Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-4612, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on the general principles of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill.
Good morning, Presiding Officer.
Just over two years ago, the promotion and development of Scottish tourism was carried out by 15 organisations: the Scottish Tourist Board and 14 area tourist boards. In March 2004, following a period of widespread consultation, the then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport announced that that structure was no longer working well for Scotland and that we needed an integrated tourism network that would work across the whole country. Just over a year later, on 1 April 2005, those 15 organisations—including their staff, resources, systems, commitments and liabilities—were merged into one integrated organisation. Today, a further year on, VisitScotland's integrated tourism network is going from strength to strength. The purpose of the bill is to put the new organisational structure on a proper legal footing.
The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 requires that there must be area tourist boards. Therefore, in 2004, secondary legislation was used as an interim measure to create two area tourist boards—know as network tourist boards—into which the 14 area tourist boards could be merged. The network tourist boards are under the control of VisitScotland. The Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill will repeal the 1994 act's requirement for area tourist boards and dissolve the two network tourist boards. It will mean that VisitScotland can become fully integrated and operate as a single legal entity. The bill also provides for the transfer of staff from the network tourist boards to VisitScotland.
As VisitScotland now has a broader role, the bill also provides for a larger VisitScotland board. The board's maximum size, which is set out in the Development of Tourism Act 1969, is currently set at seven. The bill will amend the 1969 act to allow the board to be increased to a maximum of 12.
One of the few areas of what might, at a stretch, be called controversy is the nature of the board and the increase in its size. Having read the evidence, I am not 100 per cent clear why the requests from local authorities for designated places cannot be granted. Was the refusal to set aside places for local authority representatives based on a point of principle or on some other reason?
Actually, the reason is that we want to observe the guidance on the public appointments process. It dictates that board members should, in most circumstances, be appointed on the basis of their skills, talents and expertise rather than because they represent a particular set of people or a particular organisation. Exceptions can be made, but only in very extreme circumstances. For example, if being an advocate is a requirement for a particular role, it might make sense to reserve a seat for a member of the Faculty of Advocates. However, in this circumstance, it is not necessary to do that.
If it is recognised, as it currently is, that VisitScotland needs local authority expertise, the appointments round will recognise that and ensure that someone with that expertise is appointed to the board. The existing board already has a representative of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities who is a local authority councillor. I believe that the current mechanism has served us well and will continue to do so, while allowing us to observe the recommendations on the public appointments process.
In the short term, it is likely that we will increase the board's size by two members, to a total of nine. However, allowing for a maximum of 12 members provides the flexibility to increase the board at a later stage, if that seems appropriate, without reverting to primary legislation.
The bill will change the organisation's legal name from "the Scottish Tourist Board" to "VisitScotland". Although the organisation has been known as VisitScotland for some time now and it could continue to use that as its trading name while continuing legally to be called the Scottish Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board name belongs in the past and the bill provides a good opportunity to change it. The VisitScotland name emphasises the way forward for tourism in Scotland. The brand is already established and it is easily recognised and trusted by visitors and businesses alike.
The minister suggested that the term STB is something from the past. As tourism in Scotland has grown over the years, surely not all was bad about STB and its name.
I was not implying that there was anything intrinsically bad about the Scottish Tourist Board or its name; I was simply reflecting on the fact that changes happen and that styles and current usages change too. The change of name very much reflects that. However, it is important to recognise that VisitScotland is in the process of obtaining the trademark "Scottish Tourist Board" to ensure that the name cannot be used by anyone else.
The bill consolidates the integration process that has already taken place and puts the integrated network on a proper legal footing. It does not change how the integrated tourism network works. The integrated network is working well and I am confident that it will continue to bring benefits to Scottish tourism.
The tourism industry did not feel the need to give evidence on the bill to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. That is testament to the success of the integrated network so far and to the relationships that VisitScotland has built up with tourism businesses and other partners and stakeholders. Indeed, VisitScotland's recent stakeholder survey shows that 95 per cent of stakeholders agree that the work of VisitScotland makes a positive impact on Scotland's economic development. The majority of stakeholders associated VisitScotland with being excellent, efficient, inspiring and innovative. The proportion of stakeholders who now see VisitScotland as dynamic and highly reputable has increased since 2005.
In paying tribute to the work that was done in the past, will the minister agree that much of the confidence that now exists is due to the hard work of those who worked in the tourist boards and to the networks that they built up among local providers?
That is absolutely fair. One of the good things about the way in which the integration has been taken forward is that VisitScotland has not thrown the baby out with the bath water; it has learned from the experiences of the Scottish Tourist Board and the area tourist boards and taken the very best of what they had to offer. A lot of good had been happening, but VisitScotland has taken it forward into a new century and, frankly, into a new and much more competitive tourism world.
Although VisitScotland is no longer a membership organisation, businesses continue to have access to the full range of services that were previously available through the area tourist boards, but more flexibility is now offered in the products that businesses can select. As a result, many businesses have seen cost reductions for equivalent service. Local areas are also now able to benefit more than ever before from VisitScotland's world class marketing campaigns, which promote Scotland as a national dish with local flavours.
Seventeen area tourism partnerships have been set up across Scotland to involve tourism businesses, VisitScotland, all 32 local authorities and other public sector interests. The excellent relationship between VisitScotland and local authorities has been strengthened by the creation of the VisitScotland chairs committee. Its membership is drawn from the local authority community. The annual national tourism convention also brings VisitScotland and COSLA together to discuss joint strategy. In addition, as I mentioned in response to Mr Adam's question, the COSLA spokesperson for economic development and planning is on the VisitScotland board.
I believe that the VisitScotland integrated tourism network is going from strength to strength and bringing benefits across the whole of Scotland. This is the right time to put that new network on a proper legal footing.
I will return to this point in my speech. The minister refers to co-ordination with the chairs and with COSLA. Does she see that as a mechanism for further integrating the provision of tourism information, perhaps via local authority service points and council offices?
VisitScotland has been conducting a review of tourist information centres. One of the review's recommendations is likely to be that there should be co-ordination. It is not necessary for the information centres to be stand-alone entities. They could be part of their local community in a much more meaningful way, perhaps by being associated with a local town hall or another civic amenity. In that way, they might attract even more people to use their services.
The Enterprise and Culture Committee has asked me for reassurance on a number of issues. The committee refers to the apparently differing views that have been expressed by the Executive and VisitScotland on a number of issues and asks for reassurance that those views have been reconciled. I am pleased to say that the Executive and VisitScotland have been co-operating closely on the issues. In relation to VAT and pensions, the figures that were provided by VisitScotland were very much worst-case scenarios. My officials are working with VisitScotland on a number of different options, and we are all confident that far less costly solutions will be found in both cases.
We agree with VisitScotland that local authorities continued to fund VisitScotland last year at the same level as in the previous year. Any confusion around the figures was due to a change in the way in which funding was allocated for business tourism in Edinburgh and Glasgow and to project funding coming to an end. The committee also asked for reassurance that the reserves that were held by the former area tourist boards will be ring fenced for use in the areas in which they were accrued. I am happy to give that reassurance, as I have done in the chamber before.
I confirm that the final figure for the transitional costs associated with the planning and development of the VisitScotland network stands at £7.4 million, which has been paid to VisitScotland. No more funding will be provided for that purpose. Should any further costs emerge, they will be minimal and will be absorbed by VisitScotland's budget.
I am pleased also to confirm that VisitScotland's business plan shows a balanced budget this year, one year ahead of schedule. Members will recall that the integrated network took on a large operating deficit from the area tourist boards, but efficiency savings mean that the deficit has now been cleared. Efficiency savings have been made already, in VisitScotland's first year of operation, demonstrating its commitment to making the best use of public funds. I believe that it is time to put the organisation on a proper legal footing.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill.
