Social Tourism
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-05625, in the name of John Mason, on social tourism. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament affirms the economic and social value of social tourism, a term that describes efforts to include people living on low income, dealing with physical or mental impairment or experiencing other disadvantage, in holiday and leisure activities; highlights what it considers the positive enhancement of the quality of family life through equitable access to high value rest and recreation regardless of disadvantage or poverty; believes that partnership working between tourism and welfare sector partners can improve the quality of family life for those parents and children who experience disadvantage as a result of poverty through the provision of and by promoting access to holidays and other recreational activities; notes what it considers the significant economic and social benefits brought by social tourism programmes in countries such as France, Spain and Belgium; considers that increased social tourism initiatives in Glasgow Shettleston and across Scotland would be of benefit to both struggling individuals and families, contribute to the work of social welfare organisations and strengthen the wider tourism sector, and would welcome the growth of social tourism in Scotland.
17:02
One or two members suggested that I should move my seat because I was sitting in the sunshine, but—surprise, surprise—it has gone.
We are talking about tourism; more specifically, we are talking about social tourism. I thank the Presiding Officer and members across the chamber for their support in obtaining the debate.
Social tourism is one of those subjects that many of us did not know much about. I first had contact with John McDonald and the Family Holiday Association when I was at Westminster, and the more familiar I have become with the whole idea of social tourism, the more enthusiastic I have become about it. The key point for me is that people on low incomes should and need to be able to have holidays. The secondary but still important point is that social tourism can be a boost to our tourism sector. Other members may focus more on the second point, but I would like to concentrate on the first.
I suppose that the first issue that we would expect to come up on the topic is the belief that a holiday is surely a luxury, to which people on low incomes have no right. I very much want to challenge that assertion. I think that we now recognise that having a job does not guarantee a route out of poverty. Numerous studies, including the Finance Committee’s recent study on employability, have confirmed that people have a wide range of needs, which include physical and mental health needs, as well as a need for an income of a certain level.
Many of us know how much we benefit from getting away for a week or two. It need not be hugely expensive or luxurious, but getting away from our normal environment, with all the pressures and routines that we are subject to, can set us up for re-entering the fray on our return. One of my preferences is camping in a tent. I find it tremendous to be away in the fresh air, when I can get more physical exercise without being under any pressure to get up at a particular time in the morning, which is the case even in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I accept that living in a tent is not everybody’s cup of tea, but there are other ways of having a reasonably inexpensive break or holiday, or even just a weekend away, whether it be in caravans, holiday parks or guest houses, among other options.
Given that stress affects us across the income spectrum and is a key factor in people’s health in poorer areas, I would argue that holidays and leisure activities are also necessary across the income spectrum and are not just a luxury available only to those on good incomes. Those points are supported by research, as members may have seen in the Family Holiday Association’s briefing. For example, the University of Nottingham has done a study that showed that 77 per cent of families were happy after a holiday, that 70 per cent were more optimistic and that 74 per cent had a more positive outlook on life. A study by the University of Westminster and the University of Surrey showed that families felt closer after a holiday and felt rejuvenated after a break from the stress and worries of their normal life.
Members might say that we do not need academic research to tell us that, and I would largely agree. However, in a sense, that makes the point. It is pretty obvious that a break from the usual routine is a good thing, so, logically, we should make it happen as much as we can. The statistics that we have show that in the United Kingdom 2.5 million children are in families who cannot afford even a day trip to the seaside; I reckon that the proportionate figure for Scotland is about 200,000. Similarly, 3.5 million children do not get even a week away in a year; again, proportionately, that is about 280,000 in Scotland.
One of the facts that shocked me when I took part in a conference in London on poverty was that there are kids in London who have never seen the Thames. We could have similar stories here about kids who perhaps have never seen a cow—that situation cannot be right.
I know that Unison and other trade unions are supportive of the concept of social tourism. Unison’s website states:
“But holidays don’t just have an impact on the individual, they also affect wider society. Employers and communities benefit too.”
Unison and other trade unions have had their own holiday schemes, albeit often on a fairly small scale, but they are also under financial pressure these days and cannot do all that they would like to do.
