Tourism
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-945, in the name of Jim Mather, on tourism.
I am pleased to open the debate on such an important subject and to encourage people to come up with yet more ideas that can help to improve a key sector. I have no doubt that all members fervently believe in the value of what Scottish tourism can offer visitors, staff in the tourism sector and the nation. We are working closely with the industry to ensure that it delivers all that it can do.
Scotland is a destination that has stunning, evocative scenery, iconic places, friendly people, history, culture and tradition—in a unique and compelling blend. It is a package that evokes curiosity and enthusiasm in new visitors and deep emotions in the expatriate Scots, diaspora Scots and affinity Scots who are our repeat visitors.
There is a new realisation that tourism is economically important in providing jobs and revenue, in maintaining and broadcasting the brand and in attracting people to Scotland who will invest, return and buy Scottish goods and services. Indeed, there is a new awareness that we are all in the tourism business. We are all capable of improving visitors' impressions and experiences of Scotland, whether we are politicians or policemen, publicans or porters, or golf professionals or guest house proprietors. We are all in this together. That is how we need to operate now that we understand that the economy is at the centre of everything that we are doing. The importance of tourism is dawning on Scotland.
Our economic strategy has a clear, unifying core purpose, which can be paraphrased as the desire to boost the brand, the economy and the life chances of the people of Scotland. Tourism can help in all three areas. Tourism is not just full of potential; it is already one of our main industries and is identified as one of the priority industries by the enterprise networks. It provides £4.2 billion to our economy every year. It is central to the economic life of Scotland and it employs 200,000 people, which fits well with our objective of a wealthier and fairer Scotland. Tourism sits at the hub of economic strategy in Scotland now that VisitScotland enjoys full and equal representation on the new strategic forum.
As I said, in Scotland tourism is everyone's business. We are all experts because we are all tourists. We are all experienced visitors who have strong opinions on the hospitality sector.
In the 21st century, tourism is one of the most competitive industries. More than 200 countries are seeking to win tourism business. They are all competing with us for business. We cannot sit back and be complacent, even if we have a winning product.
There is a good history of partnership in tourism. "Scottish Tourism: The Next Decade—A Tourism Framework for Change", which I admit that we inherited, makes a valuable contribution. The framework was developed in recent years in close collaboration between the public and private sectors. It sets out the shared ambition of increasing tourism revenue by 50 per cent over the 10 years from 2005 to 2015. That will not be an easy win, but it is a bold and achievable goal. I will take up the point that is raised in the Conservatives' amendment in that regard.
The industry has accepted that only it can deliver on the goal, but it is willingly and intelligently harnessing the support of Government and VisitScotland so that it can perpetually improve what it offers. We have brought tourism into the remit of the industry department, as part of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's portfolio, together with other industry support work.
We recently announced reforms to the enterprise network and VisitScotland's delivery structures, which will remove the confusing mixture of boundaries by restructuring the networks into six regional areas, while leaving space in which local authorities and destination development groups will be able to develop the focus and passion that will drive improvement and enrich Scottish tourism. Those reforms and VisitScotland's involvement in the new strategic forum will strengthen joint working between VisitScotland and the enterprise networks. Good, collaborative working is taking place, on research, for example, between the three major organisations—VisitScotland, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise. The streamlined approach will help VisitScotland and the enterprise agencies to address gaps or overlaps between them. The result will be a better service to and more value for tourism businesses, which will understand and appreciate that.
Since I took on my portfolio, I have found that there is a great spirit of partnership in tourism—it is up there with the Scotch Whisky Association and Scottish Financial Enterprise. I have directly involved myself by holding two national tourism seminars, which each brought together 80 or more people involved in the industry, to consolidate opinion. I also held local events in the west, in my own constituency—Argyll and Bute—where the economy depends on tourism. The national events successfully brought together a wide range of tourism personalities and representatives. We debated and identified the main issues. We talked about our strengths and potential as well as inhibitors and barriers to growth. We established that, in the quest to meet our shared ambition on growth and to exceed visitor expectations, we are all in it together—that is crucial. In other words, we agreed that the public, private and voluntary sectors have roles to play in helping the industry to thrive and grow and in making Scotland the world-class, must-visit destination that it will be.
At the tourism seminar on 19 November, VisitScotland.com announced the start of big changes in how it will work, which represented a good example of how VisitScotland.com listens to its customers and lets them know that they have been heard. The emphasis of VisitScotland.com's operation will move from online booking to providing a guide to Scotland. There will be attractive information for visitors about things to do and a what's on guide, which will link to an online shop, where visitors will still be able to book accommodation online if they want to do so. They will also be able to click on links to other booking and ticketing services or individual hospitality locations.
Will Mr Mather say how many people at the seminars called for the ending of the route development fund? The Government has decided to end the fund, but the tourism sector in particular benefited from the fund's establishment and the direct routes that were created.
The member knows that the route development fund is constrained by what Europe will wear at the moment, but I must tell him that, of the 160 people who attended the two events, not one mentioned the route development fund. People who contributed to the events and to the tourism framework for change—[Interruption.] Is someone muttering? I hear noises off.
If members are keen to intervene, time is available in the debate. Members who press their request-to-speak buttons will be able to contribute properly.
Bring them on. We need ideas.
I am surprised that Mr Mather said that no one in the tourism industry to whom he has spoken is worried about the loss of direct flights to and from Scotland. I am sure that he acknowledges the importance of direct flights—[Interruption.] The minister and his colleagues are muttering away, but perhaps they should listen—
They are following a previous example, I think, Mr Scott.
Does the minister accept that he could find ways to augment VisitScotland's marketing budget, to allow for the development of a new mechanism for providing the direct routes that are so important to the industry?
VisitScotland has a good budget and much imagination is being applied to the issue. However, I have with me a list of issues that were raised at the seminars. The route development fund is not one of them.
Our galvanised tourism industry is taking the tourism framework for change to a new level. The framework is being implemented by brilliant, dedicated industry champions such as Gavin Ellis and Peter Taylor. Such people have invested significant time and personal effort and have shown drive and an enthusiasm to stimulate other people and spread the word to all parts of the sector. Five implementation groups cover the most important issues: market intelligence and innovation; marketing; customer experience; sustainable tourism; and corporate tourism and infrastructure. Between those groups and the overall monitoring group, more than 60 individuals are working to ensure that the framework is delivered.
Many third sector organisations are involved in tourism, from major attractions and heritage groups, such as the National Trust for Scotland, the National Galleries of Scotland and the National Museums of Scotland, to groups that work to improve training and promote involvement of hospitality staff, such as Springboard Scotland and Hospitality Industry Trust Scotland. Many community groups are showing growing interest in taking a lead to improve and promote their areas for tourism.
I spoke about the international competition for tourism business. We already have a world-class tourism agency in VisitScotland, which is committed to continuous improvement and is working with what I believe is an innovative, proactive and increasingly confident industry.
The success of VisitScotland's marketing work is internationally acknowledged. It has also been at the forefront of developments such as quality assurance schemes, the green tourism business scheme and customer focus.
In the spending review, we have not just maintained but increased the level of grant funding for VisitScotland's work. Additional funds are allocated specifically for preparations for the Ryder cup in 2014. Further funds are available for the improvement of VisitScotland's capital estate of tourist information centres and offices. In total, more than £150 million is available as grant in aid over the next three years. That provides around two thirds of VisitScotland's overall income, but the Government's funding for tourism is by no means limited to VisitScotland's budget. In total, approximately £90 million is being provided this year by VisitScotland, the enterprise agencies, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland and local authorities. They are working more and more closely together as there is growing awareness that we need to co-ordinate our efforts to maximise the impact on current and potential future visitors.
We intend to invest around £5 million in the homecoming Scotland project over the next two years. The money will go to VisitScotland to fund the homecoming project, which is being redesigned to drive increased tourism revenues and involve all of Scotland.
Will the minister confirm that the £5 million for the homecoming project is not currently in VisitScotland's budget but is additional money?
It is additional money.
What excites me about the project is that the plan is to activate 5.1 million Scots—in the churches, universities, schools, professions, clan societies and so on—so that they pick up the phone and get on the e-mail to encourage people to come home. Given that all of that is being done, all of those resources are being used and the spending review produced a deal that compares well with the situation in England, where VisitBritain faces a significant cash reduction, we are now positioned to move forward.
What is the Scottish Government's thinking on what we might call genealogical tourism, in which people come back to Scotland to look for their roots with the help of a co-ordinated database and that sort of thing?
I am exceedingly positive about that. We are working closely with the registrar general for Scotland to develop that further—he is even reducing his charges to make such searches easier and more affordable.
I have no hesitation in accepting the Conservative amendment, as it mirrors the work that we have already started in our consultation sessions to augment the work towards the target of 50 per cent growth and to place it in a more altruistic setting. We want the industry to exceed the demands and expectations of visitors and to create a climate that offers improved career opportunities for young people.
Although the Labour amendment is doubtless well meaning, it fails to recognise that the route development fund is constrained by impositions by the European Commission. It also fails to recognise that we are doing many other imaginative things to ensure that we maximise the flow of visitors into Scotland. I regret to say that the proposals in the amendment might jeopardise the new-found cohesion in the industry.
I am rather shocked by the negative spin that the Lib Dem amendment presents. It fails to acknowledge the overall increase that I have mentioned. It also chooses to ignore the consultation sessions and the hard work done on the tourism framework for change, which is creating a new collaboration that will allow us to drill down into communities to create more destinations and will ensure that local authorities, enterprise networks and transport companies—all the missing stakeholders—work together to create tourism in Scotland at a new level. That will reward everyone in Scotland and boost our economy.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the vital role that tourism has in increasing sustainable economic growth in line with the Scottish Government's Economic Strategy; reiterates its support for the ambitions set out in the Tourism Framework for Change that tourism revenue should increase by 50% in real terms in the decade to 2015 and that Scotland should be one of Europe's most sustainable tourism destinations; recognises the appetite in the industry to improve and exceed visitor expectation, and welcomes the fact that these ambitions are shared between the public, private and third sectors.
We welcome the debate, but it is a debate about means, not ends. The objective of a 50 per cent increase in tourism revenue by 2015 is one that we supported in government and support today, but it is not enough to agree on an objective or to hold forums and seminars on an objective. Achieving the objective can involve tough decisions about priorities, resources, and change in order to achieve structures that are fit for purpose. Labour and our coalition partners took many such decisions. We had a tourism minister at the Cabinet table, we doubled the money that was available to VisitScotland to market Scotland in the wider world and we created a coherent national network to do that job in the most effective way.
Sadly, tourism is no longer the lead responsibility of a Cabinet minister and the spending plans for VisitScotland over the next three years do not propose real-terms increases in the core budget for marketing Scotland. The agency is to be further restructured in line with changes to the enterprise networks, but those networks face savage cuts to their capacity to contribute to the growth of Scotland's tourism businesses.
Labour's amendment highlights three issues that we believe are crucial to the further growth of tourism in Scotland: access, marketing and skills. It might appear to be a statement of the obvious to argue that the growth of tourist numbers requires increased access for visitors to Scotland by land, sea and air, but everything that the Government has done so far suggests that the objective of improved access is not a given. Air travel in particular does not appear to figure in the Scottish National Party's plans for growing tourist numbers or for growing the economy.
The Scottish Council for Development and Industry produced a concise response to "The Tourism Prospectus: Investing for Growth" in September. The SCDI's paper put a good deal of emphasis on access, including access to Scotland by air. It highlighted the fact that
"One particular success story over the last few years"
has been the route development fund, which Jack McConnell mentioned. It also highlighted the importance of integrating airports into the rest of Scotland's transport infrastructure and called for support for plans to make that happen.
The SNP has rejected the Edinburgh airport rail link and with it the idea of connecting Edinburgh airport to the strategic rail network around Scotland. The SNP motion proposes Scotland as a sustainable destination, yet the SNP prefers that visitors arriving by air should not have the easy access to Scotland's entire rail system that EARL would have given.
Are you in the Labour Party suggesting that more and more people will arrive by air in Scotland or that they will use more sustainable forms of transport in the future if they want to travel here?
I am not suggesting anything, Mr Gibson. Lewis Macdonald might be, and I am sure that he would like to answer.
I am indeed, Presiding Officer. I am suggesting that if we are to achieve a 50 per cent increase in tourism revenue, there needs to be an increased number of visitors by every mode of transport. Of course, the more who arrive by sustainable means, the better. If Mr Gibson is confirming by the tone of his question that the SNP's policy is that we do not want more travellers coming to Scotland by air, that confirms my point.