The bill is very much a tidying-up measure. A wider debate about tourism may be needed, but that is not necessarily for today. In particular, the evidence from COSLA made the important point that expenditure on tourism generally in Scotland is fairly modest and that, out of a £35 million tourism budget in Edinburgh, only £620,000 goes to VisitScotland. That highlights one of the weaknesses in our approach to tourism in Scotland today—we have separated the marketing function from the rest of tourism.
I imagine that the bulk of the £35 million that Edinburgh spends on tourism is spent on the provision and maintenance of visitor attractions, such as the free museums service. It may also be spent on other services, but we need to consider whether the tourism business should be separated from its marketing in the longer term and whether that marketing should be in only one place. It would be interesting to hear whether one member on the Labour back benches who must have considerable experience of the matter in Glasgow shares that view.
Presumably the figure for Glasgow will be much the same as that for Edinburgh. Glasgow is spending a lot on tourism and has transformed itself into a visitor destination. Scottish Enterprise is responsible, as part of a wider remit, for supporting the development of attractions. In light of its current difficulties, perhaps we should consider whether that function sits comfortably with Scottish Enterprise and whether VisitScotland and general support for tourism from the public purse should be in a single entity, rather than spread across Scottish Enterprise, local authorities and VisitScotland. However, that is not a matter for today.
Does Brian Adam accept that much of what is done in economic development through infrastructure support and in local authorities could be described as supporting tourism, and that to seek to wrap that all together in one entity might mean artificially creating barriers rather than making agencies work together?
I accept that the issue that Christine May raises should be considered. I am trying to encourage a debate about precisely that point. Currently there is a debate about whether Scottish Enterprise's economic development function is being delivered successfully. Many people in local authorities would like that function, which was taken from them a number of years ago, to be returned to them. We should debate that point. I know that today's debate is about the marketing function and some very specific issues that relate to it, but when we look at tourism in general we should consider how we can best deliver tourism support and create partnerships that will produce not stresses and strains but co-operation in delivering a vibrant and successful tourism industry for our country.
Today, we are dealing with a number of fairly minor matters. We have primary legislation to deliver a name change. I should not have thought that that was the highest of priorities, although I accept that it is not the only reason the bill has been introduced. I was glad that, in their evidence, department officials indicated that primary legislation would not be required if a name change were made in the future. When she winds up on behalf of the Government, the minister could identify the provision in today's primary legislation that will allow a name change to be made in the future. That point is not spelled out in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report.
If, as the officials said, the name can be changed at almost any time, why do we need to legislate at this point to change it? We can call the organisation VisitScotland and be quite happy about that.
That is the point to which I am alluding. However, to be generous to the Government—which is not my normal position—it took the opportunity that was afforded by the change from three legal entities to one to change the name legally. I want to ensure that if there is another rebranding exercise—there will undoubtedly be one, because that is what happens in life—we do not have to go through the process again and that we all know exactly which provisions in primary legislation will make that unnecessary.
I intervened on the minister to comment on designated places for COSLA on the VisitScotland board. In its submission to the inquiry, COSLA gave examples of seats being reserved on the boards of local bodies, such as national park authorities, for local authority representatives. I do not think that board members are required to be advocates or anything like that. The benefits of local authority representation can be seen on the boards of organisations such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Communities Scotland, on which elected members sit.
I am happy that the Government should make a decision not to designate places on the VisitScotland board. I tried in my intervention to get the minister to clarify whether that was on a point of principle or whether the Government was hiding behind the public appointments legislation. However, I have to accept what she said.
One of the great things about the bill is that, after a long period of uncertainty, staff will know precisely where they stand because they will now be employed by VisitScotland. Removing that uncertainty is undoubtedly a good thing.
I was intrigued by schedule 2 to the bill. It amends a series of acts of the Westminster Parliament. Perhaps the minister will tell us what progress she is making in discussions with her Westminster colleagues about whether they are willing to accept the schedule 2 amendments. I was particularly intrigued by the fact that the schedule appears to give us powers to promote ourselves overseas—I presume that that will be almost independently. Perhaps the minister will say a few words about that in her summing-up speech.
It is something of an irony that we have before us today a bill entitled the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill the central purpose of which is to abolish area tourist boards and wholly absorb what remains into VisitScotland. As we ponder that outcome today, it is only right that we take a moment to acknowledge the outstanding contribution that area tourist boards have made to the success of the Scottish tourism industry since their establishment in 1995.
Many members have enjoyed close relations with their local boards and will want to join me in paying tribute to the work that they did. The Executive might also wish to reflect for a moment on the frankly shabby treatment that was dished out to the ATBs during the early days of the restructuring. There is no need for me to repeat the strongly felt concerns that were raised by the ATBs during the Enterprise and Culture Committee's inquiry because they are adequately dealt with in that committee's report from last year, but it is only right that as the Executive fires home the final nail in the ATB coffin in the form of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill, it does so with some humility and perhaps a little repentance.
Notwithstanding the undoubted strengths of the ATB model of the past decade, I fully accept that the time had come for some changes to be made—indeed, I have sympathy with much of what the minister said in that regard. Although I agree that fragmentation was a problem, I disagree that the new structure is the right one. There were weaknesses in the ATB model and it is right that we address them, but there were also strengths that are being unnecessarily forfeited under the new plans.
My chief concern about the hubs model relates to a loss of local knowledge and, more precisely, a loss of local industry leadership. That point was made strongly by the committee, which said in its report:
"the current local area tourist boards are a repository of a significant amount of skills and knowledge. It will be important that in any new structure for tourism in Scotland, VisitScotland does not lose this local expertise in its drive for increasing professionalism in the sector."
I know that VisitScotland plans to retain its offices in the former ATB areas, but I detect a fear in the industry that those offices will be mere satellites of the mother ship rather than genuine local bodies.
Does Mr McGrigor accept that VisitScotland has not just local offices, but local partnerships with businesses, local authorities and other interested stakeholders in the area to develop that very expertise and allow things to be done in a new way?
For example, I quote Douglas Logan, the managing director of Speciality Scotland Travel in Edinburgh, who said in The Scotsman in August last year:
"Since the demise of the area tourist boards, there has been nobody to speak up for small businesses … To my mind VisitScotland's local offices are just clones of the central organisation, representing a central big brother at a local level."
His views are not unique. Again and again I have received negative comments about the overcentralisation of the new model and the fear that local knowledge is being lost.
Indeed, I have carried out an extensive survey on the new structures among tourism businesses in my region, as have a number of my colleagues. We found a high level of discontent with the new model. I will quote from a number of responses to those surveys from throughout Scotland:
"The previous situation was far from perfect, but it's been taken away, with nothing to replace it."
"We were not very happy with our previous ATB, but the current arrangement is worse, and it is not getting better."
"We need local people ‘selling' the local product. These hubs are too big and impersonal."
"As a former director of Aberdeen & Grampian Tourist Board, I have to say a change was needed. My view, however, is that the new structure is too centralised … I don't want a return to the former ATB, but can report a strong and growing feeling of being ‘left out' by businesses. This may lead to breaking away and fragmentation—which is the worst model of all."
The Executive must heed that last point about the worst of all worlds. Although I agree with the minister that under the old model there was perhaps too much of a gulf between the ATBs and VisitScotland, there is a danger now that by pursuing a policy of total centralisation, more and more communities and businesses will feel isolated and disengaged from VisitScotland and will instead set up their own marketing bodies. That has already happened to an extent in areas such as Dumfries and Galloway. It would be ironic if the Executive's attempt to unify the industry served to perpetuate division.
I accept that, as far as they go, the new area tourism partnerships that the minister mentioned are doing an excellent job, but their influence has been overhyped by VisitScotland. They have no statutory or decision-making powers and they are a poor substitute for the former boards when it comes to genuine local control.