Social tourism is an area in which we can learn from other European countries that are very committed to it. For example, France has a voucher system through which employees can purchase vouchers at a subsidised price, with lower-wage staff getting a higher subsidy and higher-wage staff getting less of a subsidy. The vouchers are redeemable in hotels and restaurants throughout France. That is reckoned to help 7 million people to have a holiday or other break that they could not normally afford and, in addition, to pump €3 billion into the French economy. There are similar voucher schemes in Switzerland, Poland, Cyprus, Italy and Hungary.
In Spain, there is a scheme that helps 1.2 million Spanish senior citizens. As well as the direct benefit to recipients, the scheme extends the holiday season in the tourist resorts and therefore stimulates economic activity. The Spanish Government invests about €125 million in the scheme, and it reckons that for every €1 invested, it gets €1.5 in extra tax revenue in return.
My personal experience locally is of the Family Holiday Association, a charity that has provided a fund for the two local schools in Barlanark in my constituency. The fund has been able to support individual families or groups of families who were under pressure and needed a break. I am delighted that in the public gallery we have from Sandaig primary the head and deputy head, Moira McArthur and Linda Burke. Members who came to the drop-in session might have met Linda Burke, who told some of us that they have a school trip coming up within the next couple of weeks and that, for some of the children at the primary school, it will be the first time that they have seen the sea and played on a beach. I find that quite moving.
So, what was my aim in bringing today’s debate? First, it was to raise awareness of the topic of social tourism. It is clear from speaking to other members—I believe that this is also true of Westminster members—that they are not hugely familiar with the term “social tourism” and what it means. Although little bits and pieces have been happening on it here and there, there has not been the bigger, joined-up approach that has happened in other countries. I hope that this debate is a small step towards a longer-term agenda of increasing familiarity with the subject.
I hesitate to suggest that we start another cross-party group, as members generally feel that we have enough of them—although the possibility has been suggested to me—but I am interested to hear from the Government and from members speaking on behalf of other parties how they view social tourism and the benefits to individuals and the tourism industry in this country and whether we are open to developing it as a concept in Scotland.
I do not believe that we need to spend a lot of money to make social tourism work. Perhaps it is more a matter of using the resources that we already have, such as the empty hotel bedrooms, in a more joined-up way.
17:10
I congratulate John Mason on securing the debate and bringing the topic of social tourism to the chamber.
It was on 18 March 1999, just over 14 years ago in his Beveridge lecture, that Tony Blair committed the United Kingdom Government to eradicating child poverty by 2020. Government policy on child poverty has been debated and scrutinised ever since, and progress towards the 2020 target, under successive Administrations at Scottish and UK levels, has not always been consistent with Governments’ aspirations. There is a cross-party consensus, however, around the necessity of poverty reduction and social inclusion. Sadly, the pressures of being a carer, raising a sick or disabled child, being ill or disabled oneself and raising a family, being affected by a bereavement, living in damp or poor housing, or experiencing multiple types of deprivation can leave people shut out or feeling left behind.
Here in the Scottish Parliament, we often debate the ways in which Government can make a material difference to families in that position, through taxation, welfare or public spending. There is also increasing recognition of the importance of early intervention and prevention. The evidence tells us that we can prevent illness and disadvantage in later life if we ensure that every child, no matter what their background, has a positive experience of childhood in a healthy and happy family. It is in that context that I stress the value of social tourism and the way in which holidays and leisure activities can bring families together.
Social tourism can act as a form of prevention for older people, too—helping them to socialise and to lead active lives, and minimising the risk of illness in our ageing society, which is placing demands on the national health service. The growth of social tourism in Europe compared with its low profile in the UK suggests that it is an area in which we have some way to go in developing an infrastructure and good practice.
Social tourism in the UK is largely supported by the voluntary sector, through a range of charities. I know that members across the Parliament all appreciate the work of those charities and the efforts of everyone who gives of their time and money to help to ensure that more families have the chance to enjoy a holiday together. For older people in many communities, churches and faith groups or other voluntary organisations can organise affordable outings and holidays, but they perhaps do not realise the true value of the experience.
