ANNEX 2: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE FOURTH REPORT OF THE CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE:
TOURISM—THE HIDDEN GIANT—AND FOOT AND MOUTH (2000-01)
HC 430
(i) In 1999, the Tourism Society expressed
concern to this Committee that the English Tourism Council had
been designed more by reference to the needs of the Government
than with a focus on the customer. We remarked then that "it
remains to be seen whether the strategic gains within Government
[from the creation of the English Tourism Council] will off-set
the loss of a clearly identified national marketing arm for English
tourism". (Paragraph 27)
(ii) The expenditure funded by the Government
for the respective tourist boards in 1999-2000 was as follows:
£19.4 million for the Scottish Tourist Board; £15.4
million for the Wales Tourist Board; and £11.7 million for
the English Tourism Council. Furthermore, the allocation to the
English Tourism Council includes all allocations to the Regional
Tourist Boards from public funds. The levels of spending by tourists
(excluding day trips) for the respective nations is as follows:
£2.5 billion in Scotland; £1.4 billion in Wales; and
£24 billion in England. The grant-in-aid for the Scottish
Tourist Board was the equivalent of £3.77 per head; the grant-in-aid
for the Wales Tourist Board was the equivalent of £4.03 per
head. The equivalent figure for English domestic tourism was 20
pence per head of population. These figures and the planned freeze
of expenditure on the British Tourist Authority leave no doubt
that there has been a sustained problem of under-investment by
the public sector in tourism that has affected English tourism
in particular. (Paragraph 29)
(iii) The low level of information technology
provision in the tourism industry has been a hindrance to information
collection and analysis. The English Tourism Council confirmed
that, prior to the current foot and mouth outbreak, only six out
of the ten Regional Tourist Boards provided web sites, and the
Council recognised the importance of encouraging and supporting
information technology development in tourism, referring to the
"critical importance of new media to the success of the industry".
(Paragraph 34)
(iv) We recommend that the Department for
Education and Employment recommend urgently that all local education
authorities review the advice and instructions they give to schools
and ensure that, whenever possible, visits go ahead. (paragraph
48)
(v) At the present juncture, it is not possible
to examine whether and why the Government and other public authorities
were slow to respond adequately to the implications for tourism
of the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease. It will be essential
subsequently to examine this issue in detail, not least to ensure
that appropriate lessons are learned for the future organisation
of public sector support for tourism and Government sponsorship
of the industry. (Paragraph 56)
(vi) As matters stand, it appears that no
additional public funding will be available in the immediate future
for the English Tourism Council or for Regional Tourist Boards.
We find this astonishing. That approach calls into question whether
the Government has fully grasped the extent to which publicly-funded
marketing and promotion represent one of the few specific aids
for tourism businesses in affected areas that are struggling to
survive the current crisis. We return to the longer term case
for marketing England as a tourist destination later in this Report.
(Paragraph 75)
(vii) We recommend that the Government as
a matter of urgency appoint a coordinator of all Government activities
for the areas most deeply affected by the outbreak of foot and
mouth disease reporting to the Cabinet Office. We emphasise that
this is for a limited number of areas that require specific attention
beyond measures focused on regions. (Paragraph 78).
(viii) It will be important for the Government
to clarify as soon as possible the additional assistance that
it will offer to local authorities in the most affected areas
that provide assistance to businesses not conforming to the Government
scheme. (Paragraph 79)
(ix) We recommend that the Government examine
the case for a job retention subsidy for the tourism industry
in the most adversely affected areas to ensure that vital skills
are not lost to those areas and possibly to the country for good.
(Paragraph 81)
(x) We recommend the immediate creation
of a National Tourism Corporation for England, operating on the
model of Urban Development Corporations established in the 1980s.
This Corporation would be able to develop and implement a tourist
strategy. It would have direct powers to distribute funds to areas
in most need, in consultation with but not through the English
Tourism Council, Regional Tourist Boards and Regional Development
Agencies. (Paragraph 89)
(xi) It is essential that the Lottery distributing
bodies respond sensitively and as generously as possible to the
additional needs of projects in affected areas arising from the
current crisis in rural tourism. (Paragraph 90)
(xii) We recommend that a Minister in the
Cabinet Office be charged with responsibility for coordination
of all Government involvement with assistance for rural communities
and businesses affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease
beyond the immediate impact on farming. (Paragraph 91)
(xiii) We recommend that the Government
re-examine fundamentally and as a matter of urgency the case for
sustained public funding for local, regional and national marketing
of England and its component parts as a tourist destination. In
future, it will be essential to promote areas most adversely affected
by the current crisis with public funding, to develop a more coherent
approach to marketing through the Regional Tourist Boards and
to provide funding for the packaging and marketing of England
as a tourist destination in its own right. (Paragraph 100)
(xiv) Regardless of where departmental responsibility
for tourism is located in the future, we recommend that tourism
is and is seen to be the primary responsibility of the relevant
Minister. (Paragraph 105)
| 