I will touch briefly on the other provisions in the bill. I am not convinced of the necessity to change the name from the functional and descriptive Scottish Tourist Board to the hip and trendy VisitScotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I cannot. I am reminded by photographs from my youth that, like hairstyles, trends pass and the VisitScotland name could look outdated rapidly. I have no objection to using the name VisitScotland in the meantime, but if the trading name can be changed at any time, it seems ridiculous to abolish the tried and tested Scottish Tourist Board as the legal title. That plea for common sense to prevail has been made not only by the Scottish Conservative Party but by COSLA. I draw the minister's attention to its submission to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, in which it makes those arguments forcefully.
I have no concerns about the proposed increase in size of the VisitScotland board from seven to 12 members, although its effectiveness will depend entirely on the ability of the appointees, who I hope will be brilliant.
Presiding Officer, I hope that you will permit me in my closing minutes to touch briefly on two concerns that are not directly affected by the bill, but which are nonetheless of major concern to the tourism industry.
You will have to be very fast because you are already 19 seconds over your limit.
The first concern is about visitscotland.com. People have written to us with the following comments about the site:
"Long-winded and complicated, difficult to find named property"
"It is appalling"
"A national disgrace"
"Please highlight the website, it does more damage than all other aspects for self-catering".
The final comment is that
"It works very badly … it has provided no business."
I have to stop now, unfortunately, but I hope that the minister will take on board those comments about VisitScotland.
As Brian Adam pointed out correctly, the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill is something of a tidying-up bill. I will make several points that arise from it.
The first flows from what Jamie McGrigor just said. I submit to colleagues that tourism providers at the sharp end—the bed and breakfast owners, for example—are not hugely bothered about the structure, make-up or size of VisitScotland's board, because such organisations come and go, but they are concerned about delivery at local level. My point arises from my intervention on the minister and is not so much about the provision of area offices, which we are not so fussed about, as about the provision of tourist information on the street corner to the tourist on behalf of the tourism product provider. That is crucial.
Unfortunately, everything has not been quite as rosy in the Highlands as Jamie McGrigor made out. Under HOST—the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board—we saw the gradual closure of outlying tourist information centres, such as those in Helmsdale in Sutherland and in Wick. That was important because, at the end of the day, the general public, visitors and tourism providers want a real human face behind the desk—someone local who knows what they are talking about. One example that was well publicised in the local newspapers in my constituency was the fact that with the centralised call-centre approach to selling the tourist product, two years after the Caithness Glass factory in the area closed, tourists were still being told that they could visit it.
Local delivery is absolutely essential. If tourism providers are to feel that they are involved and being listened to, we need local delivery via tourist information centres. My appeal to the minister and the tourism industry in general is that, rather than close information centres, we must try to open them and work in that way. I welcome the minister's comments, in response to my intervention, about the idea of co-ordinating with the local authorities, which could lead to savings all round. Duplication is absolutely pointless.
I agree totally with Mr Stone's points about local control and the importance of tourist information centres. He mentioned a human face. Does he agree that visitscotland.com is somewhat less than a human face and more of a robot-like call centre?
I appreciate that the member has problems with visitscotland.com but, in my constituency postbag, I have not received letters about any such problems. I will highlight one problem. Members will not be surprised to hear me mention the publicity this week about the map at Edinburgh airport that had John o'Groats, one of the most famous tourism destinations in the British isles, 30 miles away from where it actually is. That was disgraceful, although VisitScotland has held up its hands and apologised. In this day and age, with Google and maps on the internet, how could a mistake of that nature be made? Such mistakes distress the tourism industry, so we must watch out for them.
I agree entirely with Mr Stone that that incident was not only regrettable, but reprehensible and should not have happened. I was pleased with VisitScotland's reaction and correction of the mistake. To make a point that is pertinent to the line of debate that Mr Stone is following, one of the saddest aspects of the incident with the map is that it overshadowed and detracted from VisitScotland's opening of an information centre at Edinburgh airport, which is an excellent centre that will give visitors an opportunity to find out as much as they can about the country.
I concur with the minister's remarks. The mistake was terribly unfortunate—such simple errors can be incredibly corrosive and damaging to tourism providers.
I have two final points. First, Scotland has a unique tourism product, the standard of which is recognised worldwide but, in marketing tourism, it is crucial that all departments of Government co-ordinate. We have had the introduction of subsidised air fares in the Highlands. We need to co-ordinate the marketing of the tourism product with our work on roads, air travel, transport and many other aspects of government. My second point is a plea. I always think of Scotland as being like a diamond—it is not one homogenised product, but a place with many facets, each of which is different. It is vive la différence. We need to sell the differences in Scotland to make it attractive in the world market. Caithness is completely different from Ross-shire, which is completely different from Ayrshire. We have ever-more intelligent and discerning tourists who appreciate the differences and who look for the different aspects of Scotland. I support the bill but, however we approach the matter, we must remind ourselves and VisitScotland that we need to sell Scotland's glorious differences, which we can bank for a long time to come.
I do not intend to take too long, because the Enterprise and Culture Committee and its predecessor have already produced three reports on tourism in the past four years. The first was in our guise as the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee and the other two were by the Enterprise and Culture Committee, on the reorganisation that had taken place and on the bill. I recommend all three reports as good recess reading for members. On behalf of the committee, I thank the minister for her response to the points that the committee raised on the bill. If I may say so, she dealt with all of them satisfactorily in her response this morning.
Two fundamental structural changes are taking place. The first is the integration of what were the area tourist boards into the national organisation, VisitScotland, and the second is a reorganisation of VisitScotland's board. The committee supports the proposal to expand the board membership, because we see a need for more involvement not only of local authorities—which has proved difficult until now because of the restricted numbers—but of all the other sectors that need to be represented. On the appointment of the expanded board, I draw the minister's attention to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's report, particularly the information from California, which Gordon Jackson and I had the pleasure of visiting to examine the structure of the California Travel and Tourism Commission.
Somebody had to do it.
I do not believe all the stories about the member not doing his work in the Parliament.
The California Travel and Tourism Commission has an interesting structure that involves the private sector in a way that we have not been able to do. In a sense, there the private sector is responsible for appointing its members of the commission from four different sectors—accommodation, visitor attractions, transport and entertainment. I draw the minister's attention to the Californian example as a way of introducing a new and innovative way of working in creating the structure of VisitScotland's board to ensure wide representation from the key players in the industry. That would be well within the proposed legislative framework that we are discussing.
One point that has not been mentioned so far but which is raised in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on the review of area tourist boards is the strategic focus that is provided by VisitScotland's ambition to achieve a 50 per cent increase in visitor numbers by 2014. My belief—and, I think, the committee's belief—is that that target has helped to focus strategically the work of the board and the wider industry. The feedback that I have had from the Scottish Tourism Forum and others is that that central strategic objective has helped to focus everyone's minds on the job in hand.
We should compliment the current management of VisitScotland, in particular the chairman, Peter Lederer. The management inherited a difficult situation but has done a sterling job in promoting Scottish tourism. I hope that Peter Lederer will continue in his job, because he has set an example. It is not every day that I compliment public sector management, but I compliment VisitScotland's strongly. The organisation was in a precarious position when the current management took over, but it has stabilised the organisation and made it ready to progress and, I hope, achieve the 50 per cent target to which I referred.
