MR TONY BIRD, MR RICHARD TOBIAS OBE AND MR IAN REYNOLDS

TUESDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2002

  80. Do you not find it rather odd that after six months of "consultation" and six months of a working group, the announcement has insufficient detail for the industry to actually be able to make a judgment as to whether what is proposed is worthwhile or not?
  (Mr Reynolds) I think we were surprised by the announcement, and I suppose because of the nature of the announcement and it being so different from what we had previously understood to be the direction, in a sense I think we are quite pleased that there is still time for the detail to be worked out and we are not being presented with a complete fait accompli.

  81. Within that, would it be your wish or recommendation that if it is possible there should, in fact, be two distinct bodies: one to deliver domestic marketing for England and one to deal with the marketing of Britain overseas?
  (Mr Reynolds) I think we understand that there will be two bodies, and the announcement refers to the English Tourist Board as part of the BTA. We just are not totally aware of what DCMS has in mind and ministers have in mind for the separation of duties. Obviously, there are some things which can be done together and would be beneficial. We have seen some very good BTA campaigns which would be equally applicable domestically, for example—so things like PR, communications and finance can be shared facilities—but there has to be a distinct role for marketing England to domestic tourists and holiday-makers.

  82. Certainly the evidence we heard recently from the BTA and the ETC was that there was going to be one chief executive, one board and although there would be ring-fenced money and ring-fenced teams, it would actually be one organisation. Would it be accurate to say that what you would be looking to see is a clear and separate body within the BTA that would be dealing with England, so that its voice was not lost within the overall thrust of the BTA?
  (Mr Reynolds) I think we would expect to see some level of fencing of resource and focus on the domestic market, but our understanding is the same as yours, that it will be one body with one chief executive.

  83. Perhaps I could ask this of Richard Tobias, because I know you are from BITOA and that particularly represents the incoming tour operators. Your focus will be very much on the marketing of Britain overseas. Does your organisation have concern that the effort which BTA will now have to put into marketing England domestically and the resources that will have to go into that will dilute from the effort that they are making reasonably successfully overseas to bring British visitors to the UK as a whole?
  (Mr Tobias) I do not think their efforts will be diluted. As my colleague Mr Reynolds said, it is difficult to know precisely what the BTA and ETC have in mind, or the Government has in mind, because we have not seen the details. Without in any way trivialising it, it is almost like being asked "Well, we are making a new car, would you like to buy it?" The answer is "Well, maybe, but let us have a look and see what it is." The BTA, I am confident, can market Scotland and Wales and England effectively overseas. I am confident that they have the resource and the expertise to market England domestically. As Mr Reynolds said, it is not what we asked for, and we do feel it would have been better to have had three independent marketing organisations marketing domestically and for the BTA to continue their role as a very effective marketing body for all three countries overseas. That would have been the best possible outcome. It is not what we have got, we have to make the best of what we have got and we will make every effort to do so.

  84. Have I time for one more question, Chairman? It is on a different subject. That is, you make much in your submissions of what I would call the quality agenda, and indeed I think everybody who has been involved with the industry would like to see the British product improve to become more competitive. Up to now it has always been the view that there should not be any form of statutory registration of accommodation providers; that it is best left to voluntary efforts of one kind or another. I would like to put that to you and ask for your views on that, particularly the thought that if we are to get a level playing field for all competitors in the industry we need a statutory scheme for accommodation providers, which interestingly would not need legislation because Section 17 of the Development of Tourism Act already provides for it. Do you feel, as a number of bodies now feel, that the only way in which we will be able to promote the accommodation agenda is to have a level playing field?
  (Mr Tobias) The Tourism Alliance has not taken a position on this particular issue. The organisation that I represent has. We have had a policy now in place for close to ten years. We believe that statutory registration is the only way forward to raise the standards, to raise the game for all accommodation in the United Kingdom. The vast majority of accommodation is of a good standard, but a small but significant proportion is not. Any voluntary scheme that encourages or induces those accommodation providers to join is doomed to fail. Therefore statutory registration or legislation—which as you rightly say is in place—is the only effective way to raise standards. I do stress that is the view of BITOA and not necessarily the Tourism Alliance.