We can learn valuable lessons from mainland Europe about how the voluntary sector interacts with the public and private sectors to give social tourism the status that it deserves. There is more that we can do to determine the financial impact of social tourism in terms of what it contributes to the economy and what it saves in public spending on front-line services and the NHS.
Opening up tourism to people who, due to their circumstances, cannot normally afford to travel and finance a holiday could create opportunities for the tourism trade in Scotland and abroad. Affordable out-of-season tourism might not be lucrative, but it could help hotels to fill empty rooms and it could boost footfall at visitor attractions during periods when visitor numbers are low. Not only would that help the industry; it could make a huge difference to the people concerned. It could improve their mental and physical wellbeing, it could strengthen family relationships and it could build happy memories through a positive shared experience.
I once again congratulate John Mason on bringing the debate to the chamber, which has allowed us to raise the profile of social tourism and to discuss how it benefits the most excluded people in society.
17:14
Saying how grateful we are that a member has brought forward a subject for a member’s business debate can be something of a formality in this place, but I am genuinely grateful to John Mason for bringing forward this debate because he has brought to my mind something about which I knew very little—although perhaps slightly more than I originally thought—but which is clearly hugely important. I do not want to copy the contributions of John Mason and Margaret McCulloch. They have set out the general area, and I will add a little bit to that.
We now know that disadvantaged groups gain something from holidays and recreation. We understand that physical and mental health will be improved by such holidays, and we recognise that that is perhaps especially the case for children. The economic benefits to the destinations have also been mentioned.
The literature that we have been given suggests that the proposal that we are discussing is working towards lengthening at both ends the holiday periods for which holiday destinations are able to stay open. That brings a huge economic advantage to absolutely everyone concerned: a longer season means that there is more work for those who are, almost inevitably, seasonal staff; there is a longer period for every business to recover its fixed costs, which makes margins easier to cover; and there is also an incentive for regeneration, as more money goes into a destination’s economy in general, giving it a better chance of expanding. I suggest that the economic case for the destination is irrefutable.
Remarkably, as John Mason has said, there seems to be some serious evidence that there is actually some benefit for the Government, too. That is one of the reasons why I imagine that the Government will reflect positively on the proposal. There is serious evidence from the Spanish system that every new euro that is invested brings back €1.50 to the Government. That must gladden the heart of every finance minister and surely suggests that this is one of the best possible investments for the Government, never mind the very clear social benefits that have already been mentioned.
The recent report “Poverty and Social Exclusion in the United Kingdom”, which was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, says that more than 30 million people—almost half the population—suffer from some form of financial insecurity; that almost 18 million people in the United Kingdom today cannot afford adequate housing conditions; that 5.5 million adults go without essential clothing; and that almost 4 million children go without at least two of the things that they need. If those figures are even remotely right, is it any surprise that holidays are too far down the list of important things for people to be able to afford them?
As John Mason said, we instinctively know that holidays are a good thing. Why else do we go on them? However, I am grateful that there is some academic research on this—that always helps. I was particularly struck by research that was done by the University of Nottingham’s business school, involving work by John McCabe and Sarah Johnson on quality of life and social wellbeing. It was interesting to read the numbers that they came up with, which showed measurable improvements in family life, social life, family time and wellbeing, which are hugely important areas in which Governments struggle to bring about improvements. For the self-selecting group of people whom we really want to help, we can see a model that is at least financially neutral from the Government’s point of view. Surely that is something that we all want to support.
17:18
I thank John Mason for bringing the debate to the chamber and the issue of social tourism to the attention of a much wider audience. I am not aware of any debate on social tourism in the Parliament since 1999, so this could be a first. In fact, the honest truth is that, until I did some research for the debate, I was not very aware of what social tourism was. I do not think that I was the only one—I noticed that Paul Maynard MP, the Conservative chair of Westminster’s all-party parliamentary group on social tourism, said:
“Twelve months ago I had never heard of ‘social tourism’.”
There is a constant awareness of the economic value of tourism, but much less awareness of its social value, particularly in relation to people on low incomes, those who are dealing with mental or physical impairment or those who are experiencing other disadvantage in relation to holiday and leisure activities.