I want to make a point about integration. The area tourist board network had some fantastic advantages, particularly the engagement with the private sector at local level. In the new structure, we must ensure that we do not lose the contribution and involvement of the local private sector and we must maintain the ethos that the industry should lead and dictate which needs the public sector agencies must meet. However, as the committee acknowledged, the downside of the previous system was the membership structure, which was undoubtedly a barrier to success in some areas. The key point is that the local partnerships that have now been established should be allowed to feed into the national network new ideas and thinking and to give feedback on what needs to be done to satisfy their requirements. Local input is extremely important, and the new integrated structure should be as much about building from the bottom up as about building from the top down. If the proper balance is maintained, we can get the benefits of both worlds.
There is no doubt that tourism is our number 1 industry, that it is extremely important for employment in Scotland and that VisitScotland, the local authorities and the private sector have an absolutely vital role to play. The committee's view is that we must ensure that the new structure works. Indeed, we said in our previous report that we will monitor from time to time success at the local level as well as at the national level and how well integration has progressed.
We recommend the bill to the Parliament and agree with its general principles. We hope that it will allow us to take the Scottish tourism industry forward so that it achieves what it can achieve and is the best small tourism industry in the world.
As members would expect, I have nothing against the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill; indeed, it is hard to see how someone could have something against it. It is probably a good thing, and most people think that it is okay—as far as I can see, Jamie McGrigor is the exception.
I understand that the bill will simply put the existing reality on a statutory footing. As a result, there is not much to say about it, so I wondered what there was to discuss. There is probably nothing to say about its details, but the debate gives us a wee opportunity to think a little about our tourism industry.
Like most public or semi-public bodies, VisitScotland has worthy aims; I suspect that it has a mission statement somewhere. The importance of the tourism industry to Scotland and the need to do things properly can certainly not be overstated. Therefore, it is important—I am stating the obvious—that when we consider changes, we consider not only structural changes or simply rearranging the proverbial deckchairs. With structures, there is always the danger that all we will do is move everything around. Alex Neil said that the Enterprise and Culture Committee will continue to monitor the new structure. I know that it will do so and wish it well because it has a duty to ensure that the promised improvements are delivered and that structural change is not the only thing that happens. In that context, I will give a few random thoughts.
I read in a briefing paper the other day—I receive piles of such things—that the changes will make the tourism structure similar to the enterprise network model. I drew in my breath when I read that and thought that it was a bit worrying, bearing in mind what has happened recently. I am not trying to be facetious; I know what was meant. We are talking about an integrated network and a similar model, but I thought that it was a bad week in which to use such an analogy. Some of us in Glasgow have not been enamoured with that structure in the past week or so—my colleague Charlie Gordon would agree with me. The reality is that the structure has not been at all helpful in Glasgow. There has been a real move towards centralisation and stopping things working locally that have worked perfectly well locally until now. I appreciate the general structural analogy, but I hope that the tourism model will not work like the enterprise network model.
A business whose marketing is totally divorced from its general business is unusual. What does the member think about the idea that we should consider better integration of the marketing function of the tourism industry and the rest of the tourism industry? Having a marketing function on its own is unique.
I am not being in the least bit sarcastic when I say that what the member said is way over my head. I know nothing whatever about marketing, but I suspect that he has made a good point, which the minister will probably want to deal with.
It is important that the structure engages better locally—perhaps that answers the question a wee bit. I have listened to Mr McGrigor's strictures on the matter and do not want members to think that I agree with him, but I have heard the complaints that people in the industry—publicans and hoteliers, for example—have made. People often think that they are not well connected with the organisation. Knowing some of them, I get the feeling that it is sometimes their fault that they do not get involved, but there is sometimes a failure properly to bring local providers on board. That is what Jamie McGrigor said. Perhaps that is not right, but I sometimes hear that wee complaint.
The link with businesses and the private sector is important, and Alex Neil mentioned that we went to America to consider that matter. I will be serious. I hope that Alex Neil will not mind my saying that he is hardly known as being the greatest fan of the private sector in general and that he is critical of the private sector when it should be criticised, but we were equally struck by the way in which the main industry players had bought into—literally, as that is the American way—the whole structure in California and by the fact that there was absolutely no question of there being them and us. The effect of the genuine partnership that existed was obvious to us. I am not attributing blame to anyone, but I wonder whether we need a little bit more of that attitude in our tourism sector.
How local authority involvement is being tackled is encouraging. I like the emphasis on the link between local authorities and local service delivery, and the partnership agreement should make things accountable. I noticed somewhere that there was a fear that local authorities might miss out the new structure by deciding to fund local business tourism initiatives directly. I have no idea whether that was simply scaremongering or whether it is likely to happen, but the likelihood will only increase if the partners think that the structure is not working properly. It would be bad if that happened. I welcome the continued emphasis on working at a local level. It has been pointed out that more than 80 per cent of involvement with business is at that level.
Sometimes our tourism industry does daft things. In that context, I cannot resist mentioning the proposed glass ban in Glasgow, which struck me as daft, although, thankfully, it did not happen. Many able people work in the industry and lead the Scottish effort. All of us wish the industry well and hope that the changes will help it to progress.
I, too, wondered whether there was something slightly contradictory about the title of the bill and whether a bill that will abolish the Scottish Tourist Board might have been better named the "VisitScotland Bill" or even the "VisitScotland (Scotland) Bill" rather than the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill. My colleague Mark Ballard and Murdo Fraser dissented from the majority view in the Enterprise and Culture Committee on the proposed name changes, but neither felt strongly enough to produce a minority report on the subject. Likewise, the Greens support the general principles of the bill, despite our reservations.
I opposed the handling of the merger, which appeared at the time to be far more of a centralised takeover than an agreed merger and which left staff feeling for a considerable time excluded from the process and anxious about the future of their jobs. We have heard that the process led to the formation of the Association of Dumfries and Galloway Accommodation Providers—ADGAP—which was set up to compete with VisitScotland to a certain degree. However, things have moved on and VisitScotland and ADGAP have started to work together. That there are alternative comings-together of accommodation providers is excellent and a great development, but I hope that VisitScotland and ADGAP move closer together and complement each other's work. It is important that local gatherings of tourism service providers work together to complement the work of VisitScotland.
In oral evidence to the committee, the minister said:
"We think that the Scottish Tourist Board name belongs in the past. The VisitScotland name emphasises the way forward for tourism in Scotland and the brand is already established as an easily recognisable and trusted brand by visitors and businesses alike."—[Official Report, Enterprise and Culture Committee, 16 May 2006; c 3081.]
Now that we have the name and it is established, we should certainly stick with it, but I hope that today's debate is not repeated in a few years' time as we are called on to approve another name change. I appreciate the logic of wanting the legal name to be the same as the marketing name, for the avoidance of confusion, but it is a concern that the bill, on the one hand, attempts to future proof by allowing for an increase in the size of the board without the need for primary legislation and, on the other hand, ties the organisation legally to a marketing brand that may change in five or 10 years' time.
The financial memorandum to the bill notes that the merger was supposed to cost £5 million but will now cost £7.4 million—an increase of 50 per cent. That is noteworthy as a sign that the merger did not go as planned. I hope that the minister will confirm that that is absolutely the final cost increase, particularly considering the question marks that still hang over the position of VAT and staff pensions in VisitScotland. At worst, the liability for pensions could see an extra £7 million added to that cost. I hope that, in summing up, the minister will provide us with a more concrete assurance than the Executive's previously stated position of being reasonably optimistic that there will be no further liability. I hope that she will also be able to give a copper-bottomed guarantee to VisitScotland's staff that their pensions will not be harmed and that payments will be made in full.
Much of the debate has been technical in nature. With your leave, Presiding Officer, I wish to make a more tangential speech about the significance of the tourism industry to the economy—especially the economy of the Scottish Borders. I note that VisitScotland's target is to grow tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015. If that can flow down to the Borders, it will be extremely important, given the significance of tourism over the past decade and the continuing decrease in the number of jobs in textiles and electronics.