  85. Would either of you like to comment on that?
  (Mr Bird) No, it has not been an issue, but I think it quite likely that other organisations would share that view.
  (Mr Reynolds) I would just make the point that statutory registration alone does not necessarily improve quality, and unless there are clearly marked steps and hurdles that people have to go through statutory registration might be no more than a simple implementation that fits the purpose, at its lowest level. So it depends on the implementation, I would say.

  86. Mr Tobias, you were very forthright just now to my colleague John Thurso regarding the fact that you felt DCMS was not listening to the suggestions that you were making regarding the structure. Do you think that the DCMS does generally listen to you? Besides, how often do you meet with DCMS now you have been formed?
  (Mr Tobias) DCMS certainly listen to us. We have met them formally and informally as individual organisations and as the Tourism Alliance on a number of occasions. I am not sure I am qualified to judge how much credence they put into the recommendations and suggestions that we put forward, but certainly in terms of access to DCMS there is certainly no difficulty there.

  87. Tourism is the fifth largest industry in the United Kingdom. Do you sometimes think that—and I am not just addressing this to Mr Tobias—maybe as an industry it would be better handled not by DCMS but by the DTI?
  (Mr Bird) I do not think we would necessarily feel that it needs to move from one department to another. We have said in our report that we do believe that there is an omission in not having "tourism" in the title of the Department. We do think that it could go further than that, and again we make suggestions in various reports that perhaps it should be a Cabinet post. Certainly recognition of the importance of tourism by all—not simply Government but I am thinking of the CBI, when suddenly everybody knew what the size of the industry was following Foot-and-Mouth and certainly after September 11—is with DCMS. As Richard says, access is available to us, we do not find any difficulty in getting through to people. Where there is possibly some concern is the extent to which, within the Department, tourism is given the necessary weight that it is due given its importance.

  88. It is a Cabinet post, because the Secretary of State is in charge. The question is (a) whether it is the right Cabinet post and (b) whether you feel you are getting an efficient and effective service from the Department in trying to promote tourism?
  (Mr Bird) The suggestion I made there would be that it would be the tourism position alone, as it is in some other countries. Could you repeat the second part of your question?

  89. Do you feel, regardless of which department it is in, that the Department that it is in now is giving you an effective, efficient service and response with regard to the promotion of tourism?
  (Mr Bird) No, we believe that more could be done, as various reports of the Alliance have put forward.

  90. Do you believe that the Department takes sufficient account of the importance of the tourist industry to the United Kingdom economy and, in the light of that criterion, acts with sufficient efficiency?
  (Mr Bird) Our view is that there is insufficient moneys being spent on the promotion of the industry, which is moneys that the Department has at its disposal. It has sought more but not got more, as we understand. On that basis, is it the Department where there lies a problem or is it more widely with the Treasury's understanding of the importance of tourism? Certainly, with the Alliance, the role that the CBI has been playing, where we felt we could add value, is the whole issue of bringing the importance of the industry to be more widely recognised and known to Government. Certainly our lobbying has not simply been with DCMS but with others.