Of course, it is not only about air travel. It is important to ensure that sea ports provide integrated services for people who arrive by ferry from abroad and people who travel by ferry within Scotland. It is important to integrate ferry services with the road and rail network. Efficient access means access by all modes and easy transfer from one mode of travel to another. Of course, that includes access by road and rail. I wonder whether Rob Gibson is about to intervene and say that he does not want more tourists coming by road. If so, he is welcome to do so.
I would prefer that people come in from Leeds by road or rail rather than air. If you are looking at the largest number of visitors who come here at the moment, can you tell us whether you have a plan in your amendment to suggest how we can get the railway services working better so that people can come from the English market by rail?
I have tried to make it clear to members that they should not use the term "you" in the chamber. It is preferred that they refer to members by their proper names.
I am delighted that Mr Gibson supports tourism by road and by rail. That is encouraging. However, I hope that, come decision time, we will have a vote that says that tourists arriving by air are also good for the Scottish economy.
Access by road and rail is important. If tourists who come here are to have certainty about their journeys and about the quality of Scotland's transport infrastructure, there needs to be a degree of certainty over projects such as the M74 extension, which is threatened with delay, and the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which is already a victim of delay. Those delays and uncertainties should concern us all.
Does the member agree that that point also applies to the A9 north of Inverness, a road with which he is acquainted?
I am well acquainted with that road. I hope that the range of strategic transport projects that have been carried forward from the previous Administration will have a degree of certainty under the current one.
Another project for which I had responsibility when it was introduced about five years ago is the route development fund. I, for one, am proud of the difference that the fund has made to Scottish tourism. Visitors can now fly direct to Scotland who previously would have had no choice, if coming by that mode, but to transfer at Heathrow or another hub airport. That is just what we need in the era of short breaks and city breaks, which will be the growth business of the future.
I am sure that the member will not concede that the idea of the route development fund was evolved in the SNP ranks, but will he say what steps he would take to overcome the constraints that the European Commission has imposed?
I certainly agree with Mr Mather if his point is that the SNP did not think of the route development fund. There is nothing sustainable about air visitors to Scotland taking two planes rather than one, so direct flights and routes into Scotland are a good thing.
As Jim Mather said, ministers have concluded that the route development fund cannot continue in its current form and have pinned the blame for that on European rules. However, they cannot blame the European Union for their failure to come up with an alternative. It is one thing to say that an existing scheme that has served us well for five years must be set aside for reasons that are beyond ministers' control, but it is quite another to say that it is beyond the collective imagination of Scotland's devolved Government to come up with an alternative scheme for marketing Scottish destinations. Surely there are ways in which to make progress—a scheme for marketing Scottish destinations could be operated separately from airlines' marketing schemes for direct routes. If ministers were committed to building on the success of the route development fund, they could readily transfer the equivalent sum to a destination marketing scheme and ask VisitScotland to run that in partnership with, and with investment by, airlines and airports.
Does the member accept that the route development fund in its present format cannot continue to exist because of European rules?
That is not a question for me—it is clearly one for ministers. However, there is a question for all of us. If we think that the route development fund has been a success, rather than simply say—as Alex Neil appears to do—that we can do nothing because there is a question about the fund's compliance with European rules, the constructive and positive response would be to use the collective imagination to find a way to put in place a scheme. That has not happened, which is the focus of our amendment.
Jim Mather said that the tourism seminars failed to identify concern in the tourism sector about the loss of the route development fund. I am afraid that that says less about the importance of the fund than it does about the effectiveness or otherwise of the seminars in flushing out the key issues. Mr Mather will have seen the briefing this week from the British Hospitality Association, which highlighted the route development fund and the need for the Government to come up with an alternative to the scheme as a key issue for the future of Scottish tourism.
VisitScotland exists to market Scotland, which is why previous Administrations doubled the funds that were available to it for marketing. That is why the decision not to increase further VisitScotland's core marketing budget in real terms must concern all those who share the objectives that we are discussing today.
Has the member seen a specific line in any budget anywhere that is described as being only for marketing, and can he prove that the funding has been reduced?
Along with me, Mr Brown attended yesterday's meeting of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, so he will recall that the visitor engagement line in the VisitScotland budget that was presented to the committee showed that the current year's funding for visitor engagement is £45 million and the intended funding in the third year of the spending review period is £45.3 million. No matter how optimistic Mr Brown may be about inflation, he must accept that that is a real-terms reduction. I put that point to VisitScotland's chief executive at yesterday's committee meeting and he did not dispute that he was facing a real-terms reduction in funding for the task of marketing Scotland. Although specific funds will be provided for specific purposes, it is not good enough to say that events such as the Ryder cup and the year of homecoming should be funded on an ad hoc basis. We need VisitScotland to make a core marketing effort that is funded by Government, but we have seen no evidence at all that that is intended in the spending review period.
If we are to grow tourism in Scotland, we must get our market positioning right, which means, above all, an emphasis on quality and promoting Scotland as a quality brand, which in turn means that we must ensure that the workforce has the right skills. The Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which will consider these matters in the next few months, will pay a lot of attention to standards and skills. I hope that the Scottish Government will accept its responsibilities on that. It was clear from the evidence that the committee heard yesterday that the enterprise networks have in the past been critical to ensuring a supply of training to match the sector's demands and that VisitScotland has worked closely with the networks to achieve that. The replacement of the enterprise networks with a new skills agency must not be allowed to stop that happening. We share the concerns of others about the impact on tourism of the drastic cuts in funding for the enterprise networks. In real terms, funding is being cut by more than 14 per cent for Scottish Enterprise and by more than 20 per cent for Highlands and Islands Enterprise in the next three years—and that is before the separating out of the skills agency and the transfer of the business gateway. Those cuts are serious and must at least present a significant degree of risk to the future support for tourism businesses throughout Scotland.
The Scottish Government's decisions in recent weeks have serious implications for Scotland's ability to meet the challenging targets that the previous Administration supported. Opportunities to improve the integration of our transport system and visitor access to Scotland have been rejected. A successful scheme to promote direct flights to Scotland has been abandoned and has not been replaced. VisitScotland's core marketing budget is to decline for the first time in years. The training and skills challenge has not been met. The enterprise networks are facing serious budget reductions, with all that that implies for the future growth of tourism businesses. By way of new thinking, we have been offered a tourism minister who is not in the Cabinet and a bold new slogan—"Welcome to Scotland". If tourism revenue is to grow by 50 per cent by 2015, the Scottish Government will have to do better than that.
I move amendment S3M-945.2, to insert after "destinations":
"recognises the importance to tourism of improved access for visitors to Scotland by land, sea and air; notes with concern the Scottish Government's failure to propose an alternative to the Route Development Fund or to increase the marketing budget of VisitScotland over the next three years; believes that improved skills and training are the key to achieving higher standards".
The debate should be an opportunity to unite behind Scotland's tourism industry, of which we should be extremely proud, but already the rain has arrived in the form of the Labour Party and, I suspect, the midges will arrive after my speech in the form of the Liberal Democrats. The Scottish Conservatives are extremely optimistic about the future of Scottish tourism. We have the best natural beauty in the world, the best built attractions, including Edinburgh castle, and, most important, the best people.
It was disappointing to hear Lewis Macdonald spend 90 per cent of his speech talking only about the route development fund. We have sympathy with Mr Macdonald's view—although there are European issues—but he needs to know that more than 85 per cent of tourists in Scotland come from Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that the vast majority of them arrive by rail or road. Therefore, it was a missed opportunity for Mr Macdonald to spend his entire speech talking about one aspect.
Further, Lewis Macdonald's point about visitor engagement and the marketing budget is simply mistaken. The marketing budget is part of the visitor engagement budget, which will not go up hugely in the next couple of years. However, as we heard yesterday from VisitScotland, its marketing budget is safe, although other parts within visitor engagement, which is an entire department in the organisation, will not go up hugely. The critical point is that the marketing budget will go up—VisitScotland was clear about that.
Will the member describe to me, as I seem to have failed to note this at the time, the figures that were attached to the statement that the marketing element of visitor engagement will increase?
No specific figures were given about the marketing budget, but it was made clear that VisitScotland's view is that the core marketing budget has not gone down and, in fact, has increased. That is without taking into account the £5 million for the year of homecoming and the £1.5 million for the next three years to focus on the Ryder cup.
We are optimistic about the future. I recently attended the VisitScotland award ceremony at the Edinburgh international conference centre and was impressed by an industry that is in buoyant mood and is hungry for the future.
We welcome the debate and support much of the Government's approach, but there are two areas that we want to highlight in our amendment. The first relates to what might be called localism. We had concerns about the abolition of the area tourist boards and we think that the situation needs to be considered for the future. Certainly, any moves to centralise the industry further need to be resisted. It is important that local opportunities are given at local levels, so I was encouraged to hear the minister say last week that we need to improve engagement at a local level. I was further encouraged yesterday to hear VisitScotland say that the vast bulk of the 109 tourist information centres are safe. It is important that we stand up for them.
Tourism initiatives in Scotland are often best marketed by local tourism areas. That is particularly true in Edinburgh, which has capital city status and should be looked at again as an exception. VisitScotland talks about a national dish with local flavours, but it is important that we can taste those local flavours. The Government should commit to localism as far as possible.
The second part of our amendment refers to the aspiration to achieve 50 per cent growth and makes it clear that we need a plan to do that. The tourism framework, which is a largely positive document, and the 50 per cent figure that came out of it were produced in March 2006—a year and a half ago—yet there is still no clear plan for delivery. That is one thing that prompted the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, with all-party support, to decide to look into the issue and come up with some suggestions and answers. That is important because, only last week, the chief executive of VisitScotland said that we need to quantify activity in key areas, allocate responsibility and measure progress on the 50 per cent growth ambition. If we do not do that, there is little chance that we will meet our aspiration.
Between 2005 and 2006, the overall position of tourism in Scotland deteriorated. The number of passenger trips decreased by 7.2 per cent and visitor spend decreased by 1.3 per cent. That is not good news and we need to reverse that trend as quickly as possible. The situation last year was excellent for international tourism. Visitor trips increased by 14.2 per cent and spend increased by more than 19 per cent. That is particularly impressive given the strength of the pound last year. There were impressive gains from the United States of America, France and Ireland. However, it was a bad year for domestic tourism, which affects the overall figures. We saw big decreases in the numbers of UK and Scottish tourists—people from the east travelling west, and people from the west and east travelling north and south. That is important and it is another reason why we favour localism. Between 2005 and 2006, the number of overnight stays in Scotland by Scottish people dropped sharply by 3 million, from 22 million to 19 million. That is why our amendment focuses on localism and getting a plan behind the 50 per cent growth figure.
We have many positive ideas. We must move as quickly as possible to year-round tourism, which will be good for the industry. It will mean that we will be much more likely to hit our targets and that we will have much more stability, which will improve the career paths and skills of those working in the industry. We need great initiatives such as the Cambo snowdrops campaign, which tries to bring tourists to Fife in February and March when it is traditionally quiet. We want increases in business tourism and, in particular, in wildlife tourism. We already have a strong reputation throughout Europe in wildlife tourism, but we can make it even stronger.
We are optimistic for the industry. We want greater control locally and a clear plan in place as quickly as possible to meet the growth aspiration. I note in passing that, according to the Scottish Government website, in 1996—the last full year of a Conservative Government—the Scottish tourism industry was worth £5 billion a year. Last year, it was worth £4.1 billion. We need to move quickly.
I move amendment S3M-945.3, to insert at end:
"further recognises the important work done by the excellent network of tourist information centres; believes that decision-making at a local level is a crucial element of an effective tourism strategy, and calls on the Scottish Government to give a more detailed explanation as to how the 50% growth ambition is to be met and the role of the public, private and third sectors in doing so."
In the spirit of the current creative zeitgeist, I begin by saying: welcome to the chamber. They must have been up all night thinking up that one—it is clear that £100,000 does not you get much these days.
As well as giving members a heartfelt welcome to the chamber, I also welcome this morning's debate. I apologise to members for the fact that I need to absent myself from the chamber for a short time during the debate to attend another meeting.
No political party disputes the importance of the tourism sector to Scotland. As the minister highlighted, it is an industry that, in its various forms, probably touches every part of the country. Few other industries, if any, can make such a claim.