Tourism brings £100 million into the Scottish Borders economy and employs more than 4,000 people—8 per cent of the population. More than 900 tourism businesses work together to form that tourism industry. Members have talked about local contributions. Scottish Borders Council provides £270,000 per annum to the VisitScotland Borders network office.
The topography of the Borders, which made the area ideal for wool production, is what makes it ideal for holidays. I am not going to do a big trailer for the Borders, but I mention the possibilities for walking, cycling and riding. Of special significance are the common ridings, such as the one that I attended recently at Selkirk, which offer the most moving experience. They are attended mainly by people who live in the Borders or who return to see them. The casting of the colours to commemorate the battle of Flodden—
Will you relate this eulogy for the Borders to the motion, Ms Grahame?
I said that my speech would be slightly tangential. I will get back to the subject, but all of that is important in drawing people to the Borders.
I draw the minister's attention to the flaws in VisitScotland's website, which have been referred to. When I was researching for the debate, the latest figures that I could get for tourism in the Scottish Borders from the website were for 2002. A name change is one thing, but it is not much good if there is a flawed website behind it. According to those figures, the majority of visitors to the Borders are from the United Kingdom, mostly from England. That adds significance to the Waverley line that is now being developed—we hope. It is essential that, at some point, that line is continued all the way to Carlisle to draw tourists from England in greater numbers.
I really think that you should get on to the subject of the debate, Ms Grahame.
I was talking about the Scottish Borders Tourist Board.
Yes, but the Waverley line is not a central feature of the bill that we are discussing.
I am sure that the member listened to my interventions on both Gordon Jackson and the minister. How does she relate the separate marketing function—which is what VisitScotland is—to the overall tourism business? How does she think that we might best link those? Does she think that the current structure satisfies the needs of the tourism industry in the Borders or elsewhere?
In response to Brian Adam's earlier intervention I was going to say that, notwithstanding the centralisation of VisitScotland, which has been referred to, there is still a significant role for local structures. That exists in the Borders in the Scottish Borders tourism business forum, which links into VisitScotland. It is more functional than the old area tourist board and comprises organisations such as Careers Scotland, Historic Scotland, Scottish Borders Council and others who feed into the system. That is extremely important.
As the debate is about a short bill that deals with a technical matter of tidying up what already exists, I have nothing further to add. I repeat my point to the minister that a name change is not sufficient; VisitScotland's website needs to be greatly improved or people will be deterred from using it.
It will come as no surprise to members that I will focus on the impact that the bill will have locally in my part of Scotland.
I am not going to pretend that all was well with the old area tourist board system, although I acknowledge the contribution that many tourist board staff made, which other members have mentioned. All was not well, but if we are going to change something, we ought to change it for the better.
I remember months of frustration as we eagerly awaited the pronouncement of Lord Watson, who was then the minister, on the outcome of the Executive's lengthy deliberations on its consultation on the future of area tourist boards. At the end of that lengthy period, there was a sense of dismay at the announcement of the new structure that Parliament will, no doubt, legitimise today. However, it will not do so with the help of Conservative members, as we do not believe that this will be a change for the better locally. Nor do we believe that it will benefit local tourist businesses or, indeed, tourists in remote rural constituencies such as mine.
When I hosted in the Parliament the last meeting of the Scottish Borders Tourist Board under the old structure, many members were excited about the prospect of a local team, such as the one in Selkirk, doing excellent work not just for the Borders but in taking on national roles. Does the member have sympathy with the view that local officers in rural areas will be able to play a much greater role in promoting tourism throughout the country?
I would have more sympathy with that if I had experienced it working in my part of Scotland. I am delighted that the structure is working well in the Borders; I am not convinced that it is working on my patch. I will come back to that point.
In areas such as Galloway, tourism-related businesses need to have a tangible sense of ownership of and involvement in the structure of their industry. One of the problems with the area tourist boards was that they were perceived to be too autocratic and to be dictating to local businesses rather than working in partnership with them. The situation was improving towards the end of their lives but, with the benefit of a year's experience of the hubs, we see that any sense of ownership and involvement seems to have disappeared off the radar screen. The principal reason for that seems to be that the local forums or partnerships—or whatever they are called—lack any real teeth, as Jamie McGrigor said. They have no decision-making power, therefore they are reduced largely to the role of a talking shop that gives the Executive the opportunity to tick the necessary boxes and say that local involvement is the watchword of the new structure, when that does not seem to be the case. As far as I can ascertain, the forums have no agreed structure, laid-down remit, term of office or constitution. Saddest of all, they seem to have little accountability.
I know that the member has returned to this theme on a number of occasions. Mr Purvis and Christine Grahame made a valid point about the role that can be played locally. Perhaps Mr Fergusson could provide some leadership locally and encourage things to happen in his area. He would do VisitScotland and local businesses a great service if he did.
I will come back to that as well. My effort to provide such leadership, through the initiative that I tried to put forward, was rather thwarted.
In previous debates on the subject, I recall warning that the changes would encourage the formation of breakaway bodies of dissatisfied tourism operators, which is exactly what has happened in many areas. In my part of Scotland—Chris Ballance referred to this—the Association of Dumfries and Galloway Accommodation Providers was formed and now represents a substantial percentage of accommodation providers in the region. I am afraid that I do not recognise the picture that Chris Ballance painted. The association certainly did not make life easy for the area tourist board, nor is it making life particularly easy for its replacement. However, it wants to engage constructively with the forum as it has the best interests of local tourism at heart.
When the bed and breakfast representative on the forum resigned, ADGAP requested a place on the forum as the representative of a substantial local interest. I played an active role in trying to promote that engagement. It presented a golden opportunity to bring together the critic and the criticised under one roof, so that differences of opinion could be aired around the table rather than largely through the columns of local newspapers. However, ADGAP's request was rejected unanimously, which was a great pity, because it simply reinforced the perception that the new local structure is a puppet of the centre, that local ownership is a myth and that there is even less accountability with this structure than there was with the one it replaced.
Tourism is desperately important to the economy of my part of Scotland, which has to fight its own corner in the tourism world, given that tourists tend to come up the M6 and carry on up the M74 to the central belt and onwards to the Highlands and Islands. I am happy that the decision to keep Dumfries and Galloway as a hub on its own acknowledges the struggle that we face. We fight a constant battle to get some of the tourist traffic to turn left at Carlisle and savour the real beauty of the south-west of Scotland in general and Galloway in particular. To achieve that, we need local leadership, under local control, that is capable of disseminating local knowledge to those who come to the area.
Under the bill, it seems that we will have an ever more centralised structure that operates through a somewhat anonymous call centre that often displays such a lack of local knowledge that it is almost insulting to the inquirer. That is the exact opposite of the direction in which we should be going. I am afraid that, in all conscience, I cannot support the bill.
Tourism is about more than civic pride or cultural education, important though those are; it is a key industry, which employs 9 per cent of Scotland's workforce and generates £4.5 billion annually for the Scottish economy. Tourism development is an integral part of our drive for economic growth.
Scotland is a strong brand that needs a better distribution network. The key ways to improve the distribution of Scotland as a brand are through transport links such as air route development, good surface links, such as rail links to airports, and understandable local transport for visitors who, with the best will in the world, do not have local knowledge. The other key component is marketing information about Scotland more effectively to potential customers—by and large to people who have never been to Scotland.
Today's bill formalises the abolition of the past structure for marketing Scotland. I acknowledge that, in many respects, those past structures served Scotland well. I will focus on how new, tailored partnership structures are already delivering improvements in differentiated markets within the overall Scottish strategy.
