APPENDIX 26
Memorandum submitted by the Council for
Travel and Tourism
THE COUNCIL
FOR TRAVEL
& TOURISM
1. The Council for Travel & Tourism
(CTT) is a unique grouping of the major public and private sector
organisations involved in travel and tourism in the UK. Indeed,
it is the only body which brings together both the transport and
tourism elements of the industry. Membership of the Council is
limited to organisations and associations with a national dimension
or significance in these fields. The Council currently has 14
Members representing most sectors of the travel and tourism business;
a list of Members is attached at Appendix I.
2. The Council has three primary aims:
2.1 To provide a forum for Members to exchange
information, news and views on current development both within
the industry and, more importantly, from political, government
and European initiatives.
2.2 To identify issues of common concern
and, where appropriate, develop a collective Council view to present
to government, European Institutions and the political audience
at large.
2.3 To promote the interests and improve
the status of the travel and tourism industry with government,
the media and opinion formers and decision makers in general.
THE COUNCIL'S
VIEWS
3. The CTT welcomes this further Inquiry
by the Committee on the current state of the British tourism industry
and the opportunity to submit written evidence. The Council does
not have either the information or the resources to provide a
full submission covering all aspects of the terms of reference
of the Inquiry. Moreover a number of the Council's Members will
be making their own submission to the Inquiry and most of these
will be better placed to report on the current and likely future
performance of the industry following Foot and Mouth Disease and
the events of 11 September 2001. Hence the Council's comments
are concentrated primarily on the role of government in promoting
and supporting the industry and the structures for the delivery
of that support. In this context, it is stressed that although
two of the principal non-departmental public bodies involved (the
British Tourist Authority (BTA) and the English Tourism Council
(ETC)) are Members of CTT, the views expressed in this submission
are primarily those of the Council's commercial Members.
THE BRITISH
TOURIST AUTHORITY
4. Earlier this year, the BTA embarked on
a major new overseas marketing initiative, the "Million Visitor
Campaign" aimed at recouping overseas visitors lost as a
result of foot and mouth and the events of September 11. This
campaign was only possible thanks to major additional funding
provided by the Government—up to £20 million in total,
with the proviso that an equivalent sum was provided by the industry
itself. Of this total, £5 million had to be in cash (ie new
money) with the remaining £15 million in collateral (ie existing
marketing initiatives). Early indications are that the campaign
has been very successful, with over 600,000 additional overseas
visitors (mainly from Europe) generated during the period of the
main campaign activities alone (April-July 2002).
5. The Council, therefore, wishes to place
on record its appreciation of the efforts made by the Department
for Culture, Media and Sport in securing such substantial additional
funding from the Treasury. This was a major achievement, which
is making a real and positive contribution to the recovery of
the inbound tourism industry. Nevertheless, one-off grants, however
welcome, do not permit effective forward planning. To maximise
their effectiveness, overseas marketing initiatives require at
least a year's forward planning and need to form part of a comprehensive
long-term strategic framework targeted on key markets. The Council,
therefore, urges the Committee to recommend to government that
a similar additional sum (ie £20 million) should be added
to the BTA's grant-in-aid each year for at least the next five
years. It is worthy of note that over the past 20 years, reports
on UK tourism from no fewer than five separate Parliamentary Select
Committees (Trade and Industry, Session 1985-86, Employment Committee,
1989-90, House of Lords European Communities Committee (Sub Committee
B), 1995-96, National Heritage Committee 1996-97 and the Culture,
Media and Sport Committee, 2000-01) have all reached the same
conclusion—namely, that the BTA is under-funded and should
receive significantly greater resources from the Government.
6. Such consistency of findings speaks for
itself and the CTT submits that it is high time that these recommendations
be implemented by the Government. Increasing the BTA's funding
is an investment, not a subsidy, as research has demonstrated
that every £1 spent by the BTA generates at least an extra
£25 in tourism revenue for the UK.
THE ENGLISH
TOURISM COUNCIL
7. One of the Council's primary concerns
is the ambivalence that successive governments have shown towards
a national tourism body for England. The former English Tourist
Board, a statutory body established in 1969 under the Development
of Tourism Act, had both a strategic and marketing role for English
tourism. However, the ETB was emasculated by progressive severe
cuts in its grant-in-aid during the early 1990s (this was reduced
from £16.2 million in 1992-93 to just £10 million in
1995-96). Moreover, as the vast majority of its grant-in-aid was
earmarked for the Regional Tourist Boards, the ETB became little
more than a clearing house for the dispersal of funds to the regions.
8. Following the 1997 General Election,
the incoming Labour Government decided that the ETB should be
replaced. However, none of the four options originally outlined
in the DCMS consultation paper on the 1998 Comprehensive Spending
Review provided for a central strategic body for English tourism.