Equally, there can be little doubt about the fact that we are currently at an important juncture for the tourism industry. Bold and ambitious objectives for the development of the tourism sector have been set—largely, as the Government's motion acknowledges, by the previous Scottish Executive. They were agreed after much deliberation with the industry, and they will stretch all those involved in and connected with the industry. However, they also require those of us with an interest in and potential influence over that development to act in ways that support it and are sustainable.
I congratulate the Government on its motion. There is much of it that Liberal Democrats support—not least because it recognises the groundbreaking work of the ministerial working group on tourism, which was chaired by my predecessor, Jim Wallace. However, following the setting of such stretching targets and bold ambitions for the industry, I question whether the policy and spending decisions taken by ministers in recent weeks will help to deliver them.
Each of the amendments to the Government's motion reflects that question to some extent, although the Tories are perhaps a little coy in their amendment. It is certainly more restrained than Elizabeth Smith and Murdo Fraser were when they questioned the minister in the chamber earlier this month. Only they can explain their compassionate opposition.
Gavin Brown's argument that local decision making is a crucial element of an effective tourism strategy is one with which I have no difficulty, and I will return to that shortly.
I am glad to hear that the member is keen on localism. Where did his party stand on the abolition of local area tourist boards?
As I already highlighted, the ministerial working group deliberated with stakeholders for a considerable time and arrived at what I thought was a sensible compromise between driving a national programme through VisitScotland and safeguarding a local dimension and autonomy.
The importance of excellent transport links has also been highlighted. I know that they are certainly important to my part of the world, but I recognise that such links are essential to the tourism industry throughout the country. No one disputes the fact that the air route development fund needed to be recast—Lewis Macdonald clearly set out the reasons for that—but the absence of any alternative proposal from the Government will have potentially serious implications for our tourism industry. It also flies in the face of what the SNP said in opposition on the need for direct links.
Does the member recognise that, in the budget for the current spending round, the route development fund continues and then tapers off? There will be opportunities to engage with the industry to come up with alternatives—it is not tapering off now. Of course, the member also has the alternative of lodging an amendment to the budget.
It was not clear from anything that Mr Mather said that the Government has any ideas for what will happen as the route development fund tapers off.
Wait and see.
Mr Mather is clearly adopting the same coyness as the Conservatives.
The skills necessary to achieve the high-quality tourism businesses that are now a prerequisite to distinguishing Scotland's tourism offering are vital. There is no doubt that Scotland has many natural advantages—the minister highlighted a number of them—but we rest on those laurels at our peril. Improving quality through improving skills is essential, and we can exceed visitor expectations in no other way.
Our amendment focuses on a number of specific decisions taken by the SNP Government that, we believe, deal a serious blow to the minister's claims—which are certainly sincerely held—of wanting to see the development of a vibrant, high-quality tourism industry.
Of course, the minister's Achilles' heel is that he cannot resist a well-turned flipchart. Death by PowerPoint is the only way to die, so the master of matrix management has presented us with a restructuring of VisitScotland that is driven by process and function but ignores reality. Overlaying the structure with that of HIE and Scottish Enterprise may make sense in the land of consultants—those who are not required to operate in the system—but in Scotland's three main island groups we will be hard pressed to find anyone who has a good word to say about the minister's proposals.
I appreciate that further discussions are to be held about the centralising process, although I cannot help but think that some of that consultation would have been more helpful before plans emerged. Emerge is what they did—to say that they were launched would be to overstate what was in effect their interring in the peroration of a statement about the wholesale filleting of the enterprise networks.
There is no lack of commitment in VisitOrkney, VisitShetland and VisitHebrides to working collaboratively in VisitScotland's framework. Their track record in the past two years bears witness to their success. As well as tourist numbers, recent headlines in respected tourism publications that suggest that Orkney is the "glittering centrepiece in Scotland's treasure chest of attractions" and, perhaps less intuitively, "Why Shetland is Better than the Bahamas", serve as evidence of that success.
The gratuitous and unwarranted restructuring of VisitScotland so soon after the implementation of the previous restructuring pales in comparison with the wholesale demolition of the enterprise networks. Members will recall that, in his statement to Parliament, John Swinney asked us to get our heads round the concept of revitalising the local enterprise companies through their abolition. From the south of Scotland to the Highlands and Islands, people are concerned that the reduction in local decision making and the real-terms cuts in the budgets of Scottish Enterprise and HIE present a serious threat to business start-ups and growth throughout the tourism industry.
In the HIE area alone, a budget cut of 22 per cent will have been made by the end of the spending review period. It is hard to square that with the commitment in the Government's economic strategy that insists that the tourism industry is a key sector and as such will receive enhanced support. Such tough love raises the question whether being identified as a key sector is akin to a football manager receiving the dreaded vote of confidence from his chairman.
The reduced funding for marketing by VisitScotland that was announced in the budget earlier this month and which Philip Riddle acknowledged in his evidence to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee this week compounds the problems, but Liberal Democrats still believe that the decisions that have been taken on enterprise networks, college funding, a replacement for the air route development fund and Scottish Natural Heritage risk doing the most damage. Nevertheless, the signal that the SNP has sent to the tourism sector by proposing real-terms cuts to VisitScotland's budget—despite the investment that is proposed for capital grants and the Ryder cup—is at best inconsistent. What impact that will have on core services remains to be seen.
Although members agree on the ends, we have genuine differences about the means by which we achieve those ends.
I have pleasure in moving amendment S3M-945.1, in my name, to leave out from second "recognises" to end and insert:
"believes that this objective is put at risk by the cuts to the budgets and business support activities of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise which will reduce local decision-making and have a negative impact on the start-up and growth of tourism businesses across Scotland; notes with concern the lack of consultation over the restructuring of VisitScotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to commit to safeguarding the budgets and autonomy of the island offices under the control of VisitOrkney, VisitShetland and VisitHebrides."
We come now to the open debate. We have a little time in hand, but speeches should be of about six minutes.
The debate has had an interesting start. Lewis Macdonald chose his words carefully; he applied qualifying clauses to his description of the budget to achieve his end of implying that, somehow or other, tourism is bound to go to hell in a handcart as a consequence of the budget. I refute that totally.
I will make interesting comparisons. I readily acknowledge that, eventually, the previous Executive coalition delivered more money to the Scottish tourism sector for marketing. The figure genuinely increased. The evidence is that that will continue in the budget. For example, VisitScotland's budget, including the events budget, will be greater than that of VisitBritain at the conclusion of the spending review period. That is a significant commitment.
I welcome the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's inquiry into how we will increase tourism revenue by 50 per cent by 2015. It is not the Government, but the industry, that will increase that revenue, but any steps that the Government takes must make it easier rather than more difficult to achieve that increase. That is the reason for the inquiry, which will cover matters to which other members have referred.
I will talk about the niche ancestral tourism market, to which Jamie Stone referred. On Monday, I attended the north-east tourism awards in Aberdeen, along with Lewis Macdonald. I was privileged to contribute to the debate there, as I have a significant interest in the subject. At the awards, Cameron Taylor from the Orkneys gave a good exposition of what is happening. The evidence from surveys at TICs is that 5 to 25 per cent of visitors are here to revisit their roots and that ancestral tourism contributes significantly to the industry. It is important that such tourism relies not on our beautiful scenery or on the weather, which might not be Scotland's greatest asset, but on our people, our history and our sense of place. We have not done enough to exploit that.
Some of the changes that the Government has announced will bring the Government's role in tourism back to centre stage, as opposed to having an isolated marketing organisation that is not an integrated part of the Government's approach. The closer relationship between VisitScotland and Scottish Enterprise will help to achieve what I described, as will the closer relationship between VisitScotland, the General Register Office for Scotland, the Court of the Lord Lyon and the National Archives of Scotland. To coin a phrase, that is joined-up government.
In relation to cultural tourism in my home town, the royal burgh of Tain's records were taken some years ago to be locked away in Inverness, where they are not generally available. Does the member agree that encouraging councils to make such records available to visitors in a user-friendly way would hugely benefit the tourism that he describes? In making that intervention, I do not wish to be identified with the cause of compassionate opposition.
Jamie Stone's point is well made. If he contacts the General Register Office, he will find that, as part of the new arrangements for family history centres, it wishes to engage with communities and offer them such opportunities. If he can encourage the establishment of an appropriate family history society up there, I am sure that Highland Council will be willing to do what he suggests. I cannot speak for that council's arrangements, but I am sure that he has the opportunity to engage with it.
For tourism in general, we need to give people a reason to come here—things to do—as well as a sense of place and a beautiful country. That is why the winter festival that the Government proposes is important. If visitors go to events—not just major national events, but continuing local events—that provides them with opportunities to feel good and to engage with local people. That is all about relationships, and how we build those relationships is terribly important.
At the event that I attended on Monday, Paul Anderson—a well-known Scottish fiddler who works at the Elphinstone institute at the University of Aberdeen—demonstrated the importance of our culture and our music.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am in my last minute.
Time allows for an intervention.
I am told that I can give way.
Does the member agree that "Scotland's Music with Phil Cunningham", which is on television at the moment, is the best advert that we could have to bring people to Scotland to hear our nation's live music and to see the most beautiful scenery on earth? Will the BBC do something to broadcast that series to the rest of the world?
Brian Adam should begin to wind up now.
I agree completely with Rob Gibson—the series is wonderful. Paul Anderson and his group are in Tarland every Tuesday, but we need such activity to be spread out to use the off-season spare capacity in our industry.
We have a very successful tourism industry that can be even more successful; it is just a question of the Government doing its best to ensure that it does not get in the way but actually helps.
I was intrigued by the exchange between Mr Adam and Mr Gibson. Given that both gentlemen are right about the importance of culture to tourism and that sport is important—Mr Mather referred to the Ryder cup—I almost intervened to ask whether the Government would like to consider having a minister for tourism, culture and sport. Perhaps not.
Scottish tourism has faced several major crises in recent years. The foot-and-mouth crisis affected tourism throughout the United Kingdom and, of course, the events of 9/11 affected tourism throughout the world, but our tourism industry has bounced back from those setbacks and has grown in strength and confidence. In the first nine months of 2006, for example, the number of overnight visits to Scotland by overseas residents increased. The figure rose from 1.98 million in 2005 to 2.25 million in 2006. We are also leading the way with the number of visitors from Europe. In the first nine months of 2005, the number of such visitors rose by 13 per cent, compared with 8 per cent for the rest of the UK.
Such increases did not happen overnight—the Government planned for and supported them. They were supported by the Government's plans for the country's infrastructure, the route development fund, which brought something like £100 million into the Scottish economy, and increased investment in marketing. VisitScotland's budget was doubled and EventScotland was created—that was important—to help boost opportunities to exploit niche markets, which Brian Adam rightly spoke about.
It is therefore disappointing—in fact, it is plain sad—that the SNP, which claims to stand up for Scotland, has failed to recognise tourism's importance and potential. Consequently, it has failed to invest properly in an industry that is growing faster than the Scottish economy as a whole—its annual average growth rate is around 8 per cent. Marketing for VisitScotland and marketing budgets in VisitScotland are part of Government investment, and that investment is real investment. VisitScotland has managed to secure from its advertising campaigns in the UK a return of £32 for every pound that has been spent; it has also managed to secure £23 for every pound that has been spent across Europe and £30 for every pound that has been spent across America. Failure to invest in such marketing is short-sighted. The Government must consider whether it has made the right call on the issue. The industry target of 50 per cent revenue growth by 2015 is—and will remain—tough to meet, but it is achievable if we work at it and are prepared to back VisitScotland and the tourism industry in the way that they deserve.
I was disappointed that Jim Mather mentioned the green tourism business scheme only in passing. Perhaps he did so because his party's manifesto said that the SNP would have a lighter regulatory touch. I hope that that approach does not extend to the green tourism business scheme. It has been recognised that many people come to this country to enjoy our wonderful scenery and our great outdoors, but if our economy is to grow and thrive, we must ensure that that scenery is protected and that our tourism industry is sustainable. That is why the green tourism business scheme is important. It is currently Europe's largest green accreditation scheme—it has well over 500 members—and we should all be proud of it. It also helps to save the industry money, which can be reinvested. It deserves our and the Government's support.