  91. There is always insufficient money for everybody. That is actually thematic. The question is, taking into account the amount of money there is, do you believe that the Department does a good job in promoting tourism when working with people such as yourself?
  (Mr Reynolds) I believe that our view would generally be that the Department take too much of a laissez faire approach to tourism. We think it has far greater potential and is a legitimate area for national investment. We see insufficient focus, insufficient resources and insufficient attention being paid to it. I see this particularly because ABTA, the association I represent in my normal job, has very strong connections overseas, and we see the amount of investment that overseas' governments are putting into their tourism industries and the promotion efforts that they put in, and in comparison we do not seem to put enough in.
  (Mr Tobias) May I add to that, Chairman? I think it is a lasting legacy from September 11 and, particularly, from Foot-and-Mouth that tourism is now recognised and has been recognised for the last 18 months for the important wealth-creator that it is for UK plc. Our job now is to ensure that tourism does not fall off the radar screen, and there is a feeling what whilst tourism was very much up the political ladder some 12 to 18 months ago it is beginning to slip down now. Because of the difficulties in the whole of the industry worldwide since September 11, the industry is now being left, in a sense, to look after itself. Our view is, of course, very much that government has a major role to play in promoting tourism for the benefit of the UK, not just the economy but in terms of job creation, regeneration and a whole variety of other issues. So that the primary job now is to ensure that tourism stays on the radar screen. I am not sure we are getting as much help across Whitehall as we could do.

  92. Let us just pursue that, because it is an interesting area. We have the Secretary of State coming at noon and I will be asking her about the number of civil servants who are available just concentrating on tourism. It will be interesting to hear her answer. I was asking you earlier on how often you meet as the Alliance with the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Can you give the Committee some sort of insight as to how regularly you meet? Is it an ad hoc thing? Do you meet once a year, or twice a year? What are the mechanisms for the Alliance to communicate with government over your requirements?
  (Mr Tobias) Mr Fabricant, the Alliance is just over a year old and we have met probably four times as an Alliance but many more times as individual trade associations. As you heard from Mr Bird, the Alliance represents something of the order of 65 trade associations, some fairly large, some not quite so large. Most of those organisations will also meet with the Minister and the Secretary of State at some stage during the year. So it is almost like a dual approach. As an alliance, maybe only four times a year, but as individual organisations many more times. Access is not the issue, the issue is getting our message across Whitehall that a whole variety of different issues have an enormous impact for the industry—to take one, transportation, for example.

  93. So the Alliance was set up originally because of the twin disasters of September 11 and also Foot-and-Mouth. Is there a continuing legacy there, or has tourism now recovered?
  (Mr Tobias) It certainly has recovered but we still have a long way to go as far as inbound tourism is concerned. In 2002 we are now 4 per cent down on the number of folk coming into the UK. We figure that it cannot be and will not be before 2004 before we recover to 2000 levels. That is predicated on no unnatural or natural disasters or issues, or events, in any part of the world that could have an effect on the industry. We do have to recognise that the tourism industry is very fragile; events worldwide over which we have no control have an immediate impact upon the industry.

  94. Of course, as you quite rightly mentioned, the amount of budget available to promote the United Kingdom has something to do with that. There is this huge dichotomy: England has £10 million for promoting itself, while Scotland has £25 million and Wales £18 million. Have you made representations at all to DCMS regarding this imbalance?
  (Mr Bird) Yes, we have, to the extent that we will be seeking more for England, and we have highlighted the fact that the other nations do commit more of their funds in the way that you describe, yes.

  95. Has the Alliance spoken to the newly formed BTA, albeit it has only formed itself over the last few weeks?
  (Mr Bird) Not in a formal way, no.

  96. Will you be doing so?
  (Mr Bird) We would certainly intend to.

  97. I am an amateur as far as tourism is concerned. One of the things I would like some clarity on is what the status of your organisation is. It is not clear to me from the paper you have submitted, but you say in your first paragraph that the creation of the Tourism Alliance was announced by the Culture Secretary. Was that a joint venture?
  (Mr Bird) Yes, DCMS had a Hartwell House meeting when the announcement was made.

  98. What is your status? You are a voluntary organisation?
  (Mr Bird) A voluntary organisation, the secretariat is provided by the CBI currently, and it is the Director General of the CBI who is also the current Chairman of the Tourism Alliance.

  99. The general objectives are to promote the interests of the tourism industry.
  (Mr Bird) Yes.