as a way forward.
I am surprised that we are going for only £13.5 million when this is a UK problem. We need to talk seriously to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about central Government's responsibilities to the whole of the UK. Today in the chamber, we must focus on the needs of Scotland.
I thank the member for Dumfries, Elaine Murray, for her measured contributions and for her consistently measured representation of her constituents. I am also happy to recognise the dignity with which other members have conducted themselves during the crisis and during today's debate. I am talking about members from all parties—including David Mundell, Margaret Ewing, Keith Raffan and others.
I now refer to the Opposition spokesman. As we all know, Kenny MacAskill is not a politician who is normally associated with mature or responsible rhetoric. Until today, Mr MacAskill had managed to shroud his views on this important issue under the cloak of respectability. In the first few seconds of his contribution today, that cloak of respectability slipped and exposed the true face of Scottish nationalism and certainly the true face of Kenny MacAskill. He demeaned no one except himself and his party.
What my colleagues Wendy Alexander and Angus MacKay announced today was an emergency package. We have rightly engaged in formal and informal contact with the industry. Its views have helped to inform many of our decisions. That dialogue is invaluable and will continue.
I will respond to some of the points that members raised. Duncan Hamilton claimed that only 14 per cent of businesses in Scotland would benefit from the 90 per cent rates relief. I have absolutely no idea where Duncan Hamilton gets his numbers from. The issue is that 80 per cent of businesses in rural areas—
Will the minister give way?
I had to endure Mr Hamilton in committee yesterday. I would prefer to respond directly to the points that have been raised.
Will the minister give way?
I will respond directly to a point that Mr Hamilton raised in the debate.
Eighty per cent of businesses in rural areas will be eligible. I am happy to ensure that Executive officials explore the numbers further, but the relief available to those businesses is good news.
Alex Neil, the convener of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, raised five important points.
Will the minister give way?
I am not giving way, because I do not have much time and I want to respond to Alex Neil's five points, some of which Wendy Alexander has already responded to. I would like to add that we are considering the partnership action for continuing employment programme and the changes that we can implement in relation to the training for work programme.
Annabel Goldie sought specific help—as did many members—for Dumfries and Galloway. She asked whether help would be available. The short answer is that it is available. Indeed, help is already going to Dumfries and Galloway.
We all appreciate that Dumfries and Galloway is the epicentre of the foot-and-mouth crisis in Scotland. However, some responses will be on a UK basis. We have already ensured that Dumfries and Galloway Enterprise has received additional support. It deserves that support, because the current structure is obviously incapable of coping with the crisis.
George Lyon raised a number of points, including the important one that we cannot divorce agriculture from tourism. Last week, I was in Dumfries and Galloway and met a number of people in businesses that are involved in tourism. Many of those people are also involved in agriculture. Mr Lyon raised a specific question on the hardship criteria. Those criteria will be established next week in discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Will the minister give way?
Will the minister give way?
I give way to Mr Jenkins.
I do not want to get involved in bargaining over who is affected worst, but does the minister recognise that the Borders tourism industry—because of its closeness to the main outbreaks and because of the declaration of an outbreak in Mr Euan Robson's constituency—may, if things get worse, ask for extra help in the same way as Dumfries and Galloway has had to?
We have outlined clearly what we are doing in Dumfries and Galloway. Margaret Ewing informed the chamber that a case of the disease has been confirmed in the Borders.
There is a question over the whole south of Scotland. We must reinforce the message that the south of Scotland does not consist only of Dumfries and Galloway. That is why we must market aggressively all parts of the south of Scotland. Many businesses there have been associated with Dumfries and Galloway and are being affected.
We have a great job of work to do. We have ensured that visitscotland has the resources to do that job for Scotland. The organisation is liaising closely with the BTA and together they will counter the misconceptions that are abroad in relation to the United Kingdom. There has been a prime ministerial instruction to all our embassies and consulates; our ambassadors have been instructed to engage in a vigorous campaign with their local media. That has been, and is being, reinforced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and we will take the message to north America during the tartan day celebrations.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I am over my time.
Today, Wendy Alexander and I visited visitscotland's office and attended the daily foot-and-mouth disease emergency meeting. On behalf of the Executive, I put on record our thanks to the staff, who have demonstrated clearly their commitment to the Scottish tourism industry and their determination.
I conclude by saying that any discussion or debate about foot-and-mouth disease takes us back to the Executive's and the Government's first priority, which is the containment and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease.
The confidence that the ministerial team has in its case was shown by the fact that Mr Morrison refused to take interventions from any members other than members of his side.
The debate was not initiated by the Executive. The Scottish National Party called for the debate because we could get no information or clear guidance from the Executive.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. [Interruption.]
Order.
I say to Mike Watson that this is a matter of some seriousness and if he is willing to treat it as such, I will be willing to give way to him later. I hope that he will allow me to proceed.
The ministerial team asked for unity in the chamber, but the way to achieve unity is not to launch an assault on an Opposition party that has suggested a full and constructive package of measures for the tourism industry. The way for the Executive to build unity is not to attack the Opposition's spokesperson simply because it thinks that there are cheap political points to be scored.
