– in the Scottish Parliament at 2:30 pm on 25 October 2006.
The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion S2M-4919, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, that the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill be passed.
This is a great time for Scottish tourism. It is one of Scotland's real success stories and much of that success is down to the work of VisitScotland. Since its reorganisation, the new VisitScotland network has gone from strength to strength, which is why it is important to put the reorganised network on a proper legal footing. That is what the bill is all about.
As members are probably aware, tourism is worth £4.2 billion to the Scottish economy, and the industry employs 200,000 people in 20,000 diverse businesses throughout Scotland. It supports around 9 per cent of employment in Scotland, rising to 13 per cent of employment in the Highlands. Tourism sustains many of our rural communities.
Last year was a record year. Nearly 2.4 million overseas visitors came to Scotland—an increase of 50 per cent since 2001 and the highest figure ever recorded. That is a fantastic achievement by our tourism industry and by VisitScotland. Also, our overseas visitors are spending more when they are here. Last year they spent £1.2 billion, beating the previous highest amount, which was recorded in 1998. There are increasing numbers of visitors to visitor attractions, and occupancy rates are at a record 10-year high.
It is clear that much of that success is down to the tourism industry, which is raising its game and has responded to the challenge that it has set itself through its ambition of achieving 50 per cent growth. The industry is working in a genuine partnership with local authorities, the enterprise networks and VisitScotland. However, some of the success is down to the Executive's investment in tourism. For example, as a result of our investment in the route development fund, 36 new direct flights to Scotland are currently operating, including 27 international routes, which have played a major role in increasing the number of overseas visitors. In the past financial year, about 1.4 million passengers were carried in and out of Scotland on our supported direct routes. Three
To achieve the massive improvement in Scotland's international connections, we have invested £4 million, which is putting in place the strategic connections that Scotland needs, and bringing significant benefits to Scotland's economy, especially our tourism economy.
Our investment in VisitScotland is also paying dividends. For every £1 that VisitScotland spends on marketing in Europe, £29 is generated. For every £1 that is spent on marketing in the United States of America, £33 is generated. VisitScotland's United Kingdom marketing—not including its television and cinema campaigns—generates an incredible £34 for every £1 spent. I am sure that Parliament will agree that that is money well spent. Others think so, too, which is why VisitScotland has won more than 20 awards for its innovative marketing campaigns. and why I am investing a further £800,000 in VisitScotland this year, to allow it to do even more marketing of direct air services to Scotland. I am investing in an organisation that we know produces results—I am investing in success.
The purpose of the bill is to put the new VisitScotland network on a proper legal footing and to ensure that it is fit for purpose, so that it can continue to do the excellent work that it has done to make Scotland's tourism industry the success story that it is today.
Existing legislation requires that there be area tourist boards, but having different strategies for different areas simply does not work in this age of global tourism. VisitScotland has demonstrated that its network approach works. The bill will therefore repeal the requirement for area tourist boards and dissolve the two network tourist boards that were set up temporarily as part of the integration process. That means that VisitScotland can become fully integrated and operate as a single legal entity. The bill also makes provision for the transfer of staff from the network tourist boards to VisitScotland.
Given the broader role that VisitScotland now has, the bill will increase its board from seven members to a maximum of 12. That will ensure that the board has knowledge, expertise and experience in all aspects of VisitScotland's work. Finally, the bill will change the organisation's legal name from the Scottish Tourist Board to VisitScotland—a change that has, for all practical purposes, already taken place. The bill gives us the opportunity to put the new name on a proper legal footing and to confirm VisitScotland as the way forward for Scottish tourism.
As the minister with responsibility for international development, I am delighted that, in addition to the work that VisitScotland does to
The bill is not about changing the way in which VisitScotland works; the organisation is already working well against a backdrop of increasing competition and an ever-changing international market. All the signs are that our growth will continue and I am confident that VisitScotland will continue to lead that growth.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill be passed.
It is right that the minister praises our tourism industry for its successes—indeed, it is currently quite successful. I note, however, that she made scant reference to the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Bill. It is unfortunate that such a bill is necessary, but I am delighted that, as a consequence of the bill, primary legislation will not be required to change the name of the organisation in the future. The minister is to be commended for ensuring at least that that is not something that we will have to revisit.
On a procedural matter, it is unfortunate that we need to have this debate because the matter is decided—there are no amendments. All we have to do now is vote on the motion to pass the bill. Members will undoubtedly take the opportunity to give their views on tourism, the direction that it is taking and the direction that it may take in the future. Nevertheless, the debate is part of the legislative process so I am not sure that it is the place for such speeches. I do not hold the minister to account for that; it is perhaps something that the Procedures Committee should consider.