Research from the University of Nottingham concludes that:
“Whilst indicators and measures of mental and physical health, happiness and quality of life have evolved over recent years, the extent to which such measures have been applied to tourists ... is limited and, until now, to the beneficiaries of social tourism not at all.”
However, along with other academic research, an evidence base is being established, as other members have said. I particularly noticed the University of Westminster research that concluded that the family holiday can
“improve the outlook on life: it shows that even in difficult circumstances, good things can happen. This may lead to renewed courage and a more pro-active attitude to life ... some started a course after the holiday, gave up smoking or anti-depressants, started visiting their social support organisation more often or changed jobs.”
The University of Nottingham research focused on information that came from application forms for the holidays and a follow-up questionnaire, and it was clear that all the family are equally affected by circumstances, children as well as adults. The perceived benefits were:
“The chance to spend quality time together as a family ... The opportunity to spend time away from stressful routines”
and
“The opportunity for fun and happy memories”.
The findings concluded that although a holiday is not a remedy for medical conditions, it might contribute to a self-assessment of good health. The results also showed that families who are in debt perceived fewer of the benefits such as “fun and happy memories”, which pointed to their difficulty in seeing beyond their current circumstances and looking for ways out of debt.
I highlight two of the recommendations of the House of Commons all-party parliamentary group’s report because I see no reason why they cannot be adopted in our Parliament. They are:
“building on existing research for a deeper understanding of the long-term benefits that social tourism can bring to individuals, families and society”
and
“to explore how various departments can support the concept in an integrated way.”
I hope that at least those two recommendations can be adopted. Given the clear improvements in mental health and wellbeing alongside increasing confidence and social networks, I certainly support centres such as the Badaguish outdoor centre, which is hugely valued by many individuals and families across the Highlands.
Again, I thank John Mason for putting social tourism on our agenda and helping us to focus on the social, health and wellbeing benefits rather than the usual statistics about visitor numbers, the amount of tourist spend and bed nights. I hope that, as well as cold statistics, wellbeing will continue to be integrated into economic measures. After all, economics is a social science, not a pure science.
17:23
I thank John Mason for securing the debate. As my good friend Mary Scanlon has already said, it is a first for the Scottish Parliament.
Social tourism can mean many things to many people, but its core principle is that people who come from low-income families should have the opportunity to access holidays and experience leisure activities. However, for some, even the simplest of day trips is beyond reach. According to the Family Holiday Association, an estimated 2.5 million families cannot even afford a day trip, as John Mason has already said. Financial difficulties in tough economic times coupled with family breakdown and work pressures sometimes prevent families across the country from accessing holidays and leisure activities. In turn, that prevents them from reaping the benefits of a holiday.
A number of welfare benefits can be reaped, such as better mental, physical and emotional wellbeing, giving families the chance to feel rejuvenated through having a break that is free from stress or worry. There is also a lot to be said for the wider educational and cultural benefits to those who take a break or a holiday through learning about the culture and traditions of other nations, which is an enriching experience for all.
I recall a scheme that was run by what was then Strathclyde Regional Council, which referred people through the social work department to experience a family caravanning holiday in various locations across the country. Such examples have helped to ensure that many people who are on a low income get the chance to have a family holiday. It is a very important opportunity and a scheme that I would like to see more local authorities and organisations roll out.
Social tourism also carries with it significant economic benefits to tourism and associated industries by making use of facilities that would not otherwise be used during the off-peak season. Many examples that provide evidence of the success that social tourism can bring can be found throughout Europe. The IMSERSO scheme has helped to employ thousands of people while bringing in billions of euros.
There are a number of good examples of work that is being done to promote social tourism in Scotland, for example by the Family Holiday Association, an organisation that I had the pleasure of meeting earlier, which is working in partnership with companies such as Thomson and Canvas Holidays as well as with charities such as the Family Fund.
Those organisations are working to champion social tourism and to increase opportunities for those from low-income families who face a number of barriers. In particular, I welcome the work done by Thomson and First Choice in collecting an average of £2 million per annum from donations on board flights as well as staff fundraisers, and I thank the people involved for their hard work and generosity. I encourage other travel firms and airlines to get involved because Thomson and First Choice have shown what can be done when such companies set their minds to it.