The image that we portray to our visitors directly affects our place in the world of tourism. As the minister correctly said, we all have a role to play in promoting our country, but the tourism industry has a particular responsibility, of course. It is not enough simply for us to meet our visitors' expectations or to be able to match the standards of our competitors; rather, if Scotland is to continue to thrive as a tourist destination, it must exceed our visitors' expectations and set the standard. To do that, we must have the best-trained workforce in the world and raise the profile of careers in tourism and hospitality among our young people. That is important. For many people, there is still frustration with the number of schemes and projects that seek to provide training in the tourism and hospitality industry, albeit that many of those schemes and projects are very good. Given that the minister has taken to filleting the enterprise networks, which had an important role, I wonder whether he will now consider establishing a dedicated tourism and hospitality institute to promote the importance of training and draw together all the existing expertise.
It is disappointing that the concordat with local government did not mention the key role that local authorities must play in taking forward the tourism product. Local authorities have a key role in funding and shaping how tourism develops and, of course, in influencing the product in their area. They also have a key role to play in supporting tourist information centres—in which Mr Gavin Brown is so interested—and deciding where they are located. The Conservatives failed to understand that in lodging their amendment. Indeed, if they were truly concerned about centralisation, they would oppose the changes that the minister is planning.
I waited with interest and an open mind to find out what the Government's much-vaunted new slogan would be, but I was disappointed. We want to welcome visitors to Scotland, but we always did, as the previous slogan was:
"Welcome to Scotland—the best small country in the world".
I note that the photographs at our airports are designed to
"show what a modern, vibrant and successful country Scotland is."
I have news for the Government. The images that were used at airports always showcased the very best of Scotland, but they were also underpinned by a strategy that aimed to attract people to Scotland. Often, the aim was to attract those people through our airports, but they were then encouraged to travel outwith the airport's immediate area to other parts of Scotland. Showing photographs of Glasgow at Glasgow airport will hardly encourage visitors to go to Aberdeen or Orkney.
We have a tourism product—our country—that is the envy of the world; one of the most successful and respected tourism agencies in the world; and one of the best tourism industries in the world. The Government's job is to support and encourage that industry in trying to achieve its target, and the Parliament's job is to ensure that the Government does just that.
I make a final plea to the minister. I ask him please not to feel obliged to change things just because he can.
The Scottish tourism industry was badly hit after the dreadful events of 9/11. Scotland experienced the same security fears that swept through nations across the world. Consumer confidence was crippled and the Scottish tourism industry suffered accordingly.
That was six years ago, in 2001. Since then, there has been consistent growth in tourism, although that growth has levelled off over the past two years. That recent levelling-off has brought into question the feasibility of reaching the Government's target of generating a 50 per cent increase in revenue from tourism by 2015.
It is important that everyone in the chamber understands that that target was not a Government target—it was an industry target that the Government pledged to support.
I thank the member for that information, but it remains the target that we are all aiming to achieve.
Tourism contributes £4.2 billion per year to the Scottish economy and supports around 20,000 businesses and 200,000 jobs—roughly 9 per cent of the total Scottish workforce. Tourism therefore plays an extremely important role in the Scottish economy.
Tourism is even more important in the Highlands and Islands, which is comparatively more dependent on tourism than the rest of Scotland. Tourism contributes £750 million a year to the Highlands and Islands economy and sustains more than 2,600 individual businesses and 23,800 jobs, or roughly 13 per cent of total employment. In a sense, therefore, the Highlands and Islands has already reached the target that has been set, as it is 50 per cent ahead of the rest of Scotland, but that does not mean that we can rest on our laurels; indeed, we must strive even harder to build on what we already have. To do so not only in the Highlands and Islands but in the rest of Scotland, we must do two things: improve the visitor experience with a higher-value product and market effectively. Any development in the Scottish tourism industry needs effective marketing and national and international research. It is right that VisitScotland should devote the bulk of its budget to visitor engagement. Some £45 million of its £71 million budget is put to that purpose.
In total, some £90 million of Government money is being provided this year for the tourism sector—through VisitScotland, the enterprise agencies, Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland and local authorities. There has also been a firm commitment by the SNP Government to improve infrastructure in Scotland, with work already under way on the A9 and improvements set for rail links between Edinburgh and Inverness.
It is a pity that more was not done over the past eight years. Inverness airport terminal is in need of expansion to support increasing demand, as it is nearing capacity. Now that airline operators such as Flybe offer cheap deals to various locations in England, this is the perfect time to capitalise on an already flourishing airport. I am hopeful that the minister will give the go-ahead to expansion of the terminal at Inverness airport—I will keep pressing him hard on that.
Realistically, if we want to meet the 50 per cent target, we cannot simply rely on traditional tourist attractions to facilitate that growth. Although we enjoy a swathe of such tourist attractions, the Scottish tourism industry must continue to grab the attention of different types of tourists, and we must learn from other countries. Places such as Kitzbühel in Austria and the Whistler mountain range in Canada have successfully implemented the destination management concept, which is based on the notion of improving the visitor experience, providing jobs locally and nurturing the tourism market. Those places are flourishing, and they give the visitor a tremendous experience. We need to emulate that.
Destination management organisations are already being set up in the Cairngorms and Loch Ness. Destination Loch Ness is a good example of what we need to do, although it is in its early stages, having been set up only in May 2006. Destination Loch Ness is a group of tourism businesses that operate around Loch Ness, and it is actively engaged in applying a collaborative destination development approach to improving the visitor experience in that area. The members of Destination Loch Ness are working hard to engage with a wider group of businesses and community groups, and they have embarked on a number of activities that will support their long-term, sustainable ambitions. Destination Loch Ness has already made progress towards securing world heritage status from the United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization. It is leading by example, and I hope that members will encourage tourism businesses in their own areas to follow that example.
Finally, it is crucial that we encourage the millions of visitors who flock to Edinburgh and Glasgow to venture that bit further north.
And south.
And south.
One way to do that is to improve local facilities and make their visit worth while. Earlier this year, we saw the opening of the award-winning new museum and archives building in Shetland. Subsequently, The Shetland Times has mounted a campaign for the return of the St Ninian's Isle treasure to the islands. The treasure is currently in the national museum of Scotland in Edinburgh, where it is lost among thousands of other artefacts. The Shetland museum is allowed to have replicas and a loan of the real thing for a short time, but such things should—wherever possible—be kept locally. The treasure will be a far greater attraction in Shetland than it will ever be in Edinburgh. That is one small way to boost local tourism throughout Scotland.
I have joined the campaign to have the St Ninian's Isle treasure returned to Shetland—I have written to Linda Fabiani, the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture, and Dr Gordon Rintoul of the National Museums of Scotland, asking them to give their support to the campaign and agree to return the treasure. I am on their case.
I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I will focus, as Dave Thompson did, on the Highlands and Islands. I will highlight an opportunity for the minister in the creative industries—through film in particular—and a criticism to do with the air route development fund, which many members have mentioned.
Members will need no lectures from me on the fact that the Highlands and Islands have a world-class product—they have outstanding natural beauty from the Cuillins to the Cairngorms national park; lochs, hills and castles; ecotourism; the stunning new Eden Court theatre in Inverness; film tourism; the Royal National Mod; and the world mountain bike championships in Fort William.
Will the member join me in welcoming the decision that the Mod will go to Caithness in several years' time?
I strongly echo the member's point—I congratulate the area on its magnificent campaign and look forward to attending that event.
The area has iconic wildlife images—visitors can watch the flight of the graceful osprey and the whooper swans wintering at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Insh Marshes reserve. Those natural assets provide a fantastic base for the Highlands and Islands' most important industry. Vital jobs are provided throughout the Highlands and Islands in bed and breakfasts, guest houses, hotels and visitor attractions such as at the Landmark visitor centre in Carrbridge—which I know very well—in what I call "accommodation and song" in the well-known Ceilidh Place in Ullapool, which is owned by the impressive Jean Urquhart, and at the Ice Factory in Kinlochleven.
However, as any fresh-faced MBA student would tell us, business has to address the five Ps: product, price, place, promotion and position. They are vital for the tourism industry. I agree with the comments that Peter Lederer, the chief executive of VisitScotland, made this week. He said that to fulfil potential
"we must always look at ourselves from the visitor's perspective."
I endorse his view that we must develop the five drivers for the industry—extending attraction hours, increasing the length of the season, accelerating marketing, promoting high-value quality goods and persuading businesses to promote others' goods. One fascinating statistic—my last—is that if 10 per cent of visitors spent the same amount as the average visitor to Switzerland, it would be worth half a billion pounds to the Scottish tourism industry.
New investment is vital. I would support several Donald Trump golf resorts throughout Scotland. It is an ideal project, although maybe not for crofters living next door. We must have a balance between inward investment and support for indigenous initiative. Most businesses have very hard choices to make—they have to differentiate their product by price or by quality, but not usually both. From the humblest one-bedroom B and B in Corpach to Culloden House hotel—where, allegedly, Bonnie Prince Charlie once stayed, although I suspect that his was not an online booking—quality must be the watchword and there should be no more, "You'll have had your tea."
Tourists have to get to the area. Many members have commented on the air route development fund. I will highlight a couple of its successes: Glasgow to Dubai was developed through the fund, as was the Prestwick to Rome route, the routes from Inverness to Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle and Dublin, and the Sumburgh to Stansted route.
It has been suggested that the fund will still exist, but only for existing routes and it will not help to develop new routes. The fund has dropped by £7 million in the current budget but, as the minister will be aware, the state aid rules do not apply to airports that are run by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd because none of the airports it operates deals with 1 million passengers or more. The state aid rules argument does not apply at all to HIAL—perhaps the minister can clarify that.
I strongly argue against the drop. I would say that, but members need not take my word for it. Liz Cameron, the chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, was quoted in The Scotsman yesterday as saying:
"We are extremely disappointed at the plans to axe the ARDF … This is a magnificent return on an investment of just £14.4m over the past three years and is exactly the kind of project we need to continue."
That is what the business community is saying.
On a more positive note, I encourage the minister to build on our strengths in the creative industries. Film is crucial—it was developed well and highlighted during the Highlands and Islands year of culture, which was the brainchild of Jack McConnell and Patricia Ferguson. I applaud the work that they have done. Does the minister have any plans to develop film studios, particularly in Lochaber and Inverness? That would allow film crews doing location shots for films such as the Harry Potter films, "Braveheart", "Highlander" and various others not just to film and go, but to extend their stay to use the back-up technology that is available.
The "Monarch of the Glen" television series on the BBC was filmed in Badenoch and Strathspey, and at its height had 9 million viewers. I declare an interest, as I was once an extra in the show—I have perhaps the most famous right foot in the chamber. The Badenoch and Strathspey area was very successfully promoted by "Monarch of the Glen", and I strongly support that.
Location tourism is vital. The village of Pennan still attracts many tourists, 25 years after the filming of "Local Hero", and 150,000 visitors to Mull cited "Balamory" as the deciding factor of their visit.
In conclusion, Presiding Officer—I note the look that you are giving me—tourism is a crucial driver of Scotland's economic success in general and that of the Highlands and Islands in particular. The pathways to success in the industry are quality, skills and training, marketing, infrastructure improvements and the big bang events such as the year of culture, the year of homecoming and the Commonwealth games. We know the route map to the next stage in the development of tourism. To paraphrase Sir Walter Scott, what we need now is the will to do and the soul to dare.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate because tourism is an extremely important industry in my part of the world. At the risk of boring everyone with my enthusiasm for the north-east, I intend to focus on that this morning.
In Aberdeen and Grampian, tourism employs 16,000 people in about 2,000 businesses. It earns £577 million a year for the area. The 2006 figures show overall value growth of 1 per cent, with Aberdeen city up by 5 per cent, Aberdeenshire down by 1 per cent, and Moray down by 5 per cent. The growth was largely due to record business tourism in Aberdeen city. Sadly, there has been no discernible increase in leisure tourism. That is reflected in the downturn in Aberdeenshire and Moray, where leisure tourism is dominant.
To achieve a 50 per cent increase in tourism revenue in line with the aspiration of the tourism framework for change, Grampian would have to increase visitor spend to about £820 million, which represents a challenging increase of £273 million. The region is determined to meet that challenge if at all possible.
We have a wonderful product to sell in north-east Scotland—castle country, the malt whisky trail, and a unique maritime, rural and urban cultural heritage.
Does the member agree that the Trump development at the Menie estate is likely to give a big boost to tourism in the area and will make a significant contribution to achieving the 50 per cent increase that we all seek?
The member is right. I intend to mention that in a few minutes' time.
In the north-east, we have a natural environment that lends itself to walking and observing wildlife, not least in the Cairngorms national park. Many activities are available, including country sports and winter sports when snowfall allows, which is not so often nowadays, sadly. The area is poised to become a global magnet for golfers, with three major developments at the planning stage—in the names of Trump, Nicklaus and Paul Lawrie—hoping to complement an already thriving network of good, accessible golf courses.