I turn to the successes that are being achieved. It is great that we are welcoming so many new overseas visitors. The minister is right to say that that is related to the fact that Scotland is now much better connected to the rest of the world than it was a few years ago. The route development fund was supported—if not initiated—by my colleague, Kenny MacAskill. The Executive has adopted it, as has BAA, which contributes more money than the Executive to the fund. The fund has been the main driver in
The minister rightly pointed out how crucial tourism is to the Highlands and Islands. I would like to see steps being taken to encourage more direct flights and access to all parts of Scotland, as part of the goal to refine the programmes around the route development fund. That will mean that there is a greater incentive to ensure that all Scotland benefits.
I understand that we have in previous years not gathered information about the final destinations of people arriving in Scotland. That kind of information is very useful in helping airlines to make up their minds about how to develop packages for the future. I hope that we are now in a position to offer such information to help to develop future tourism access to the whole of Scotland.
One disappointing feature of the figures that were produced today—I do not want to berate anyone for this—is that we have not managed to recover our pre-2001 position in the United States. The increase in tourism from Europe has compensated for that, which is directly related to the route development fund. There might be obvious reasons for the changes in tourism from the US, but I am not sure that we have targeted that market as effectively as we might. Perhaps we need to encourage more direct connections between Scotland and the US. If it works for Europe, it should work for the US. It is in that context that I raise that issue.
The Scottish National Party does not have any difficulty with the bill and so will support it. It is just unfortunate that we had to devote so much parliamentary time to a name change—I am glad that we will not have to do so again in the future.
It is my sincere hope, and that of my party, that the changes that will be made by the bill if it is passed will be good for the people who make their living out of tourism, which is, after all, Scotland's largest industry. It is possible that the ATB model that was set up by the Conservatives in 1995 needed some modernisation. However, although I accept that the main players who are now employed by VisitScotland are very professional operators, we are concerned that the integrated model that has been produced by the Executive will result in a loss of local knowledge and leadership.
The hubs and area tourism partnerships have
Many doubts were expressed at the Scottish Tourism Forum, which met in Pitlochry two weeks ago. We have severe concerns that the new model is too centralised. As I said at stage 1, I and several of my colleagues have conducted tourism surveys in our areas that suggest a high level of discontent with the new model. Since then, people have told me that the silence between the newly constructed hubs and the tourist operators on the outside of the wheel is deafening; there is not enough dialogue. We should not forget what the Enterprise and Culture Committee said in its report:
"the current local area tourist boards are a repository of a significant amount of skills and knowledge. It will be important that in any new structure for tourism in Scotland, VisitScotland does not lose this local expertise in its drive for increasing professionalism in the sector."
We are worried about that centralisation. The bill will simply rubber-stamp what already exists, but if Scottish tourism is to improve then tourism growth must be profitable. Public sector support is important for that, but business investment and efficiency of Government and regulation are indispensable.
The new structure is overcentralised. Although it has improved some aspects of VisitScotland's marketing and, I admit, contains some good elements such as EventScotland and EatScotland—Scotland tastes delicious—the overcentralised nature of the new structure risks alienating the smaller tourism businesses that are the lifeblood of our more rural areas. Small tourism businesses make a huge contribution to many communities. The effects of the failure of such businesses are proportionately greater in rural areas than is the case in more populous areas. I am especially concerned that new structure does not seem to provide a voice for that part of the industry. Time and again, I have heard it said to me that the restructuring is about the bigger companies in the major cities and offers little to operators in remote areas.
It seems ridiculous to abolish the tried and tested "Scottish Tourist Board" as the legal title, given that the trading name could obviously be
I have no concern about the increase in the size of the board as long as the board members are the best that we can get and have professional knowledge that will benefit the industry. I hope that the minister will listen to the industry when it calls, for example, for the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness—which my colleague Murdo Fraser and others in my party have also have called for—and the need for profitable growth. We also need training schemes for employees in the tourism industry and for tourism students so that what is now our biggest industry can grow even bigger.
Scotland will always sell itself well, but the Scottish Executive must also do its best to bring that about.