Glasgow City Marketing Bureau was established in April 2005 with ministerial consent. The sole member of the company is Glasgow City Council, which is the company's main funder, to the tune of more than £2 million per annum. The main objectives of the bureau are the delivery throughout key national and international markets of a brand strategy for Glasgow that positions the city competitively; the development of initiatives that increase the contribution of discretionary business tourism and event tourism to Glasgow's economy; and the delivery of the excellent city destination website for the Glasgow metropolitan area, which is called seeglasgow.com.
VisitScotland's local network office in Glasgow leads on leisure tourism and has observer status on the board of the Glasgow City Marketing Bureau. The new partnership approach has already delivered impressive results in its first year. In the year to 31 March, the bureau attracted an additional 230,000 tourists to the city, generating additional revenue of £26.5 million. City hotel occupancy has increased year on year by 2 per cent from 70.7 per cent in 2004-05 to 72.7 per cent in 2005-06, despite an increase in the bed supply of more than 1,000 beds in the same year.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with civic pride in our local landscapes, architecture or visitor attractions, but we must move away from preaching mainly to the converted and focus on people who have not yet made the decision to come here.
The member referred to international and national marketing. As I understand it, the purpose of VisitScotland is to ensure international marketing of Scotland as a whole. What Charlie Gordon is referring to is, in effect, a degree of fragmentation, which is one of the major issues of concern to us in relation to the bill.
I am sorry, but I was reporting not fragmentation but effective partnership in differentiated markets. As I explained, leisure tourism and marketing is led by the local network of VisitScotland and the bureau concentrates on the three remits that it was given with ministerial consent. The whole adds up to more than the sum of the parts, as far as the Glasgow metropolitan area is concerned. If the rest of the country starts to look forward rather than mainly backward, it will learn from the good practice in Glasgow and the west of Scotland.
The bill formally tidies up the past processes. As I have said, many have already got down to the business of embracing and improving Scotland's tourism future. For Glasgow, opting out of that is not an option. In the Glasgow region, 50,000 jobs are reliant on tourism, which is more than there were in the Clyde shipyards in their heyday. We must all embrace that future to maximise Scotland's success.
A number of members have said that the bill is very much a tidying-up bill that takes forward the strategy that Frank McAveety announced in March 2004. I declare an interest in that I represent a constituency where tourism makes a vital contribution to the local economy. It is estimated that Orkney receives 127,000 visitors per annum, which delivers £27 million a year to the economy. The Lonely Planet guide describes Orkney as:
"A glittering centrepiece in Scotland's treasure chest of attractions."
I could not put it better than that.
When the minister gave evidence to the Enterprise and Culture Committee, which dealt with the bill, she drew attention to the fact that VisitShetland and VisitOrkney had teamed up to take advantage of this year's national spring marketing campaign to promote the northern isles as an ideal place to visit. I am delighted to say that the minister practises what she preaches, as she was a visitor to Orkney earlier this month during the St Magnus festival. I hope that that experience will encourage her to come back.
The important point when trying to measure this bill is the question whether it helps to strengthen and support what is, in many parts of Scotland, an important and dynamic industry. I declare a further interest, because I was the chairman of the ministerial working group that looked at the tourism strategy for Scotland and led, ultimately, to the statement that Frank McAveety, who was then the minister with responsibility for tourism, made in 2004. It was not just a group of ministers sitting around a table. We took evidence from people in the industry. It would be wrong to say that there was unanimity, but a strong theme came through that, in a highly competitive global marketplace, considerable benefits flow from an integrated Scotland-wide network. That led to the bill that we have before us today.
We understood that the network would consist of local tourism hubs. I am told that the word "hub" is not the most popular word, but it is as good a word as any. Charlie Gordon said that it is important that we have an effective partnership at local level as well as ensure that the hubs contribute to a national strategy. That is a recognition that there is diversity and that there has to be an ability to respond to local circumstances. When the structure was announced, the then chair of the ATB network said:
"It is vital that the new structure builds on, rather than erodes, the successful relationships which ATBs have nurtured at local level with our public agency partners and tourism businesses."
As Jamie McGrigor said, there is a huge reservoir of expertise, knowledge and ability at a local level, which we ignore at our peril. Therefore, it is important when we are dealing with this bill, which sets up a national structure, that we remember that the thrust was to have a national structure and an integrated network that built on local expertise. It would be welcome if the minister reaffirmed that.
It is important that we recognise that balance between a national network and the local dimension. That balance was buttressed by the service agreements that were built in with the local authorities. I understand from a recent meeting of the board of VisitScotland that it hopes to approach the Executive for additional grant in aid, which will allow for what it fears is a phasing out of local authority core funding, although it recognises that local authority funding has an important role to play in delivering specific local service agreements. The problem is to do with how we define core funding. We might say that staffing is a core matter but, in many parts of Scotland, a particular member of staff—say, one who deals with marketing—might be important to local delivery.
We have to ensure that the bill that we are promoting today does not have a centralising tendency. VisitScotland has good corporate communications, but that is not a substitute for good, local and effective marketing. We do not need to emphasise the issue about uniforms for tourist information centre staff if that is at the expense of a more locally focused approach. Diversity in tourism ought to be valued. We have to get the right balance between national and local.
One of the advantages that has flowed from the new structures is that there has been greater private sector involvement. Before, it was too easy for private sector businesses such as bed and breakfasts to pay their subscription to the ATB and think that they had done their bit. However, in Orkney, for instance, the Orkney tourism group is extremely lively. In February, it organised an important seminar on tourism. It recognises that the obvious tourism-related industries, such as hotels, restaurants, bed and breakfasts and the main visitor attractions are important and that the food and drink industry and the craft industry are important. The new structures give an incentive for the private sector to engage more actively than it has done in the past.
Another important part of the package that was announced relates to training and skills. Charlie Gordon mentioned the fact that around 9 per cent of Scotland's workforce is engaged in tourism. We are all aware that a large part of the tourism industry is made up of people who are seasonally employed, such as students—in that regard, I declare an interest, as my daughter has been working as a waitress in an Orkney hotel for the past four or five weeks. It is important that people identify tourism as an industry that can offer career opportunities. Certainly, the ministerial group that I chaired identified the importance of addressing the skills gap. There is a need to ensure that skills are promoted in the tourism industry. When the minister replies, it would be useful if she could say what is being done to address that important issue.
The bill delivers a formal structure. However, as we are all aware as a result of the many pieces of legislation that we have passed, formal structures take us only so far. What happens on the ground is vital. There are benefits from national marketing, but we will ensure that value is added to an important industry by being sensitive to the importance of local delivery.
I came into the chamber this morning recognising that, while there are differences between us on the bill, we would have a relatively balanced debate. Many good points have been made by many members. However, I suffered some consternation when Jamie Stone said that this was a tidying-up bill. The last time that something was so described was when Peter Hain and Peter Mandelson suggested that the European constitution was merely a tidying-up exercise. On that basis, I had another quick look at the bill to see where the bugs are. Happily, however, I do not see too many, and my opinions have not changed too much during the debate.
Tourism is a major earner for Scotland. The figures that Charlie Gordon gave with regard to Glasgow were particularly interesting. The fact that more people in Glasgow work in tourism than worked in shipbuilding in the old days says it all about the importance of tourism to Scotland. On that basis, we must ensure that, whatever Government does with regard to the tourism industry, we support rather than harm and ensure that the industry can go forward with minimum regulation by and involvement of the Government.
I congratulate the minister on the way in which the Executive has promoted Scotland in a number of ways. Scotland has a lot going for it, not least in the field of sport. In music and in food, we have a distinct brand. Our agriculture and food industries work well to provide considerable material for whatever body markets Scotland. As Christine Grahame said, we have a wonderful natural environment—we have the water, the hills and the landscape. We have to protect those things so that the marketing bodies can market them. In that regard, I will make one quick point on a familiar theme: let us not spoil our landscape by covering it with too many wind turbines. We must use a modicum of sense in developing wind power.