We have Victorian heritage in Deeside. Today's royal family continues the tradition of frequent visits to the Balmoral and Birkhall estates, which maintains the tourist appeal of the area. We have all of that, and I have not even mentioned the abundance of excellent food that is grown and produced in the region.
However, we have significant challenges to overcome. We are perceived as a remote and barren area with a hostile climate, and we are not on the main tourist trail, which draws visitors from the south, via Edinburgh, up the west side of the country to Inverness and beyond, effectively bypassing the north-east corner. When Flybe can produce a map showing Inverness where Edinburgh is situated, what hope is there of identifying the locations of Aberdeen and Peterhead?
Does the member agree that that would save a lot of travel for those of us who live in Inverness?
I did not plan the geography of the countryside.
To face up to the challenges and the aspiration for tourism growth of 4 per cent per annum, the north-east Scotland tourism partnership has developed an action plan. If it is to succeed, it needs to involve all those with an interest in tourism from the public, private and third sectors. Of course, that includes VisitScotland and the enterprise company. Intensive work continues to increase awareness of the area, to develop tourist destinations and high-quality activities, to increase the availability of quality accommodation, to modernise our visitor attractions, and to improve local infrastructure such as roads and public transport.
There is tremendous local enthusiasm and a desire to work together to develop and promote our local product into a sustainable and thriving 21st century industry that will attract growing expenditure from UK and international tourists in the business and leisure sectors. Alongside that, however, is frustration and a feeling that the north-east is not getting all the help it needs to promote local tourism.
For example, there is anger that successive national campaigns for the UK market on areas in which the north-east has strong products—such as walking, wildlife, golfing and mountain biking—have largely ignored the area. As far as regional representation in TV adverts, direct mail inserts and specialist websites is concerned, the north-east may as well not exist. It is little wonder that, in the north-east, the national marketing campaign is regarded as less than successful and as putting at risk the achievement of 50 per cent growth in tourism in the north-east by 2015.
No one denies that there were problems with the area tourist boards and few people would bring them back, but their replacement with 14 VisitScotland hubs has not been seen to improve the situation greatly and the prospect of a further reduction is perceived as a potential further erosion of local input. So far, Grampian has been able to retain its tourist information centre provision, but local stakeholders fear that it will be impossible to maintain all the TICs in the area.
I would welcome the minister's comments on the future of local TICs. They are greatly valued and do excellent work in providing a comprehensive information service, but that has become increasingly difficult in the north-east. The reduction in European regional development funding and the introduction of centralised policies by VisitScotland have reduced the capacity to promote Aberdeen and Grampian.
There is a growing feeling that if tourism is to be increasingly successful, a bottom-up approach is needed, with strong regional partnerships that engage with the industry locally and promote local activities and attractions, and with VisitScotland as the national body with an overarching remit to promote Scotland as a whole.
Part of our amendment reflects the concerns about the north-east that I have described. I have no doubt that there are similar issues in other parts of Scotland. We all want tourism to grow so that Scotland indeed becomes one of Europe's most sustainable tourism destinations and attracts tourists from the UK and throughout the world. I am glad that the minister has agreed to accept our amendment.
I call Jim Hume.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am sure that, as you are a fellow South of Scotland member, you will be pleased that I speak today on behalf of the other half of Scotland, which everybody seems to forget about.
Tourism is an important part of the south of Scotland, with its mountainous uplands, rolling farmland and rugged sea coasts. It is a land of ancient buildings and it boasts strong literary connections: Burns, Hogg and Sir Walter Scott all lived there. Scotland's gateway is the border to the south. The scenery changes there, with the peaks of the big Cheviot and the Eildon hills. Those landmarks have been seen by generations of travellers at the Carter Bar on the A68, or Dere Street as it was called—the ancient Roman road that passes through the old Roman town site of Trimontium near Melrose. Of course, there are the forests and moors of upland Galloway and the greens of Ayrshire's pastures, with the mountainous Arran as a backdrop.
That brings me to my first point. In real terms, the budget for natural heritage, the water environment and coastal protection has been cut. That is worrying for areas such as the south of Scotland, because if we are to continue to draw first-time and repeat visitors, it is crucial that we maintain the environment and the coastline. From a purely practical point of view, it is worth noting that the south of Scotland is close to Ireland, England and the rest of Scotland. It is within an hour of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Carlisle, Newcastle and Belfast. The latter is a huge, as yet untapped, market.
Tourism needs infrastructure, such as direct flights through Prestwick. Good quality, clean and efficient integrated transport is key to allowing visitors to get around and enjoy all of Scotland. That is critical, especially as the market is dominated by short breaks. A balance has to be struck, of course, between exploiting and protecting our environment. I believe that nature-based tourism is an example of the possibilities in the future.
The south of Scotland is not lacking in history either. The battle of Flodden in 1513 saw the bloodiest battle between the Scots and the English. Commemorations still take place each year, with Flodden day in the Berwickshire town of Coldstream and the Hawick and Selkirk common ridings, not to forget Gala. In the past, battles were daily occurrences. Events such as the much-lamented MacDonald and Campbell tragedy in the Highlands were commonplace, almost everyday, occurrences.
In the south, reiver families were the front line of Scotland, and we remember the strong family reiving names that still hold fast there—Douglas, Scott, Armstrong, Elliot, and those wardens of the eastern marches, the Humes. In the south, there are obvious opportunities for the 2009 year of homecoming. "Wha daur meddle wi me?" was an oft-quoted saying from reiving culture, the reivers not caring whether they—I should say we—were led from London or Edinburgh.
You have not changed.
We have not changed at all. The outlaw Murray was living proof of that. That was original regional decision making—something that Mr Mather should consider in the restructuring of Scottish Enterprise.
It is vital that our potential for untapped tourism is identified and taken forward to develop further the excellent sites that we already have in Scotland. I hope that the shake-up of VisitScotland and Scottish Enterprise does not result in Scotland losing out, particularly as regards local tourism initiatives in the south of Scotland. I therefore urge Mr Mather to consider delegating authorities to the proposed new Scottish Enterprise regional boards, to allow decision making close to where the decisions have their impact—not in Atlantic Quay and not by toothless regional advisory boards.
The South of Scotland region is largely made up of small businesses, many of which depend on passing or tourist trade. The one supports the other. If tourism is buoyant, small rural businesses will flourish, which will encourage more visitors to come and see their products and what they do, whether it be rare books in Wigtown—home of Scotland's book festival, which is a hugely successful event—specialities such as are found at the Teviot Game Fare Smokery or the water gardens near Kelso. There is also the recently refurbished home of John Davidson, village souter, who was immortalised as Souter Johnny in Robbie Burns's "Tam o Shanter".
As well as history and scenery, there are a great number of activities in the south, such as mountain biking. Stow, near Galashiels, boasts not just the first Scottish person to become a world champion mountain biker, but the UK's first world champion, Ruaridh Cunningham. Mountain biking is huge in the south, with the 7stanes project and the Tweed valley adventure sports sites of Traquair and Glentress, which attract around 400,000 visitors a year and will be the site of a proposed chairlift facility as part of the Scottish Enterprise Borders pipeline adventure sports project. Dave Thompson mentioned Whistler. The person who runs the Whistler park came to Glentress and was hugely impressed. More visitors come to Glentress than go to Whistler for mountain biking. Sites such as those need all the launch funding they can be given, for the greater benefit to our economy.
Angling, diving, walking and bird watching are all catered for in the south. RSPB Scotland has numerous bird attractions. I recently visited two at the Wood of Cree, near Newton Stewart, and at Mersehead, near Kippford. I can tell David Stewart that we have osprey viewing centres at Glentress, too. We also have a film heritage, including "Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes" and the not-so-well-known "Flass the Sheepdog", which was filmed at my farm back in the 1960s. I was an extra in that.
Can you wind up, please, Mr Hume?
I am getting there.
Order. Talking about the south does not get you any extra time.
I am just winding up.
We have heard a lot about the backdrop of the Highlands and Islands, but we have the Solway coast—I should call it the costa del Solway—as well. There is St Abbs, near Eyemouth, with the Coldingham discovery cliff-top tours, and nearby Siccar Point was the source of inspiration for James Hutton to discover the rules of geology. A Hutton trail is now a tourist attraction. Hutton was, of course, great friends with another great Hume—David Hume, of the enlightenment. I will not go into my relationship with David Livingstone, who was one of my ancestors.
I hope that members will support the Lib Dem amendment, recognising the south's part in Scotland's tourism future—I hope that the minister has got that message—and the need to keep decision making within Scottish Enterprise close to where the decisions have their effect.
I welcome today's debate, not least for the opportunity to talk about some of Dundee's top tourist attractions. I was up all night thinking about how I was going to do that, but it struck me over coffee this morning that I should just welcome the debate. As the new signage at Scotland's airports shows, the simplest words are sometimes the most appropriate. That is the case in welcoming people to Scotland, which is what we are trying to do with the signs. That is the correct way in which to do it.
Liam McArthur talked about the cost of coming up with the signage—it seemed an awful lot of money for the three words "Welcome to Scotland"—but the words are attached to images and we who are in politics are well aware that, whether in the media or in the leaflets that we produce, a picture is worth a thousand words. In those terms, the signage is extremely good value for money.
Does the member think that it is appropriate that, on the A68, where Gaelic has never been spoken, there is a sign saying "Welcome to Scotland" in Gaelic? Should it not be in lowland Scots?
I absolutely agree that there is an issue in terms of lowland Scots. We should argue for lowland Scots to be used more in the appropriate places. I hope that we can all agree on that, and I hope that the Government might take that forward.
As has been mentioned, tourism is extremely important to the economy of Scotland. Dundee is no exception to that. Each year, 780,000 tourists visit the greater Dundee area, contributing £130 million to the economy. Tourism now accounts for about 7 per cent of employment in Dundee. The figure has risen recently, with the demise of Dundee's traditional manufacturing base. As we aim for a 50 per cent real-terms increase in tourism throughout Scotland by 2015, that figure is expected to grow.
Dundee was a city of jute, jam and journalism, but in the 21st century it is evolving into a vibrant, cosmopolitan destination that tourists from Scotland and further afield enjoy. The funding that is being provided by our SNP Government—which we have heard is £90 million in this year alone—will help Dundee to grow as a destination for tourists.
Dundee, the city of discovery, has Captain Scott's Antarctic expedition ship at the award-winning Discovery Point and Europe's top industrial museum, the Verdant Works. It is important that Dundee has managed to tap into its industrial past as part of its tourism future. Those two attractions are good examples of that. We also have the McManus galleries, which is undergoing extensive refurbishment. It holds an art collection that is of international as well as of local importance, and I look forward to more visitors coming to Dundee to see it. Dundee is also the home of the Scottish Dance Theatre and hosts annual jazz and blues festivals. DC Thompson & Co's classics The Dandy and "The Broons" also hail from Dundee.
Dundee is developing a new image that is far removed from the run-down view that was often incorrectly associated with the city in the past. One of the most important new developments is the waterfront project. The SNP budget provides the funding to allow Dundee to complete the vital infrastructure for the central waterfront project. The waterfront project is central to the new image that Dundee will portray to its inhabitants and to the world, and the visionary project will benefit the whole of Tayside. Revamping the waterfront can boost the economy and attract tourists, as has happened in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
However, as impressive as the waterfront project will be, our best tourist attractions are our natural ones. It would be wrong not to mention the beautiful Angus glens and rural Perthshire, which Dundee finds itself nestled beside. The importance of green spaces as a draw for tourists is demonstrated by Dundee's top attraction, Camperdown country park, which in 2006 welcomed almost 400,000 visitors. I hope that the new regionally focused VisitScotland will ensure that we continue to invest in such areas to maintain popular outdoor sites.
Another major boost to tourism in the area has been delivered with the first bill of the SNP Government, which will abolish tolls on the Tay bridge. The reduction in congestion when the tolls are removed can only encourage tourists to visit the area. We want to encourage as many commuters as possible to use public transport; however, it is safe to say that all parties in Dundee—right across the political spectrum—are keen for our city to retain its reputation as a car-friendly city. Removal of the tolls will do more than that; it will also make Dundee more welcoming to tourists in buses and will increase the niche tourist market of cyclists, who currently find Dundee city centre a nightmare to navigate when the toll congestion is at its worst.