The minister was quite right to point out the success in recent times of Scotland's tourism industry. When my wife and I were in north-west Sutherland last week during some terrible weather, it was a great pleasure to see that the Kinlochbervie Hotel and the Mackay's Rooms and Restaurant in Durness—both of which Mr McGrigor will be acquainted with—were full of not just Scots but international tourists. We hear that tourism supports 9 per cent of Scotland's economy and 13 per cent of the Highland economy; those figures are true and I believe that they are rising. Our investment certainly seems to be bearing fruit.
I listened to Jamie McGrigor's speech with great interest. He made some strong points, to which I will come in a second, but if the situation is as bad as people have been telling him, why is the industry doing rather better than it was? That is a difficult question.
I am delighted that the figures that we were published yesterday show an increase in visitor numbers, especially from America. However, I point out that most of those bookings would have been made when the old area tourist boards were still in place, so the figures are not a strong argument for the bill. Furthermore, I have heard recently that tourism bookings for this year may be considerably down.
Perhaps the people who want to book a holiday in Stoer lighthouse need to book two years in advance, but VisitScotland has been around for considerably longer than Mr McGrigor suggests. I assure him that his point does not apply to the bookings that were made for Durness.
However, Mr McGrigor made a fair point about how crucial training is, especially for students of tourism. I differ from Mr McGrigor in that I believe that we are building on a sure foundation, although I accept that we can build more on it.
As the minister and Brian Adam have mentioned, the bill will also change the official name of the Scottish Tourist Board. I take issue with Mr McGrigor, as I did with Murdo Fraser, about that. Perhaps being a trendy Lib Dem—or perhaps not, some of my colleagues might say—I believe that "VisitScotland" is an apt and snappy title. The Conservatives perhaps prefer to cherish the things of the past but, in fairness, the title "Scottish Tourist Board" is outdated. We are each entitled to our opinions about that.
On the connections between Scotland and the rest of the world, Brian Adam made the plea that other parts of Scotland should also be connected. I will come to his point about the United States in a moment, but there is something in what he said and the Executive is working on the issue. The point is fair. I am not talking about sending huge aeroplanes into the smaller airports that are scattered about the Highlands, but surely it is desirable to increase the number of flights into some of them. After all, Mr McGrigor knows Ackergill Tower as well as I do, and increasing the number of flights into Wick will help such businesses.
Does the suggestion to increase the number of flights accord with the Liberal Democrats' stance on the environment?
I think that it does. However, to be honest, the question is more pertinent for the Scottish nationalists—after all, it was Brian Adam who suggested that there should be extra flights to the United States from different parts of Scotland, although one would have trouble landing a Boeing 747 at Wick airport. In any case, given the singular nature of my constituency and as a back bencher, I reserve the right to take a singular view on my party's policies.
Jamie McGrigor expressed concern that local knowledge will be lost if the bill is passed. At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that what matters to tourists—and, indeed, to the tourism product provider—is not the structure of the tourism sector in any part of Scotland but what they see and the information that they receive in a tourist information centre. In that respect, the situation in my constituency is not bad and is, in fact, getting better. For example, in Wick, there are facilities that we did not previously have.
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I do not think that there is any division on the matter; we are of one accord and can make our comments
I will close with an anecdote. This summer, an American visitor who was holding a map stopped me in Victoria Street to ask the way to "War-wick" Castle. "You mean 'Warwick'", I said. "Yes", she said, "I guess that's how you pronounce it". I said, "But you're in Edinburgh". All she could say to that was, "Oh."
In passing the bill, we should do more than simply acknowledge that, since April 2005, a new partnership framework has been distributing Scottish tourism's strong brands: we should also applaud the proven success that is reflected in the figures that the minister highlighted. There can be no more arguments or doubts about delivery processes—although that is not to say that we cannot or should not raise our game further. For example, a strategic programme of major events such as the 2007 Union of European Football Associations cup final—or, indeed, Scotland's bid to host the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow—provides strong support to Scotland's brands and gives potential visitors more reasons to visit the country.
As I have said in previous transport and tourism debates, it is vital that we have direct transport links as the distribution networks for Scotland's brands. That is why I am delighted with the minister's decision to give VisitScotland another £800,000 to market direct air links to Scotland. Of course, many such links have been developed with help from the Scottish Executive's air route development fund.
Nowhere are the new integrated delivery arrangements working more effectively than in the Glasgow city region, where VisitScotland's increase in leisure visitors has been complemented by Glasgow City Marketing Bureau's 28.5 per cent increase in conference-delegate days in 2005-06. The Scottish Executive's city growth fund also supports the marketing of direct air links to Glasgow.