I recognise that VisitScotland's central role relates to global marketing, but I am concerned about the effect that that has at a local level. I note what the minister said about the desire to encourage partnerships between the public and private sectors but, as Alex Fergusson said, such partnerships lack teeth. I am concerned about the fact that there will be a feeling of isolation in some localities. Alex Fergusson highlighted the situation in Dumfries and Galloway. It is unfortunate that a dissenting voice was not welcomed on to the forum. There should be a balance. We can all stand a bit of dissention in whichever forum we work. It is unfortunate that the ADGAP representative was not backed in that situation.
I get the feeling that the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill is a bill for big players such as the larger companies and the global enterprises that have moved into tourism. I want to ensure that the local voice is heard and recognised as an important feature of tourism throughout Scotland. If we consider Charlie Gordon's figures and the impact on employment in Scotland, we find that small businesses provide the bulk of the opportunities for employment and earning. Whatever happens, we must ensure that their voice is not diminished.
Does Mr Gallie recognise that local businesses are assisted not just by our commitment to tourism per se but by our commitment to a number of other strategies? For example, our international and regional events strategy encourages local events to go into local tourism areas so that the local market can benefit. We have the views, concerns and viability of local businesses at heart.
I hear what the minister says and I hope that that turns out to be the case. I take the opportunity to say that EventScotland has been highly successful. I give credit to the Scottish Executive for that, and I also gave it credit when I spoke about its input to sport. However, we need more than just the Government giving opportunities. We need to ensure that local voices are heard. Local areas have their own perceptions and reasons for putting forward their views. It is not enough for them simply to express those views; they have to be heard and, somewhere along the line, acted upon. Concern has been voiced about that, not only by Conservative members but by others in the debate.
Finally, I refer to the Scottish Tourist Board's change of name. The minister said that she has reserved the name to ensure that it cannot be used elsewhere. I think that the change of name is irrelevant, to be honest. VisitScotland is an appropriate name but, as one of the officials told the Enterprise and Culture Committee, it could be changed at any time in the future. That being the case, why not just leave the name as it is and retain the name Scottish Tourist Board, given that it can rebrand itself in any way it wishes?
This has been a wide-ranging debate. It is on a narrow issue, but one that is part of a wider generic topic. Many members gave credit to the industry and put that on the record. As we approach the recess and people, including me, prepare to depart on their travels, we sometimes forget what we have in Scotland. We have the unparalleled beauty and the amenities that many members mentioned, but we also have remarkably good service.
As many members said, the Scottish tourism industry has improved remarkably. There is a self-deprecating aspect to the Scottish character that can be charming and endearing, but sometimes it can go too far. We often hear apocryphal tales about bad service, such as somebody being refused tea at 7.30 pm in Aviemore or wherever. In fact, whether in a chip shop in Gourock or a five-star establishment in Edinburgh or Glasgow, remarkably good service is the norm. There are instances of poor service, but they happen worldwide. We should praise the industry, not just for what it contributes to the Scottish economy, but for the fact that it has improved remarkably and is still improving.
Jim Wallace's comments were appropriate. There are career opportunities and career paths in tourism. There has to be a change of attitude in Scotland that service is not servility. Whether that is being changed by the attitudes of those in the industry or by Aussie backpackers working in bars here, who have created a sense of glamour and a sense that such careers are things that people can go into and enjoy, things have changed remarkably and we should pay tribute to that.
It could be argued that today's debate is almost a debate on subordinate legislation, but we understand why primary legislation is required. The changes that are made by the bill might be part of a tidying-up process, as my colleague Brian Adam said, but they have to be made. Not all debates in the chamber can be on strategic matters; some have to deal with the minutiae and address structural matters. We are happy to support the bill.
There was considerable delay with the ATBs going through. We sometimes look back at the halcyon days, but let us not delude ourselves. Many ATBs worked remarkably well—we in Edinburgh and the Lothians were well served—but other ATBs had difficulties that were not simply financial and they did not manage to achieve everything that they needed to. There were difficulties with getting people to sign up for what they perceived to be a state responsibility, and I had a great deal of sympathy with that. There were also difficulties when we expected people—whether they were electricians or hoteliers—to join together. There was not necessarily a configuration of interests. It is important that we tidy things up.
To some extent, the question of the name is a tautological matter. I have never been particularly sold on the name "VisitScotland", but it is the name that we have and I see no point in seeking to rebrand the body. I have debated that point with others in my party. Whether the body is called "VisitScotland", "Welcome to Scotland" or "Come to Scotland", what matters is what it does.
Does Mr MacAskill agree that the customer is important? We have perhaps not focused on that in this morning's debate. Without increasing numbers of customers, wherever they come from, we will not get the growth in tourism that we seek.
Absolutely. The tourism industry in Scotland needs to be supported and assisted in how it trains staff and provides services, but it is doing a remarkably good job itself and the private sector is delivering those things, aided and abetted by colleges, the Executive and the civil service at both national and local level. Fundamentally, we have to make Scotland affordable and accessible. To give credit where it is due, the work on opening up new air links has been appropriate. We have a problem with the exchange rate, which makes this country outrageously expensive for most tourists from other countries. Until that can be addressed, we will have a problem, although concentrating on niche markets is important.
We must remember that it is not VisitScotland's role to compete within Scotland. It is up to individual areas to sell their wares as they can, whether it is Christine Grahame promoting the outdoor facilities that are available in the Borders or Charlie Gordon orating the benefits of the city of Glasgow, with its marvellous architecture. At the end of the day, VisitScotland's job is to get people to come to Scotland. Where they go thereafter depends on the attempts to persuade them of the benefits of each area and on what type of holiday they want. We live in a globalised world, so we have to tailor things to suit people. We cannot simply say, "Come to Edinburgh because of its wonderful castle." People can pick and choose from a variety of castles throughout the world, including those in the Czech Republic and the Baltic states. We have to give people a specific reason to go to the destination.
I do not recognise the member's comment that Scotland is expensive. One of the benefits that we in Ayrshire have gained from the new air routes is that we now attract many visitors from Scandinavia, in particular. That is because Scotland offers good value, rather than the high costs that Kenny MacAskill mentioned.
Scotland offers good value for many of the golfers who come here and I welcome the fact that they come in on the Ryanair flights and other new flights. However, we remain a remarkably high-cost destination, whether that is due to the high pound, high VAT or high fuel costs. The cost of a hotel room in the city of Edinburgh—and indeed in Ayrshire—is significantly higher than one would pay in the United States or mainland Europe. That factor is beyond our control, but it impinges on Scottish tourism. Mr Gallie shakes his head, but if he speaks to those in the sector, they will tell him that they have to try to sell a high-cost product. They are selling it well and, correctly, they are going up-market to try to make sure that they get the best value, but the cost is an impediment. People can get the same product in some areas in Ireland at a considerably lower cost. As I say, that is beyond our control but the issue must be addressed.
An element of local accountability is required—other members, including Mr Gallie, have touched on that—but the nature of the beast is that some centralisation is also required if we want VisitScotland to sell Scotland in the international market. However, we must take cognisance of individuals' views and of the relationships and rapport that existed with many local tourist boards. VisitScotland must do better at that; in the areas in which I am involved, the rapport that existed with the then Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board has not been created with VisitScotland's regional office in the city of Edinburgh. That may be down to personalities, but it must be addressed.
As for niche markets, it might not have been best for some tourist boards to take responsibility for cruise liners and others to take responsibility for teaching English as a foreign language, which is important in Edinburgh, but we must ensure that those markets are picked up, although it is accepted that they are non-core. VisitScotland has a responsibility to promote Scotland as a cruise-liner destination and as a place in which to learn the English language, because those features add value to simply targeting the core market in the low countries, France, Germany and North America. That must be addressed. Perhaps that is being done, although I am not aware that it is and elements of the sector have complained to me about that. The issue can be overcome.