Indeed, it was only because of pressure from the industry (including
the CTT) that such a body was needed that the Government decided
to create the new English Tourism Council. However, the new ETC
was only given narrowly defined responsibilities, namely to concentrate
on strategic issues; any marketing activity was specifically excluded
from its remit. Many in the industry, including CTT, questioned
the omission of any central marketing role for England and lobbied
Government accordingly for this to be added to the ETC's remit.
The twin crises of Foot and Mouth and September 11 finally swayed
the balance of the argument and the Government accepted the need
for there to be a central marketing function for English tourism
(announced in the House on 11 May 2002).
9. The key current question is how that
should now be delivered. The CTT believes that the solution is
very simple. Our view is that the ETC should be the central body
charged with this new responsibility for marketing, in addition
to its existing strategic role and that they should also be provided
with the resources necessary for this task. The CTT duly wrote
to the Secretary of State at DCMS, the Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP,
along these lines on 5 July 2002 (copies of correspondence attached
as Appendix II). However, the Government appear to think very
differently, believing that the provision of a new marketing function
must be accompanied by radical change in the arrangements for
supporting English tourism. Although at the time of writing (early
October 2002) no final decision has been made, there are very
strong indications there will be a new central body concentrating
on the marketing of England, with a very big question mark over
the continued existence of the ETC. It also appears likely that
some of the ETC's current strategic functions will be devolved
to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and there is considerable
doubt whether there will be sufficient public money remaining
to fund the continuation of the ETC. We find it ironic that the
DCMS now has a small review team considering the "modernisation"
of the ETC, a lean and strategically focused organisation established
only three years ago.
10. The CTT believes that, in addition to
the need for the marketing of England, there remains a definite
requirement for a central English national body responsible for
strategic tourism matters. Issues such as grading schemes, quality
standards, sustainability policy, research and information, must
be co-ordinated by a central, national body. Whilst we fully support
the maximum devolvement of local marketing policies and spending
to the regions, the strategic functions cannot be undertaken effectively,
either by the RDAs or RTBs, even acting in concert. These bodies
are by their very nature both parochial and competitive such that
they would be unable to deliver a truly consistent and national
approach. Hence, even if a separate England marketing organisation
is established, we will need either to retain the ETC to address
strategic issues, or to get the new organisation to fulfill both
functions. If the latter, why create a new organisation when one
already exists?
THE REGIONAL
DIMENSION
11. As above, the CTT believes that it is
right for decisions on spending on regional marketing and promotion
to be devolved to the regions themselves. However, there are a
number of outstanding issues which will need to be addressed regarding
the precise relationship between the RDAs, the RTBs and local
authorities. The CTT has no regional bodies in Membership (all
of our Members are national organisations) and therefore we can
only make the following broad observations:
(i) The Government has decided to transfer
a proportion of the DCMS funding for regional marketing, currently
allocated to the ETC, into the overall government budget for RDAs,
known as the "single pot". In order to avoid this relatively
small sum being "lost" in the much larger single pot,
the funds for RTBs should be ring-fenced by the RDAs for a minimum
period of at least three years.
(ii) Given that the RTBs will effectively
become the advisory and delivery organisations for the RDAs on
tourism issues, there will need to be greater consistency of approach.
Some RDAs are less interested in tourism issues than others and
there are a number of areas where the boundaries do not coincide.
Some RDAs cover two RTBs, whilst conversely some RTBs (eg the
Heart of England) have two RDAs covering their region.
(iii) The role of local authorities will
be crucial. In many areas there are very effective local authority
marketing partnerships which should be maintained and effectively
integrated within the overall RDA/RTB marketing efforts.
(iv) The particular characteristics of the
business tourism sector must also be recognised. For the national
and international conference market, for example, the focus is
very much on a specific city, rather than a region or particular
part of the country—it is the cities which bid to host such
conferences. Hence such activity cannot readily be subsumed within
other RDA/RTB marketing efforts, although the RDAs and RTBs will
nevertheless have an important role in providing appropriate support
and partnership to the local authorities in promoting their cities
to the business tourism market.
SUMMARY12. In
summary, the CTT:
(i) warmly welcomes the additional £20
million funding for the BTA's marketing campaign;
(ii) strongly recommends that the BTA's grant-in-aid
be increased by a similar sum for each of the next five years;
(iii) fully supports the establishment of
a new England marketing function, but
(iv) this must be in addition to, not at
the expense of, a central body responsible for all strategic tourism
issues; and
(v) it would be sensible for one body—the
ETC—to fulfill both functions;
(vi) fully supports the devolvement of regional
marketing to the RDAs, but
(vii) the relationship between RDAs, RTBs
and local authorities needs careful consideration;
|