Although the target of increasing tourism by 50 per cent by 2015 is ambitious—rightly so—it is achievable, given our current good progress. Effective partnership, more transport links, a strategic events programme and joined-up funding and Government are delivering success in an industry that employs 200,000 people. Who is to say that the industry will not employ 400,000 by 2015?
I will close on this note. Of course, more
I echo the support that has been expressed around the chamber for Scotland's tourism industry—our number 1 industry. Like many other members, I engage regularly with the tourism industry in my parliamentary region, and although I accept that there has been growth and that there are many good news stories, we should also accept that not everything in the garden is rosy and that there are problem areas and concerns in the sector about some of the changes that the bill will entrench.
I would like to make two specific points about the bill. The first is about a subject that Enterprise and Culture Committee members will remember my raising at stage 1 and, again, with an amendment at stage 2: the change of name. I see no possible reason for legislating to change the formal name of what was the Scottish Tourist Board. That name is perfectly adequate and entirely descriptive, and it is obvious to anybody who looks at it what the organisation does. That is not the case with the name "VisitScotland", which is, I concede, perfectly fine as a trading name. However, if one puts the name VisitScotland on paper, one has then to explain what the organisation is. No doubt it is a trendy name that has been dreamed up by consultants at great public expense. That is fine for trading, but it seems to me that the legal registered name should be something that describes what the organisation does. Of course, there is no requirement for the legal name and the trading name to be the same; they have been different for the past five years, since VisitScotland started trading. There is no earthly reason for the bill and it is, frankly, a waste of parliamentary time. It is unnecessary and pointless.
The more serious point that I want to make is about restructuring. My colleague, Jamie McGrigor, made serious points about industry concerns about the changes that have taken place. The area tourist boards were, I accept, a mixed bag—some were good and others did not work so well. In my parliamentary region, I have experienced the tourist boards in Perthshire, Dundee and Angus, and in Fife. All three worked extremely well and were well regarded by the tourism industry.
Under the old structure, tourism operatives were members of the tourist board and had ownership of the body to which they paid their subs, so they had a direct say in what went on and a vote in the
Like Jamie McGrigor, I have picked up on the great deal of concern from the industry in my area about what is seen as a lack of engagement with the industry in the new structure. Local tourism forums are being established, but at the moment they are not filling the gap and are not performing the role that the area tourist boards previously performed. Edinburgh is now the only European capital without its own tourist body, and we could see more sectoral marketing organisations being established because people are not satisfied with the new structure of VisitScotland. Jamie McGrigor attended a recent event that was organised by the Scottish Tourism Forum. There is no doubt that that body is growing—in numbers and in influence—in response to what the industry sees as a lack of engagement under the new structure, which is unfortunate. There are concerns about the new structure so, for that reason, the Conservatives will not support the bill.
Tourism, as has been said, is especially important in rural areas, so I welcome the successes to which the minister alluded. However, it is clear that much of that success is centrally based. I would not gainsay that, because visitors to our major towns and cities are important, but there is tension between the people at one extreme who believe that we need only market Scotland and her centres and leave the trickle-down effect to deal with the rest, and those at the other extreme who feel that what they see as overcentralisation ignores the needs of small providers, particularly in rural areas.
Jamie McGrigor exaggerated the problem and Murdo Fraser spoke in glowing terms about the elections to tourist boards under the previous system, but there were significant problems with that system. I remember that, on one occasion, an aspirant to the post of chair of Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board became the chair simply by bussing in sufficient numbers of his supporters to the annual general meeting. When a large rural area is involved, that can have a significant effect.
It was always easy to see the problems, but it was not quite as easy to see the solution. That is why the Executive took some considerable months, if not years, to produce the revised structure. We must ensure that the new system maintains good communications between the centre and small local providers. In some areas, the sense is that that may be missing. That will have to continue to be monitored, because it is important not to lose local input to tourism decisions.
In that context, I mention visitscotland.com, which is the private company that runs the website and takes bookings for many of our providers. It needs to be much more responsive to our small providers and not to be driven totally—as some fear it is—by simply pushing its profit margins.
I return to the bill that we are meant to be discussing. It may be a first—it will become the first act of the Scottish Parliament of which I am aware that refers to the Victoria and Albert Museum. The bill refers to it in the paragraph that will amend the Race Relations Act 1976, which is on a matter that is reserved to Westminster. The bill will also amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which is reserved to Westminster.