Will Mr Hamilton give way?
No, thank you.
There is no doubt that, on this matter, we agree that there has been massive loss throughout the country. We all understand that the Scottish Tourist Board is saying that there will be a loss of £358 million. Another frightening statistic, which has come to light only today, is that every second call to the Scottish Tourist Board's information line is a call to cancel bookings. All members will sympathise with the particular plight of Dumfries and Galloway; let there be no doubt that the Scottish National Party also sympathises.
Roseanna Cunningham made a significant contribution when she talked about the effect on jobs. The issue is not just statistics and percentages going up and down; it is about real jobs and real lives. The tourism industry is already struggling due to the effects of the strong pound and the additional costs of VAT and fuel. The rural economy, which was already on its knees, is now at the point of national crisis. That is why last week the Scottish National Party suggested a comprehensive and positive package of measures, some of which have been adopted by the Executive, in consultation with the tourism industry. That is to be welcomed; the Scottish National Party will always welcome such progress.
The minister was wrong to suggest that the Scottish National Party's, or any other party's, criticism of the Executive fractures the consensus. It does not; it is the job of the Opposition to probe and to tease out the detail of what the Government proposes. I will take some time to explain to the minister why the Scottish National Party has reservations.
The tone of the debate is important when we send our message to businesses in Scotland. What does Mr Hamilton think is the most important message that should be sent from the chamber this afternoon?
I am grateful for that question. No member would disagree with the Executive when it calls for unity in saying that Scotland is open for business—I associate myself with such remarks. The point of the debate is that more needs to be done to get that message across and to save businesses in the short term.
Mr Rumbles asks what the debate is about. It is about reading the fine detail of what the Government has proposed. I asked Mike Rumbles why local authorities were going to pick up the burden of rates relief. The Scottish Executive press release says that the Executive will increase its contribution from 75 per cent to 95 per cent for businesses with rateable values up to £12,000. Everyone agrees with that. But point 5 of the press release says that businesses that are not in that category
"can still apply … councils will as usual fund 25% of the cost, with the Scottish Executive providing the remaining 75%."
The dividing line is the £12,000 rateable value. If, like 86 per cent of businesses in Scotland, a company is on the wrong side of that line, 25 per cent of the burden will fall on local authorities. I say to the minister that this is a national crisis that requires national solutions, not the overburdening of local councils, which are already cash-strapped.
The business rates relief package that has been announced today amounts to £3.5 million. As my colleague Fergus Ewing pointed out, given that the annual amount of business rates in Scotland is £1.5 billion, that works out at relief of 0.0023 per cent. It is hardly surprising that people are asking for more. The Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic asked where those figures came from. They came not from some rabid nationalist think tank, but from the Scottish Executive, from information supplied by the assessor to the Scottish property network. They are the ministers' own figures. Before bringing them to the chamber, I checked them with the Federation of Small Businesses, which confirmed them and said that the balance was about 86 per cent against 14 per cent. If we are to go forward as a national Parliament, the very least that the Executive should do is be honest and transparent about the figures.
We have costed every single ha'penny of our proposal. Immediately prior to the debate, the SNP's leading spokesman called for £100 million to be spent on the tourism industry in Scotland. We are still waiting to hear how a single ha'penny of that commitment will be met, given that the SNP's tax policy was published on Friday and that not a single ha'penny was proposed for the tourism industry in Scotland. How is the £100 million that the SNP's front-bench spokesperson called for on the television to be raised?
I was not at the interview, but I assume that Mr MacAskill was talking about the £100 million having to come from the national Government, which we keep being told is the United Kingdom Government. When a surplus is going from Scotland to Westminster, why is it unfair to ask for some of that money to relieve the hard-pressed businesses in rural Scotland? Is not it the job of the Scottish Executive, rather than sniping about the money, to make the case in Westminster for more resources for the Scottish Parliament, so that we can help the people of Scotland? Rather than chuckling, why does not the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning do something?
The minister says that this is a matter for the whole of Scotland. The areas that appear not to be affected by the foot-and-mouth crisis are Aberdeen, Clackmannan, Dundee, East Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Fife, Inverclyde, Midlothian, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire and West Lothian, yet they are all excluded from the Government's scheme. Is that delivering for all of Scotland? If it is, I suggest that the minister think again.
I come finally to the question of consequential compensation. Yesterday, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic told the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee that he could not define consequential compensation and he said, "Not to worry. I will come back tomorrow with a statement and I will define it for you then." Henry McLeish thought that he could define it last week, but by yesterday the Executive could not. Can anyone in the Executive team point me to any part of the statement that takes us any further down the road to either defining consequential compensation or giving solace to any of the businesses that are looking for recompense for their loss of income? There is not a single sentence on the matter in the Executive's press release. That is another area in which the statement is deficient.
Many members have said in the debate that they are standing up for Scotland. When the constructive opposition from the SNP today is compared and contrasted with the inertia, complacency and arrogance of an Executive that has half delivered and which has cruelly flirted with compensation but has not delivered, we all know who really stands for Scotland.