We have heard a lot today about the year of homecoming and the celebrations to mark the 250th anniversary of our national bard's birth. Given the fact that Dundee is associated with Scotland's second-best—or, at least, second-best known—poet, William McGonagall, we should have a large part to play in the celebrations.
Evidence can be found across the globe of Dundonians who have emigrated. We see that in financial institutions such as the Dundee Bank of Canada and in the raft of places called Dundee that are to be found in South Africa, Australia and the United States of America. It is clear that Dundee's influence furth of the River Tay has spread far and wide.
The winter festival provides the perfect vehicle for a city break to Dundee. With hotel occupancy rates between St Andrew's day and Burns night currently running at less than 40 per cent, the festival period gives Dundee the greatest potential for growth.
Dundee is a growing tourism destination that has huge potential. For too long, the city has been seen, wrongly, as run down. Dundee has the potential to provide a large slice of the 50 per cent increase in tourism in Scotland at which we all aim. Edinburgh, Glasgow and the Highlands enjoy a high profile. There is room for the city of discovery to join them. I am sure that members agree that Dundee has a lot to offer visitors to Scotland.
You made the point earlier, Presiding Officer, that a member's mention of the south-west of Scotland would not persuade you to give them extra time. I will therefore limit my remarks, unashamedly, to my local interests in Ayrshire.
In the debate, we have heard much about the challenges for tourism and whether centralism or localism should hold sway. I will focus on a number of those challenges. I was tempted simply to list a number of the wonderful tourist attractions and talk about the scenery in Ayrshire, but perhaps it is more important for members to be honest about some of the challenges that we face.
Lewis Macdonald and other members spoke about the need to improve Scotland's infrastructure if we are to attract tourists to come to our parts of Scotland and to travel round the country. I hope that the minister will hear my plea that action needs to be taken to ensure that we continue to attract people to Scotland via Prestwick airport. Importantly, once people have visited Glasgow and Edinburgh—which, of course, I hope they do—I want them to travel to other parts of the country, too, including Ayrshire. Mr McArthur is indicating that I should also encourage people to go up north—indeed, they should.
We will be unable to bring more people to Ayrshire unless we see investment in infrastructure projects such as the further upgrade of the A77, including the Maybole bypass and, perhaps, the trunking of the A70. The minister will be aware that one of the main features in attracting the open golf championship to Ayrshire in 2009 was the ability to make improvements to the A77, in particular to the section of the road that leads down to Turnberry.
I welcome the success of projects under the Big Lottery Fund's living landmarks programme. I wish them well, but I am sure that the minister shares my disappointment that Girvan Community Developments' Girvan gateway project was unsuccessful. That imaginative partnership project with RSPB Scotland presented an ideal opportunity to form a gateway to the south-west of Scotland using the natural features of Ailsa Craig. I wrote to the minister on the subject, and I understand that other representations were made. If we are serious about trying to attract visitors into that part of Scotland, I urge the minister to look at what the Scottish Government can do to assist the project to go forward, perhaps in another form.
In the main, I want to speak about the 2009 homecoming year. I do so as the member who represents Burns's birthplace of Alloway and my current home village of Mauchline, where Burns spent a large part of his life. I have some concerns about the 2009 homecoming year, which I hope the minister will address in his closing speech. At the time of the launch, we recognised that Burns was worth some £160 million to the Scottish economy on an annual basis, two thirds of which comes from Ayrshire tourism. I pay tribute to the work that Patricia Ferguson did on the event.
The homecoming experience must be a top-quality one. It is vital that it is centred in Ayrshire; it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Although I am pleased that we now have further information on funding, I am concerned about the contents of a letter from the minister, a copy of which was passed to me by my local Burns club. On 5 October, the minister stated that changes to the project will involve
"a tightening of the project's focus and new management arrangements"
and that
"a tighter focus on project objectives and greater streamlining of resources"
will apply. I hope that I have interpreted incorrectly that "greater streamlining of resources" means that fewer resources will be made available at the front line for organisations that will deliver events locally. Can the minister reassure me on that point?
When the minister sums up, will he give the chamber more information on the signature events, partner events, and rolling programme to which the Government referred in its press release of 27 November? What will that mean in practice? We are just over a year away from the start of 2009. If those world-class events are to be put in place in time, we should now have a broad knowledge of the timetable. We also need to have confidence that the infrastructure will be in place to support the programming. Management of the 2009 homecoming year has been handed to EventScotland. Can the minister assure members that EventScotland has the funding, staff and resources to take forward the event?
At the time of the launch, Patricia Ferguson, who was then the responsible minister, made it clear that the Burns World Federation would play a crucial role in the event, particularly in the south-west of Scotland—not only in Ayrshire, but in Dumfries, which is Elaine Murray's part of the world. That is an important element of the event. Will the minister confirm that the Government will continue to provide funding to that organisation?
Finally, I ask the minister to ensure that all the organisations in Burns country that want to participate in 2009 can access the funding. Organisations have expressed concern at the tightness of the timescale for making funding applications; I understand that they have to submit completed applications in February. As the minister will appreciate, the January period is a particularly busy one for Ayrshire. Some of the Burns organisations may find it difficult to get the resources in place to submit their application on time. I ask the minister to make available some of his senior officials to come to Ayrshire in my constituency to work with those organisations. That will ensure that we have a programme of events in and around Burns country to which people will want to come; perhaps more important, once they have come there they will want to return.
As many members have said in the debate, there can be no doubt about the importance of tourism to Scotland. That much is obvious in a constituency such as mine. Given the six-minute limit for my speech, I will not try to list the many appeals of the Western Isles, between Vatersay and Ness.
Tourism is increasingly a genuinely national industry that contributes significantly not only to places such as Edinburgh and Loch Ness, which was traditionally the case in the past, but to cities such as Glasgow and Aberdeen. As other members said, tourism contributes some £4.2 billion to our economy each year, and almost 9 per cent of our total employment. The 2009 year of homecoming presents an opportunity at every level, economic and cultural, to make Scotland known globally by renewing our links with the Scottish diaspora.
It is worth bearing in mind just how distinctive and positive the image of Scotland is to most people around the world. Some years ago, I was in Boston on the way to a ceilidh. In saying that, I do not mean that I had mistakenly ended up in Boston en route to a ceilidh in the Western Isles, although such things have been known to happen. I got off a bus in Boston, wearing Highland dress, and was accosted by an elderly lady who seemed almost overcome with emotion at seeing someone dressed in that way. She told me, at some length, of her husband's ancestry and the warmth of those sentiments was in no way undermined when it quickly became clear that she believed I was Lithuanian. [Laughter.] I did not feel the need to correct her.
The Government is expending great effort to promote Scotland as a world brand. At local level, there is much that Scotland can do, and is doing, to promote a range of niche tourism markets. Bed and breakfasts are involved in schemes that offer a tailored welcome to niche groups such as hill walkers, mountain bikers, Gaelic learners, and film crews.
In my constituency, numerous agencies, including Caledonian MacBrayne, have co-operated very successfully to promote a network of so-called Gaelic rings round the west coast of Scotland and, increasingly, we have a basis for food tourism, ecological tourism, sports tourism and so on. However, all that activity requires structures that are fit for purpose, and the restructuring of VisitScotland, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise will enable the bodies to work together closely towards the goal of ensuring sustainable economic development in Scotland.
Does the member accept that, unlike many areas on mainland Scotland—for example, Inverness—the island groups are distinct destinations that tourists do not simply transit through? Does he agree that the tourist offices in each of the three main island groups have attracted significant talent who are doing excellent work and that any diminution of their autonomy, responsibility or—indeed—budget only puts such work at risk?
I accept entirely that the island groups have a distinct market and play a distinct role with regard to tourism. However, where I differ from the member is that I do not think it necessary for those areas to have all the bureaucracy that is associated with the different organisations. Instead, it is important that we maintain service quality and the network of tourist information offices, and the Government has given many assurances on that issue.
VisitScotland will receive from the Government £47 million a year, which will trigger another £25 million of private sector and local authority funding. Of course, we should not ignore the significant challenges that are faced by the industry. I am sure that we can all bring to mind certain small problems that we have encountered in the past. For example, when I recently called in at a small hotel at 10 in the morning—I will not name it; suffice it to say that it was not in my constituency—and asked timidly at reception whether there was any chance of a bacon roll, I was met with the very frosty comment that I "might get a biscuit". However, I did not.
Such incidents are becoming noticeably rarer and, when they happen, they are—if our tourists have any sense of humour—part of the charm. Indeed, VisitScotland has assured me that part of Scotland's appeal is that the experience on offer is not synthetic. Tourists get to meet real people. In fact, the real challenges that face the industry are not of its own making; they are problems that do not fit neatly into the tourism portfolio. For example, visitor attractions and B and B owners in my constituency can do as much as they like to promote their businesses, but they will always find themselves at a competitive disadvantage if it costs £200 for tourists to reach them by car and ferry. I am confident that solutions to that problem are in hand, and the cutting of small business rates will also help many businesses in the tourism sector in my constituency to grow and prosper.
Will the member take another intervention?
I think that one intervention is probably enough. I am just about to conclude.
The Government has made tourism one of six key sectors with potential for high growth, which reflects its importance to the economy.
Tourism proves that Scotland can aim higher than being merely the best small country in the world—and that, I believe, is the nearest that I have come to straying from the spirit of cross-party consensus on this issue. However, the fact that I have made it this far without the leaven of partisan loyalty rising in me goes to show that Scottish tourism is a global industry with a global brand that we can all agree operates on a truly global scale.
The spin-off benefits extend far beyond tourism. As the mood of national optimism extends, our tourism industry can provide a means of attracting people to come back to live here, to invest here and to spread the word about our country to those who have yet to visit us.
I commend the motion to the chamber.
As Labour's transport spokesman, I support Labour's amendment in this tourism debate, because Scotland's world-class tourism products and brands need a world-class distribution network. Of course, such networks are made up by transport links and effective marketing.
I agree that Scotland is a must-see destination, but how do people who want to see it get here? If they are coming from England, they might drive up the M6, cross the border on the M74 and perhaps visit bonnie Galloway or Burns country. Indeed, they might then travel further north to God's country—my beloved city of Glasgow. If you gave me the opportunity, Presiding Officer, I could filibuster until decision time about that city's merits and attractions.
That will not be necessary.
Another time, perhaps.
However, such visitors find that the M74 motorway ends abruptly 5 miles from Glasgow city centre and that they then have to grind their way through the residential streets of south-east Glasgow or make a short hop up the M73 on to the M8—where they might find tailbacks as they approach the Kingston bridge. That is one of the many reasons why John Swinney should take the tender for the M74 completion project out of the basket marked "Too difficult" and sign it off now. After all, it is essential for the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow—and, on that point, I was astonished at the minister's failure in his opening speech to mention those games alongside his reference to the 2014 Ryder cup.
The motoring visitor might—as I do every summer—then tour northwards from Glasgow into the beautiful Highlands. However, Highland routes such as the A9 and the A82 need continuous improvement.
Although the main rail routes from England to our cities are quite good, there is scope for improvements north of the central belt. We should also study options for a high-speed rail link from London. Of course, the new direct ferry link from Belgium to Fife is significant and certainly more sustainable.
Then there are the direct air links to Scotland. For 17 years, I have been networking continuously with key players in Scotland's transport industry. This week, I spoke to airlines and airport operators. Those very successful businesses are not bringing out the begging bowl, but the fact is that a low-cost airline such as EasyJet operates on very tight margins. On its routes to Berlin, Milan or—for that matter—Luton, EasyJet might be profiting by only £4 a seat. Over the past two years, its model has increased passenger numbers by about 500,000, and it could be carrying 5 million on low-cost tickets in 18 months' time. Airport owners such as BAA do their bit with, for example, discounts of up to 30 per cent on landing charges in the first three years of a new air route.
Jim Mather said that, at the seminars that he organised, no one mentioned the air route development fund. I can conclude only that either he had bored them to sleep by that point or no one from the distribution side was present. The fact is that the aviation industry in Scotland is alarmed about the air route development fund's demise.
As I recall, there are two sides to the air route development fund: the money that is contributed by Government and that which is contributed by airport owners. As the part that is contributed by the airports—
Quickly, please, Mr Adam.
—is not constrained in any way, it will continue. Indeed, the air route development fund will continue during the period of this spending review settlement, and there will be plenty of time to adjust to a new arrangement.
The fund is tapering out, but if there is no what might be called son of the air route development fund, we might lose quite a few of the 46 routes that have been nurtured. The industry is alarmed by that move, because the risk during the first three years of a new air route is high.