Over a number of years, several companies have run low-cost holiday breaks for families—I support that and ask others to take up that worthy cause. Through newspapers, people can obtain a voucher for a holiday at a cost of sometimes perhaps only £9 or £10. Many parents and their children deserve a break. I support the motion and again thank John Mason for bringing it to Parliament.
17:27
I am not a late convert, but a late addition to the debate. I had said that I would listen to the debate, but I was so moved by the evidence at the meeting earlier that I had to make a contribution.
Many years ago, in a past life, I ran voluntary organisations and in the summer I used to run a play scheme. As John Mason said, some kids that we took on the play scheme had never been on the subway and had never been on a train. I will not tell members exactly what happened when I got them to Kelvingrove art gallery and they saw the fountain there with the money in it; members can imagine what they tried to do. Those kids had never been outside that small place that they were born and brought up in.
When I was talking to Liz Buchanan and others at the meeting this afternoon, in particular some of the teachers from Sandaig primary, I was reminded of the fact that in some inner cities—in particular in Glasgow, but it probably happens all over—there is a territorial issue. Kids will not cross the road to go to another area, so therefore they perhaps do not see the sea or the grass because they are confined to that particular area. It is rather sad.
This holiday idea gets the kids completely out of such areas, and some of the examples that have been produced show how good it has been for the kids to be able to break away from what happens in their lives—the poverty, domestic violence in some cases, and other issues; for example, when someone in the family has passed away. It is absolutely fantastic to be able to offer—not just to the kids, but to their families—the opportunity to get away for a complete break.
Mary Scanlon and other members mentioned that such breaks help with mental health, which they do. I know how I feel when I have been able to go for a break, but it is wonderful for families who cannot get away at all, because they do not have the money, to be given that opportunity.
I congratulate John Mason for lodging the motion. As others have said, I had heard a little bit about the topic but not an awful lot. I hope that we will hear even more about it.
I will touch on two other areas. In addition to the recommendations that Mary Scanlon highlighted, I want to mention first the recommendation on the European Commission’s Calypso programme on social tourism. We are told that participation in the programme costs nothing, so I hope that the minister can look at that. As John Mason and others said, social tourism can help to boost the economy because it puts money into the economy and because those who work in the sector can be employed for longer. We should also remember—in case anyone from the press takes the wrong idea—that the proposal is about giving people holidays in their own country and not abroad, which makes it even better.
Secondly, given the recommendation about providing disadvantaged families with free tickets for venues in the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, perhaps the minister could speak to his colleague Shona Robison on whether we could do something like that for the Commonwealth games. That could kick-start this idea of social holidays.
Again, I am grateful to John Mason for bringing the issue to the attention of the Parliament. I certainly look forward to seeing how far we can go with the concept of social holidays.
17:31
I begin by thanking John Mason, as all other members have done this evening, for introducing this important topic to the Scottish Parliament. To wait 14 years after the Parliament was reconvened before we raised the issue has perhaps been too long, so we are grateful to John Mason for lodging an important motion for debate.
As a breed, MSPs and MPs—perhaps contrary to public perception—tend to be, at least from my observance, work obsessed, driven, occasionally fanatical, and connected almost surgically to their iPads, so I am not sure that we are the best advert for the pursuit of holiday taking in general. However, perhaps we are wrong and the rest of society is correct. I see one member brandishing her iPad; I do not know whether that is a legal possession in the chamber, so I will not tell on her.
More seriously, the matter of providing what we take for granted to people on low incomes, who cannot afford what we take for granted, is at the kernel of the debate. As John Mason presented with typical clarity, that really is the objective of social tourism, although it also boosts tourism. Nigel Don focused on exactly how that can be done in practice.
Many members, including Mary Scanlon, gave examples of the magnificent effort that is made by a huge range of companies, organisations, charities, third sector bodies and individuals, who do a tremendous amount. Regarding Badaguish, which Mary Scanlon mentioned, I well know that Andrew and Silvie MacKenzie have devoted their lives to the issue. I remember their telling me once how a blind child heard running water for the first time when he was able to put his ear to the water in a burn near Badaguish in Strathspey, which is a beautiful part of Scotland close to my home.