Brian Adam raised the point briefly in the stage 1 debate; I was not particularly convinced by the minister's response that, somehow, an order made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 would cure the problem. She will have adequate time in her summing-up, so will the minister explain the mechanisms—which I am sure exist, because we in Parliament and, certainly, the Executive would not do anything that was amiss—by which an act of this Parliament can amend legislation on matters that are reserved to Westminster? That is curious and I am sure that we can spend the next 13 minutes happily discussing the question.
It is gratifying that my parliamentary colleagues recognise the importance of tourism to Scotland and to their areas and that they are as determined as I am that we get the system right. However, several issues—mainly raised by the Conservatives—still require to be clarified.
I will start with Mr Adam's points. Mr MacAskill may have supported the route development fund, but if my memory serves me correctly—I think it does—it was Lewis Macdonald who introduced the fund. Perhaps the fund is not a matter for which the SNP should take too much credit.
We must be realistic about US travellers. Understandably, after 9/11, people from the US did not travel in the way that they used to. However, good examples of joint marketing have
I am happy to acknowledge the success of the two developments that the minister mentioned. However, does she concede that as America is such a big country and many potential links exist between Scotland and various parts of the US, one way to drive up the numbers coming to Scotland again would be to target the US market more by having more direct links and not just having links through London as usual or with just one or two places in the US?
I drew attention to only two examples of the work that we are doing; I was not suggesting that that was the limit of what we are doing in the US—far from it. We will continue to work with our colleagues on that issue as time progresses.
I am afraid that, a bit like Mr McGrigor's memories, the name "Scottish Tourist Board" belongs in the past. I also have to say to him that training is one of the key priorities that we have identified. Interestingly—in the light of one of his other points—we have jointly with the Scottish Tourism Forum and VisitScotland identified training as an issue that we must all address.
As recently as yesterday, when I attended the national tourism convention in Perth, I helped to launch a project called the Perth discovery trail. Young school pupils are encouraged to learn more about tourism in a fun and innovative way in order to give them a positive view of the tourism industry and to encourage them to go into it.
Mr McGrigor is wrong to say that the bookings to which he referred would have been made under the previous regime. Increasingly—I am sure that many members in the chamber can bear this out from their own experience—people who want to travel are more inclined than they were in the past to book close to the date of travel. We must recognise that trend.
Charlie Gordon is correct to identify the events strategy as a major plank in our work. Our events strategy is about encouraging international visitors to come to big events such as the ones that he mentioned, including, I hope, the 2014 Commonwealth games. I think also of events such as the Heineken cup final and the rowing championships at Strathclyde park, each of which
Murdo Fraser has a glowing view of the old system, but I am afraid that the whole reason why this debate is taking place and why VisitScotland has come about is that that system was beginning to fail us and was not working to best effect.
When I left Peter Lederer, the chair of VisitScotland, in Perth yesterday, he was about to embark on the latest leg of his chair's tour. He and members of the board go out regularly and talk to accommodation providers and to visitor attraction owners and operators around the country. They have the opportunity to hear at first hand what people are saying. The feedback that is coming through the industry is increasingly very positive about VisitScotland. Its success and satisfaction ratings are incredibly high, which is a good thing.
I am afraid that the Scottish Tourism Forum's view is not as jaundiced as Mr McGrigor might think. We work closely with the forum. Earlier this year, having worked on the document for some time, the forum and I launched our latest strategy to ensure that we can achieve our ambitions for tourism. A joint document was produced by the Government, the public sector and the tourism industry about the way forward for tourism in Scotland.
I was interested that Alasdair Morgan wanted to talk about the section 104 order. I suppose that we would expect a nationalist to make any debate one about the constitution. The section 104 order will go ahead and will be laid shortly. Such orders make consequential amendments to United Kingdom Government acts; for example, the order will change references from "the Scottish Tourist Board" to "VisitScotland". It is a straightforward administrative action that happens from time to time.
I am confident that this is the right way forward for Scottish tourism. Our industry is moving forward, working in partnership with VisitScotland, and moving towards the joint ambition to increase tourism revenues by 50 per cent by 2015.
Let me repeat, because it bears repeating, that 50 per cent more overseas visitors came to Scotland last year than came in 2001. Therefore, the industry is making excellent progress towards achieving its ambition. However, it can do that only if we have a national tourism organisation with the right structures to support it. The bill ensures that
I take this opportunity to thank the board, management team and staff of VisitScotland for their contribution to making Scottish tourism the success that it is today. I also thank members of the Enterprise and Culture Committee for their consideration of the bill over the past few months. I ask the Parliament to support the bill.