The aviation industry, the tourism industry and Scottish Labour want a son of air route development fund that complies with state aid rules. The Italians and the Portuguese have such a fund; indeed, even the Glaswegians have one. The air route marketing fund that is operated by Glasgow City Marketing Bureau, which actually predates the air route development fund, is used to market Glasgow as a destination at the other end of a new air route. If we want a son of air route development fund, we should get VisitScotland to roll out the Glasgow model. In fact, a wee bird—not an osprey—told me that the minister had planned to do that, but that he abandoned his plans due to pressure from Green MSPs and, as has become apparent this morning, Rob Gibson. The Glasgow model is funded from the city growth fund, over which the SNP budget has also put a big question mark.
In evidence to the Parliament's Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee earlier this week, the chief executive of the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership—
Wind up please.
Presiding Officer, I took an intervention.
The chief executive of HITRANS described direct air links to the Highlands as the area's equivalent of the central belt's rail network. The weight of evidence is that Scotland needs and demands a son of air route development fund. Labour will fight for that.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue and to do my bit to sell the south of Scotland. The debate is timely, because tomorrow is the day that we celebrate Scotland's patron saint and it coincides with the launch of the winter festival, which is a long overdue initiative that beautifully ties together some of Scotland's most important dates and celebrations. The debate also coincides nicely with last weekend's comments from VisitScotland's chairman, who said that we should market our weather as an attraction. Some of us are perhaps still to be persuaded by that argument.
We have heard much about how important tourism is and how it contributes more than £4 billion annually to the Scottish economy. We know that gaps exist and that more can be done to improve the industry. That is why I am heartened that the Scottish Government supports VisitScotland's ambitious target of increasing that £4 billion figure by 50 per cent over the years to 2015.
Tourism has been correctly identified as a key contributor to the Government's economic strategy, which aims to achieve sustainable economic growth. It is important that tourism is not overly concentrated only in certain areas, as my colleagues Nanette Milne, Jim Hume and Cathy Jamieson have already said. Although our country undoubtedly has key attractions and honeypot areas, each region of Scotland has something to offer visitors from elsewhere in the world, from elsewhere in the UK and even from elsewhere in Scotland.
Let us not forget that tourism is not just about bringing in money. Tourism plays an essential part in raising awareness and knowledge of Scotland's history and culture, especially among our younger people. If we can encourage more people to visit Scotland's outdoors by using public and active travel—be that walking, cycling, horse riding, canoeing, swimming or hang gliding—we will potentially contribute to a healthier Scotland in line with the Government's key objectives. Although it is important that we continue to attract visitors from overseas, Scotland's wealth of historic buildings and beautiful landscapes and its range of attractions to suit all ages and tastes are well placed to offer alternative destinations to Scottish people who would otherwise take carbon-intensive flights for short breaks in Europe.
However, not every region is equal in terms of visitor numbers or investment in the tourism industry. In the greater Glasgow and Clyde valley area, the occupancy rate for self-catering establishments is 51 per cent. For caravan and camping sites, the rate is 46 per cent. Those figures are below the Scottish average of 55 per cent and 51 per cent respectively. Given that those types of accommodation are more likely to be located in the more rural parts of the area, as a country we obviously need to up our game dramatically to ensure that every part of Scotland, regardless of its geography, is known about and advertised enough. We must not get bogged down in the traditional notion that Scotland is only the Highlands and Islands.
There is evidence of concerning trends. For example, New Lanark—the 13th most visited attraction in the greater Glasgow and Clyde valley area—attracted 354,425 visitors in 2006. That total was down by 2.3 per cent from the 2005 figure of 362,850. The Government and its agencies must be conscious of the requirement continually to raise their game across all of Scotland in attracting tourists from both within and outwith Scotland.
I want to ensure that the homecoming celebrations in 2009 are not just about the Highlands and Islands or Scotland's major cities. Emigration from the south of Scotland was also significant, so no area of Scotland should be neglected. The Government's idea of enticing back the Scottish diaspora is to be commended. I agree with Alasdair Allan that our diaspora is an untapped resource that is long overdue appropriate attention. Many historians have suggested that the forgotten cousin of the Highland clearances—the Lowland clearances—had a greater impact than its northern relative. Without wanting to engage in a debate about whether one clearance was more devastating than another, I gently remind the Government that the south of Scotland, which I represent, has much to offer and a history that is equally rich and engaging.
Indeed, one reason why 2009 was picked as the year for the homecoming celebration is that it is the year in which we commemorate the 250th anniversary of the birth of Scotland's national poet, Robert Burns. If he was alive today, he would be one of my constituents. Cathy Jamieson did a good job in highlighting the need to sell the Ayrshire aspect of that.
We need to ensure that everyone globally knows about what Scotland can offer. That can happen only with effective marketing and by building on the excellent global reputation that Scotland is lucky enough to possess.
We should be rightly proud of what Scotland has to offer for tourists from all parts of the world and from all walks of life. As VisitScotland implements its strategy to boost revenues by 2015, it should do so in an innovative, sustainable manner that promotes the attractions that are to be found in every part of Scotland.
We move to wind-up speeches. I apologise to the one member whom I could not call to speak in the debate.
Aileen Campbell's speech was absolutely typical of the tone of the debate, which has been very well tempered indeed.
In his opening comments, Jim Mather rightly referred to the importance of our scenery, culture and history. He also mentioned the diaspora—a topic that was picked up by other members. The minister set the pace by telling us the exact amount—£4.2 billion—that tourism generates, but he was absolutely correct to say that we must not be complacent about the competition. We need only look to some of the former eastern bloc countries to see the sort of competition that is coming our way in terms of emerging tourism destinations.
Genealogical tourism, which the minister also touched on, was picked up by other members. From my earlier interventions, it will be plain to colleagues that I am very supportive of the notion. I believe that genealogical tourism is an untapped resource that could bring great benefit to Scotland. It is also nice to think that, whatever misfortune led to people becoming part of the diaspora, their descendants could lead to good fortune for their home country.
Lewis Macdonald set the tone for the Labour Party in moving his amendment. He rightly laid out the need for discussion of the air route development fund, which was touched on by many other members including Charlie Gordon, who put the argument very succinctly indeed. Lewis Macdonald also referred to the cuts in the enterprise budget, which I will touch on in my closing remarks.
Gavin Brown's speech—which my colleague Liam McArthur described to me as "compassionate opposition"—was supportive of the Government. Liam McArthur, with his far-north perspective, explained the importance of high-quality tourism.
I compliment Brian Adam—although he seems to have left the chamber—on making a thoughtful speech during which he was good enough to pay tribute to the contribution that was made by the previous Scottish Executive. He also talked about the winter festival and the importance of music.
Patricia Ferguson drew our attention to the fact that things were not so rosy at the time of foot-and-mouth disease and after 9/11, but we have come back from that. She also mentioned—she was, I think, the only member to do so—protection of scenery, which is an important issue in the Highlands. For example, the erosion of Stac Pollaidh—the hill is nearly, but not quite, in my constituency—is quite tangible and will be expensive to put right. Sustainability was a theme of Patricia Ferguson's speech: in that context it is worth remembering that the reason why the debate has been so well tempered is that all members recognise that tourism is an important industry which, if we get it right, will ultimately be one of Scotland's totally sustainable industries. The industry could go on forever and ever, all things being well.
Dave Thompson's speech brought a Highlands and Islands perspective to the debate. His was the first speech to focus on my end of the country, as it were. He rightly pointed out that tourism is even more important in the Highlands and Islands, where the industry employs 13 per cent of the workforce. He also made supportive comments about Inverness airport, so I welcome his remarks. Let us hope that his suggestion is where we go eventually.
On David Stewart's speech, what can I say? He made an extraordinarily eloquent contribution. I found myself thinking that he perhaps in the future ought to do voice-overs for adverts for Scotland. We heard from him about the scenery, the five drivers of the tourism industry and Bonnie Prince Charlie. We also heard that David was once an extra in "Monarch of the Glen". I bow in amazement before his eloquence.
Nanette Milne gave us a splendid advert for Aberdeenshire, as did Jim Hume, who mentioned Flodden, on which I want to make a small historical point. It is literally true to say that my home town of Tain lost its shirt at Flodden. That was because before the battle King James borrowed St Duthac's shirt, which was believed to have magical powers of protection—we know what happened to King James when he went to Flodden. Tain never saw its shirt again; we would quite like to have it back.
Joe FitzPatrick rightly mentioned the tolls and gave us good reasons to visit Dundee. Cathy Jamieson did the same with Ayrshire and mentioned the A77 and Robert Burns.
I am sorry that Alasdair Allan should be mistaken for a Lithuanian—that seems to be hard luck. He talked about the importance of food tourism, but given that he was only offered a biscuit, one could say that his speech takes the biscuit. However, on a serious note, an important point arises out of what Alasdair Allan said: sometimes we in Scotland are guilty of assuming that everyone around the globe knows where Scotland is—sadly, that is not the case. I was disturbed to find out from a recent newspaper article that some residents of Seattle think that Scotland is part of London. Of course marketing is all important.
I turn to the point behind our amendment. As Dounreay is decommissioned, my constituency faces a situation in which people are fearful about their future employment. Tourism will be all-important in the future and there is no doubt that the enterprise network is a key player in tourism. Liam McArthur referred to the slash in funding for the HIE area. The announcement by Sandy Cumming, the chief executive of HIE, that the removal of £50 million would lead to 50 job losses is deeply disturbing. Those job losses will not be confined to Inverness—some of them could be in Wick, Thurso and Stornoway. That is not good news for the Highlands.
From a far-north perspective, the enterprise network is utterly crucial, not just to tourism, but to a way of life. It was a courageous leap of faith and imagination in the 1960s that led to the establishment of the then Highlands and Islands Development Board, which was set up to address
"the man on Scotland's conscience"
—the Highlands. Great work has been done so it is a backward step to unravel some of it. For the reasons that I have given, I ask members to support our amendment.
In summing up for the Conservatives, let me give a compassionate welcome for the opportunity to debate the issue. As has been said several times, we cannot underestimate the importance of the tourism industry, not just because of the £4.2 billion that it returns to the Scottish economy, but because of its potential to promote a positive image of our country in a highly competitive international community.
As the minister, Mr Macdonald and Mr McArthur all rightly said, we should have a head start in doing just that. We have a beautiful country that has some of the finest scenery in the world—notwithstanding the rain, the mist or the midges—and which offers a wealth of opportunity to exploit rewarding outdoor activities. In addition, there is the warmth of a traditional Scottish welcome and its accompanying hospitality—which Mr Allan did not experience—the lure of several world-class historical sites and entertainment centres, and the potential that exists to develop many of our resources that have such a distinctive Scottish brand, as David Stewart and David Thompson mentioned.
A successful tourism industry matters not only from the economic and social perspective, however. If we marshal our resources effectively, it should play a large part in the feel-good factor that applies to Scotland's role in the global community. If I may be allowed to be slightly less compassionate for a moment, I firmly believe that a much more integrated approach must be adopted—one that combines a clear and coherent strategy for all the related businesses and stakeholders. From listening carefully to the views of various stakeholders in the tourism industry, including representatives of local tourist boards, two chambers of commerce and people who are on the front line of service delivery, I know that there are many good tourism initiatives around the country—many of which have been mentioned—that are not always co-ordinated or publicised in the most effective manner. It is good to hear that the minister is aware of that.
In addition, as Gavin Brown and Nanette Milne said, there are concerns that in some areas, we do not seem to be attracting the footfall of tourists that we had hoped for. On that point, although Patricia Ferguson would like to take the credit for the increase in the number of international visitors to Scotland in 2005-06, she will share our concern about the decrease in the overall number of visitors in that period.
I have read the manifesto of the Scottish Tourism Forum, which points to three fundamental failings in the current set-up, the first of which relates to the difficulties with the transport infrastructure. Those failings deserve more attention than has been paid to them this morning. Nanette Milne flagged up the fact that the position on their map that Flybe gives to Inverness does not help matters. Equally unhelpful is the situation on the west Highland line, whereby one arrives in Oban on a train, only to find that the ferry to Barra and South Uist left a few minutes before the train got in. That is not about new infrastructure, but about better organisation. The point has been made that it would not happen in Switzerland or France.
The STF also highlights the fact that many jobs in tourism are not particularly well paid and it identifies technology problems in the sector. We must take all those issues seriously. Again, it was heartening to hear that the minister is trying to address them.