I could give many more examples of the largely unsung effort that is, and always has been, carried out in Scotland by a huge range of bodies. I have a list here of charities and organisations that are involved in the better breaks fund for disabled children and young people. They include the Scottish Spina Bifida Association, Enable Scotland, the MEAD—minority ethnic access development—project and the Aberlour Child Care Trust. It is perhaps invidious to mention just a few, because the list includes about 40 organisations. That goes to show what a tremendous amount of work is being done for children, as Margaret McCulloch mentioned. That work is extremely important, and we thank all those bodies and organisations for the huge amount of work that they do.
It is easy to forget how isolating it is for a parent who needs—24 hours a day, seven days a week—to look after a child who has a severe disability. That sense of isolation is acute, as we all know from the work that we do. Therefore, the importance of a holiday—a chance to get away from that routine, which can be the cause of depression and difficulty—is even greater for them than it is for others. As others have pointed out, that is not simply a luxury.
Of course, a terrific amount has been done with the support of charities. The Scottish Government has provided a reasonable amount of financial investment—£13 million between 2010 and 2015—for the short breaks fund. A large part of that is to support short breaks for disabled children and young people up to the age of 20 and their families. The investment is divided between two grant-making programmes: Shared Care Scotland’s better breaks programme and the Family Fund’s take a break programme. To date, more than 9,000 children and their families have benefited from that resource and from the work of the many charities to which I have alluded.
We have provided core funding to Shared Care Scotland, which works to improve the quality, choice and availability of short-break provision across Scotland for the benefit of carers and the people for whom they care. I had the pleasure of meeting John McDonald and Tom Pilgrim, who I think are in the public gallery, and who with others have taken the trouble to come to Parliament today to educate members and explain their work. The Family Holiday Association, which arranges holidays for people who cannot afford them, believes that 7 million people in the UK miss out on a basic holiday through poverty and that 2.5 million children live in families that are too poor to afford a day trip. The FHA strongly believes that even short breaks can contribute to stronger, healthier and happier families. Many members alluded to that and expanded on it in their speeches. We want to build on that work.
Reference has also been made to the work that is done in other countries, which to an extent puts us to shame, although they operate in different ways. France has the chèque-vacances, which can be used towards the cost of rail, sea and air travel as well as more than 135,000 leisure facilities. The holiday voucher system, to which Dick Lyle referred, involved €1.4 billion in 2012. In Spain, 1.2 million Spanish senior citizens have access to an off-peak break at a Spanish seaside resort. In Flanders, it is a condition of registering with the tourist board that holiday businesses provide free or discounted holiday nights, which are then made available to social organisations to help disadvantaged families to access a break from their home.
We in Scotland want to learn from what other countries do, and we can do more. Sandra White asked what we are doing in relation to specific events. I am pleased to say that, for the year of natural Scotland, we have had the big April adventures scheme, through which 15,000 people enjoyed free travel during April, enabling them to travel around Scotland courtesy of Caledonian MacBrayne and ScotRail. Stagecoach has offered £5,000 of money-off vouchers.
I also refer to the free bus travel scheme for the over-60s, which enables many people to travel throughout Scotland. The extent to which the scheme enables people to do things that they would otherwise not do is perhaps not widely appreciated. It allows people to get out and about, to travel to other parts of Scotland, to visit friends or to have a short break. I do not think that the benefits of the scheme have been computed. Equally, free visits to visitor attractions in Scotland outnumber paid visits by a factor of about three to one, with 34 million free admissions in 2012 compared to 13.6 million paid visits. We are doing some things, although perhaps we can do more.
I conclude by returning to John Mason’s central tenet that the “more” that we should be doing should be directed specifically towards families on low incomes, children, people who have disabilities, and especially towards those who have not had a chance in life to have a holiday or a break and to have what the rest of us take for granted.
We therefore look forward to working with the Family Fund, the Family Holiday Association, all the charities that I mentioned and others to do more in Scotland for social tourism.
Meeting closed at 17:39.