As I and others have said, we in this country too often see the glass as half empty rather than half full. We have a fantastic product and our industry is doing well and can do better, despite the difficulties with matters that are beyond its control. However, as I said, this debate is about tidying up that must be done. Wider-ranging debates are for the future.
I call Patricia Ferguson to wind up the debate. Officially, you are due 10 minutes, but a couple of minutes are in hand if you require them.
I listened with great interest to the debate and I genuinely thank my parliamentary colleagues for their speeches. I am particularly heartened that, like me, they believe that tourism is everybody's business.
It is good to hear that, on the whole, Parliament agrees that Scotland and VisitScotland are making good progress. I thank the Enterprise and Culture Committee for its consideration of the bill and I am pleased that it supported the general principles. However, it is clear that the committee and members who are present require reassurance on several issues. I will attempt to answer as many queries as I can; if I do not manage them all, I will write to the members concerned after the debate.
In opening for the Scottish National Party, Brian Adam made several points to which I should respond. Through interventions, too, he pursued a theme about marketing having been separated out. We have debated that already; that is how we reached where we are. We have worked hard to develop a single brand for Scotland, which it is important to have, for the reasons that Kenny MacAskill outlined. It is fair to say that the campaigns on the single brand are giving a very strong return on investment. For example, the return on investment for the welcome to our life campaign was £23 for every £1 that was spent. That approach has worked well.
I will not give way as I have a lot to get through.
Brian Adam asked whether Westminster was content with our changing legislation. We are discussing with Whitehall an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, but the United Kingdom Government has agreed in principle that we should proceed in that way.
Brian Adam talked about the power to promote Scotland overseas. VisitScotland promotes Scotland to developed markets. In new and developing markets, it works closely with VisitBritain. Much progress has been made on that.
Jamie McGrigor talked about the shabby treatment of members of the previous area tourist boards. VisitScotland and I have acknowledged the work that was done. If things are as bad as Mr McGrigor thinks, I am surprised that none of the people or organisations to which he referred chose to give evidence on the bill to the Enterprise and Culture Committee.
The name "VisitScotland" is an example of an industry standard of using the word "visit" and the name of a country, so we are bringing our system and our enterprise up to date.
I know that visitscotland.com receives much criticism on many matters, but a significant number of tourists nowadays choose to book online when arranging to visit a country. Through visitscotland.com, £45 million of business has been arranged for accommodation providers, which shows that the website is at least heading in the right direction. I accept that not everything in the visitscotland.com garden is rosy, but it has moved on significantly and will continue to do so.
Tourism people heap praise on the tourist information centres. I have asked the minister in the past whether those centres will be kept. Will she give me a concrete assurance that they will be kept?
When I make comments in the chamber, I sometimes wonder whether I should repeat them there and then. In response to an intervention by Mr Stone, I spoke about the review of tourist information centres that VisitScotland undertook. I understand that that is complete and that VisitScotland is to produce its plans. I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee—nor should I—that every information centre in the country will be kept open, because some are in the wrong places or operate in the wrong ways. Such matters must be reviewed over time. The centres have an important role to play, on which we can improve. They are a valuable part of the network.
Alex Neil said that the committee's various reports were excellent recess reading and I agree. He was correct to say that the board and the management of VisitScotland do a good job. However, I take issue a little with him and with Gordon Jackson about the initiatives that they saw in California, because we now have a model that is the envy of many parts of the world, which are considering copying the VisitScotland integrated structure and which are asking VisitScotland how that was achieved. Of course, we are always open to new ideas and we know that we must continue to innovate.
Gordon Jackson was right to say that the debate is not just about the structure, but about the culture of the organisation and of tourism in Scotland and about the value that we—and everyone outside the chamber—collectively place on tourism. He said that it is important for the sector to be involved. The fact that the 50 per cent target that Alex Neil and Christine Grahame mentioned is an industry target that we in the Government support shows the buy-in from the industry.
Chris Ballance and Alex Fergusson spoke about the problems that ADGAP perceives that it has in Dumfries and Galloway. I hope that Chris Ballance is correct that working methods have changed and that there have been positive developments between VisitScotland and ADGAP. However, we need to be clear that ADGAP is not just an association of accommodation providers; it provides a rival website and booking service and is a commercial organisation that competes with visitscotland.com. I understand that ADGAP's application to the area tourism partnership was rejected not by VisitScotland, but by the entire partnership unanimously, as Alex Fergusson said. It is worth putting that on record and into context, but I am perfectly happy to look into that further if that would help.
Christine Grahame made the valid point that many visitors to the Borders come from England. That is why the UK domestic market is important. We know that 45 per cent of English people have never been to Scotland, so we have a big untapped market on our doorstep. If we could get them to deviate into Dumfries and Galloway, that would be all the better. Of course, it would be entirely possible for us to do that. I am sure that other members will put in bids for places those people should visit.
Charlie Gordon was right to emphasise the importance of the Glasgow City Marketing Bureau, and I know that the Edinburgh bureau is having a similar benefit. However, we should acknowledge that the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council not only have worked well in partnership with VisitScotland but have made substantial investment, because they understand the importance of tourism to their areas and want their strategies to be successful.
Several members, particularly Jim Wallace, rightly raised the issue of skills and the importance of making careers in the tourism industry viable and attractive to people. That is an important part of our work and the issue certainly poses a constant challenge, but the influx of people from other parts of the world is helping significantly to push up the standards of the indigenous workforce. For example, three weeks ago, I launched a project at Dunfermline high school to encourage young people in schools to learn online about training opportunities in the hospitality, catering and tourism sectors. Moreover, Sector Skills Alliance Scotland has launched a DVD that highlights the workplace training at the St Andrews Bay hotel as an example of good practice. The hotel has won awards for its training and stands as a good example of how the tourism industry can get things right.
Presiding Officer, I am not sure whether I am running out of time.
The debate has to finish by 11 o'clock, so you have almost three minutes left.
Thank you. I can now wax lyrical about tourism, which, along with sport and culture, is one of my favourite subjects.
In my intervention on Mr Gallie, I mentioned the regional events strategy. The fact that that is an important aspect of the work of EventScotland—which, of course, is an adjunct of VisitScotland—shows the synergy of tourism, culture and sport. We cannot underestimate the value of sporting and cultural tourism to our country.
Mr Gallie mentioned food in his speech. Will the minister consider further promoting food as a tourism product through food fairs and so on? I should perhaps declare an interest in that respect, Presiding Officer.
As Mr Stone is sitting next to me and I am aware of his interest in the subject, I was just about to mention the importance of food to tourism. In that respect, I am pleased to support the EatScotland scheme, which I think has a great deal of merit. The wonderful thing about it is that it concentrates not only on five-star restaurants, but on the good practice in small local tearooms and fish and chip shops and recognises the value of and the international interest in good, fresh Scottish produce.
I hope that Parliament has been reassured that the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill is doing the right things. The industry has set itself the ambitious and important target of growing tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015. However, I draw the attention of members—particularly those who might be spending some time in Scotland during the summer recess—to our green tourism business scheme. We have to take care of the country that everyone we know wants to visit and maintain the scenery and wildlife that members have referred to. The green tourism business scheme is a way of meeting that aim and I ask members who are holidaying in Scotland this summer to look out for providers who are members of that scheme. There are many, and their work is of very high quality.
The bill will put the VisitScotland integrated tourism network on a proper legal footing and allow it to continue its world-class work towards achieving our ambition of making Scotland one of the world's foremost tourist destinations by 2015. I urge the chamber, including Mr Fergusson and his colleagues, to support it.