As Gavin Brown said, the biggest challenge that we face is the need to find a coherent national strategy that will also allow for plenty localism when it comes to making best use of our resources in the diverse parts of the country. On that front, we would have deep concerns if the Government's new strategy were driven only by the desire for greater centralisation. We need more detail on how we can make best use of the local diversity that enriches the tourism experience in this country. Assurances must be given that there will be effective forums across the country that will allow full representation of organisations that are on the front line, whether they are small businesses, large enterprises or local services such as tourist information offices. Worryingly, too many stakeholders point to concerns about the replacement of the area tourist boards with VisitScotland hubs, especially given the proposed decrease in the number of hubs.
What must be done? First, there is an issue about management of the industry. Under the previous structure, tourism operatives were members of a tourist board and had ownership of the body to which they paid their fees. They had a direct say in what went on and a vote in the election of local board members. The new model moves away from that set-up to a much more centralised structure. As I mentioned, it is worrying that the number of hubs will be reduced to six. Instead of being partners, tourism operatives will become clients who must buy services from their tourist board. We worry about how much that might curtail the driving force of the private sector, which is so crucial to the industry.
Some of the most successful tourism initiatives have been in areas where local businesses have combined effectively to take advantage of local resources and changing signals from the market. We should not forget about the huge importance of local services, particularly those that are provided by tourist information centres. Although TICs are having to adapt to changing needs, they are still central to the provision of effective services, in the same way that local post offices and other such public facilities are.
There is an unequivocal case for a better transport infrastructure with much greater linkage between routes and better planning of existing connections. We support the reduction in business rates—although we firmly believe that it should happen in the next financial year rather than be phased in over a three-year period. We are fully aware that lower business rates are only part of the answer, but if we are to ensure that small businesses have a first-class future, such a policy will be welcome.
I finish by returning to the Conservative amendment. We must strive for the improvement we know Scotland can deliver. We must be ambitious—it is important to recognise that we are talking about an ambition rather than a target. That is why our amendment is important.
Many members have used the debate to express their passion for the attractions of their constituencies and of Scotland as a whole. Much as I would like to spend my whole speech talking about the attractions of my Dumfries constituency, I must respond to what other members have said—although I am sure that I will sneak in the odd reference to my constituency.
In contemplating how to develop the industry, let us be clear about the challenge that we face from other parts of the world. The United Nations World Tourism Organization estimates that, globally, international tourist arrivals will grow by between 5.6 and 5.7 per cent and that long-term growth will average 4 per cent until 2020. Tourism contributes to the economy of more than 200 countries, which offer wide and varied products, including niche-market leisure, outdoor, cultural and business activities. They use their native cultures and heritage to attract visitors and they provide electronic marketing and booking.
On electronic booking, does Elaine Murray share the concerns that have been expressed in my community about the way in which visitscotland.com operates—especially for smaller businesses that may not be able to set aside blocks of rooms or beds over a prolonged period?
Indeed. That issue has also been raised in Dumfries and Galloway, which, like Mr McArthur's constituency, has a number of smaller operators.
The target of a 50 per cent real-terms improvement in tourism by 2015 was set by the industry, as Patricia Ferguson said, and not by the Government. The target's context is a very competitive international market in which exchange rates are not at the moment acting to our advantage. The tourism framework for change identified key improvements that the Scottish tourism industry will need to make to achieve the target. The industry has to be receptive to consumer trends and it has to be flexible enough in responding to what customers want and to what competitor countries are offering.
Of course, the industry also has to provide a very high-quality product. Scotland is expensive, so nothing less than excellence will do—excellence in accommodation, in food and in activities. Staff will have to be trained to a high level. Alasdair Allan was quite charitable towards the lady who offered him a biscuit, but that lady's attitude simply is not good enough.
In the tourism sector—as in all areas of the economy—enterprise and innovation must become part of the culture. As my colleague Charlie Gordon showed, we need the infrastructure to get visitors into and around Scotland. Rob Gibson perhaps missed the point of the air route development fund: it was not about flying people from Leeds into Prestwick or Inverness, but about flying visitors from overseas into Scotland directly, so that they did not have to go to Heathrow first before taking a short-hop flight to Scotland, which is environmentally unfriendly.
I am sorry, but I want to make progress. The air route development fund is important environmentally as well as being important economically to the tourism industry.
We have to ask a few questions of the Government. Why did the Government not seek an alternative to the air route development fund? I ask the minister to reflect on the important points that were raised by my colleague Dave Stewart on state aid funding. I hope that the Executive will examine those points and, as Charlie Gordon suggested, reconsider the possibility of rolling out the Glasgow model to support flights into Scotland.
If a 50 per cent increase in revenue is to be achieved over eight years, how much of an increase in revenue do ministers think will be achieved over the period of the spending review? While Jim Mather was holding seminars, his boss John Swinney was cutting the budget to VisitScotland. Lewis Macdonald referred to his concerns over the marketing budget. VisitScotland's budget is falling in real terms by about 0.5 per cent per annum. As my colleague Patricia Ferguson said, VisitScotland has levered in money—£32 for every £1 invested—so why are we withdrawing funding from an industry that is so successful at levering in additional funding? Many colleagues referred to the £90 million as if it were an SNP £90 million. The £90 million was already in the previous Executive's budget.
We know that the VisitScotland network is to be subjected to yet more change. Gavin Brown was at one point in his speech a little confused between ATBs and TICs, but the current network was established in April 2005 and the legislation was passed last year. There has not been a lot of time. I know that Jim Mather has said that streamlining will help to address problems with overlaps, but realignment is taking place again after a very short time in order to ensure coterminosity with the enterprise networks. I am concerned about the effect of that on the morale of staff, who have already gone through a period of considerable upheaval.
I echo some of the comments that were made by island members such as Liam McArthur about the effect of the withdrawal of the VisitScotland network from the islands. The network has specifically marketed the attractions of those parts of the country.
Patricia Ferguson referred to skills and training in the tourism sector. With whom will responsibility rest? How will we achieve the necessary improvement in the skills base, so that people will no longer offer a biscuit instead of a bacon roll?
Like my colleague Cathy Jamieson, I have concerns about the proximity of the year of homecoming. As she said, it is just a year away. Jim Mather seemed to suggest that we should be phoning our friends to get them to come over here. However, as a member for Dumfries—the place where Robert Burns died and where he wrote some of his greatest works—I would like to see more detail on the budget that will be available for the event and on how the budget will be accessed by local groups who want to use it to bring tourists into Dumfries and Galloway.
Dave Stewart referred to the stunning new Eden Court Theatre in Inverness—I would like a stunning new theatre for Dumfries. We have to examine the potential of cultural tourism to enable the regeneration of town centres such as Dumfries town centre. The local council is working on that, but if we had better cultural facilities we would be going some way towards regenerating our culture, our community and our town.
A number of members referred to the "Welcome to Scotland" slogan. All I will say is that Gretna has been well ahead for a considerable time.
When I read the Conservative amendment, it was no surprise to see the Conservatives and the SNP snuggled up in bed together again. It is a marriage of convenience that will probably last only until the other side of the next general election.
This has been a fascinating debate; I have learned a lot of new information and have heard a lot of new opinions. It was notable how, as the debate progressed, enthusiasm grew and grew—for individual places and for Scotland. It bolstered my belief in our huge potential. Gem after gem was mentioned. There was some negativity, but there were good ideas as well. The debate will perhaps help us and the industry to make progress, committed as we are to continuous improvement.
We heard earlier a very negative spin in respect of money, so I was grateful to Gavin Brown for attempting to give a true and fair view. I am looking at the data that were recently presented to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee. Taking 2007-08 and the three years of the spending review, I come up with a figure of £250 million being spent on what is, in essence, marketing—visitor engagement, business engagement, strategic partners and EventScotland. When I then consider the budget for Scottish Natural Heritage, Historic Scotland, local government, the Ryder cup and the year of homecoming, and then consider the investment that is being made by a confident industry and the confidence that I have in inward investors coming to Scotland, I know that we will see materiality in money.
At a first meeting back on 27 August, the industry said that it wants a culture change: it wants an end to the dependency culture; it wants money to be invested intelligently; and it wants to be able to put in its own money, thus elevating the industry to a new level.
During the debate, some members have failed to acknowledge a number of things, such as European constraints on the air route development fund and the best efforts of this Government to work with Continental, EasyJet and other low-cost airlines to develop the marketing of Scotland and access to Scotland.
After today's debate, will the minister reconsider and reinstate his plans to roll out the Glasgow model of air route development marketing? Will he tell also the Greens to take a hike? They have not even bothered to attend the debate.
This Government loves all its sceptics. We will—open-minded people that we are—always take input from any area. That is why we sit down with the industry and listen.
I would classify Gavin Brown's speech as constructive opposition—it was the stuff of further improvement. It was not without criticism and not without challenges, but it certainly sought to ensure that we boost the brand and achieve 50 per cent growth with a clear and meaningful plan—an idea that was developed by Elizabeth Smith. How will we achieve that? We will do so through improvement within the industry, through improvement within VisitScotland and visitscotland.com—I have given members evidence of that today—and through pulling the industry together as never before. We have a worthy goal, and the Conservative amendment augments that worthy goal, making it more meaningful in terms of visitor experience, careers and so on.
We are including all the stakeholders and we are making an effort to include the ones who do not volunteer naturally. In my constituency, we sometimes struggle to get the local key players into the room, but we are now doing that. On 14 December we will have a summit at which Argyll and Bute Council and HIE will bring together people who might not normally volunteer but who contribute to, and draw revenue from, the tourism industry in the area. That is a worthy goal. All the stakeholders will be involved.
We are committed to continuous improvement across the board. We want open statistical control, whereby we monitor progress. We want rooms with mirrors in them so that we make eye contact with ourselves. We are doing this for real. [Laughter.]. Eye contact with oneself can be a very helpful thing. Being able to make eye contact with oneself in the shaving mirror in the morning is an indication that one might just be doing the right thing. Liam McArthur, on the other hand, was doing entirely the wrong thing. He gave us a negative spin that would be laughed at by the people who have got involved with us. Rather than death by PowerPoint, it is about using technologies, ideas, programmes and processes that have worked elsewhere to move forward, deliver leadership and get continuous improvement. The Liberal Democrats' approach will come back to haunt them. We are looking to ensure that Scotland has a pipeline of new and interesting projects that energise people.
Brian Adam, who I did not know had been a lawyer in a previous life, noted Lewis Macdonald's carefully chosen words and his reluctance to consolidate operational and financial cohesion in the industry. The industry, Government agencies, the transport sector and the third sector are really coming together. Isolation is over and centrality of tourism is a given. We will work together.
At the end of the three-year spending review, will the budget that is allocated to VisitScotland have increased or gone down in real terms compared with the current year?
That question just shows the narrowness of Lewis Macdonald's vision. I am talking about operational and financial cohesion across an entire industry in which the money is burgeoning, inward investment is happening, people are waking up and investing in their own businesses and the dependency culture is gone. That is the fact of the matter.
Patricia Ferguson's speech was interesting. She challenged me on the green debate. I am happy to say that the green tourism business scheme, which is a membership scheme, is cracking on. Beyond that, we are opening up a new entry-level scheme called going green, which VisitScotland is developing and which will be launched in early 2008. It will be a free scheme that will, in essence, create a climate in which the carbon footprint of those coming to Scotland will be very low and their reasons for coming to Scotland will be even greater than they are now.
Members have mentioned the islands and the scope for decentralisation. We are creating that scope at local authority level and island level. I spent the summer running sessions with the tourism industry on Islay, Mull, Bute and Lismore, in which I talked to island communities about moving things forward. Islay is now cracking on with its destination Islay initiative, which will be absolutely fantastic.
The minister referred to the centrality of tourism and ending the dependency culture. Can he give an assurance to my constituents, and those of Tavish Scott and Alasdair Allan, that as well as keeping offices open in the islands, he will ensure that there is no reduction in the role that they play and the budget that supports them?
I say to every member that we want the industry to move forward. We want everybody to pull together. That which is vibrant, viable and energised will be supported.
In closing, I want to comment on the strength of feeling and enthusiasm that I have found in the tourism industry. In today's debate there have been lots of gems among some of the elements of negativity, particularly from David Stewart, who I understand has a new agent in the shape of Jamie Stone. I have been tremendously encouraged by the endeavours of everyone involved. There is strong ambition, leadership and a boldness that impressed me. As Goethe said:
"Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it."
Scotland is beginning that.