APPENDIX 41
Supplementary Memorandum submitted by
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
DCMS RESPONSE TO
CMS COMMITTEE'S
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS
1. In the light of the new announcements on
the support for tourism, is the "Tomorrow's Tourism"
strategy in line for revision?
Much of the strategy stands. We are preparing
a note that will highlight what stands, what has moved on or where
the emphasis has changed, and who is responsible for what under
the new arrangements. Once the new structures are in place, it
is likely the Department will prepare new policy statements to
address key reform and development issues with the industry.
2. Will the marketing of Scotland, Wales and
England to British holidaymakers be subject to any concordat,
or other informal agreement, between the responsible agencies
or ministers?
Ministers and the agencies keep closely in touch
but there will not be a concordat as such. Improved accountability
and consultation arrangements have been agreed in relation to
the work of the new body. The Department will consult the Welsh
Assembly Government and the Scottish Executive on the following
matters:
— The preparation of the Accounts Direction;
— The preparation of the Management
Statement and Financial Memorandum;
— Appointments to the Board, including
the Chair;
— The letter setting out the new body's
funding and priorities; and
— The new body's Funding Agreement
(on which its business plan will be based).
In addition, six-monthly meetings will be held
between Great Britain Ministers and the new body to review progress.
There will also be more regular liaison meetings between the relevant
officials from the three Executives and the BTA together. The
new body will also lay a copy of its Annual Report and Accounts
before the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament for information.
3. By what criteria will the marketing of
England be allocated funding?
At least £10 million of additional resources
for tourism is available over three years (more will come if organisational
savings can be made), subject to the satisfactory completion of
reform and the industry coming forward with matching funding.
From 2003-04, additional funding of £2 million will be made
available subject to completion of a satisfactory implementation
plan by February 2003. This, together with resources freed up
from restructuring, should be used to create a budget for leading
and coordinating domestic marketing in England of about £5
million in 2003-04.
Subject to the completion of a satisfactory
marketing plan by September 2003, we are provisionally allocating
£2 million again for 2004-05 and the Secretary of State is
minded to challenge the England Marketing Advisory Board to raise
£3.5 million of private sector funds in that year to which
she would add a further £1.5 million. For 2005-06 we will
await the successful completion of the reform programme before
deciding the allocation of funds.
This money is set aside for leading and coordinating
the marketing of English tourism, and to it will be added money
released from the existing England tourism baseline following
restructuring. The Government will agree with the tourism body
a series of trigger points of reform and matched funding which
will release this money and the whole reform package will be agreed
with the Treasury. All additional funding is subject to the criterion
of satisfactory restructuring and agreement with the industry
to match fund after a setting up period of one year.
The overall strategy is to make existing spending,
largely private with some public at local and regional level,
much more effective by providing a framework in which public/private
initiatives can go forward at national level and be coordinated
where necessary at regional level too. Any central government
funding is going to be small against the total marketing effort,
which was found in 2000 to amount to £137 million in the
West Country alone. The big impact will come from improving effectiveness
and coordination of this spend not from a thin veneer of additional
national adverts added on top. The new funding cannot be directly
compared with that for Scotland and Wales as it is not intended
as an additional public sector advertising campaign but funds
to improve the effectiveness of existing activities in a private
sector partnership.
4. Why not simply establish a national tourist
board for England?
This would be wasteful in terms of overheads,
and slow because we can build on the marketing expertise of the
existing organisation. We see this reform as a positive step towards
more coherence for the delivery of growth in English and UK tourism,
increasing the basis for synergy and co-operation.
Is the merger driven by the need to avoid primary
legislation?
No, but the opportunity will be taken, when
Parliamentary time allows, to make some changes. These have not
been identified and would be presented to Parliament in a policy
statement first.
Are there significant cost savings to be reaped
from the merger (as was claimed in the case of the Arts Council
and the RABs)?
As you are aware, we expect the Arts Council
to make savings in the region of £8 to 10 million. We expect
this merger to save several million pounds over the spending review
period, but the full extent of savings is yet to be calculated.
5. Will the new body absorb all the functions
of the ETC? If not where will future responsibility lie for: research,
information and statistics; quality and standards (including liaison
with VisitScotland and the Wales Tourist Board); and strategy
development (including liaison with the Countryside Agency)?
An ETC Services Review group has been established
to agree these details subject to the approval of Ministers. Its
members are Sir Michael Lickiss (Chair, South West RDA) and Alan
Britten (Chair, ETC) who are joint chairs, Dorothy Naylor (Chief
Executive, North West Tourist Board), Malcolm Bell (Chief Executive,
South West Tourism), Richard Dickinson (Head of Policy and Strategy,
ETC), Ian Woodward (Acting Head of Strategic Planning, BTA), and
Claire Gearon (DCMS). It aims to report to the Steering Group
no later than 17 December 2002 and to the Policy Group in January
2003. In the case of quality and standards this will be the subject
of a special review to be completed by summer 2003.
The DCMS memorandum states that accommodation
quality and the need for closer co-operation with Scotland and
Wales are problems, who will pursue this co-operation as it is
not in the BTA remit?
It will be in the remit for the next year at
least (ie during 2003-04). Ministers have asked the boards to
sort out the problems of signage and consistency so far as can
be done, before this.
6. The process for appointing a new chairman
of the BTA was well under way when the new arrangements were announced.
Has the job specification or terms of the appointment been revised
in the light of the impending merger with the ETC?
Whilst the reforms do have implications for
the post of Chair, the role specification nonetheless remains
valid in terms of the tasks and qualities of the Chair following
the announcement. In essence, the focus in the specification on
leadership and of the management of change at senior level will
now be much greater than before, particularly in terms of overseeing
the amalgamation of the roles of the BTA and the English Tourism
Council.
The Secretary of State has decided not to make
amendments to the role specification and re-advertise the post.
Instead, she now wishes to appoint the Chair of the new body initially
for a period of two years, rather than the original four, in order
to take stock following implementation of the changes in her announcement.
In addition, there is a possibility that the post will become
vacant a little earlier than June 2003.
The Committee has received a number of memoranda
from leading hoteliers (copied to the Department) on this appointment.
They all emphasize the importance of the role, asserting that
it needs to be a full-time high-profile champion for the sector.
Do you have any plans to increase the appointment from the current
two days per week?
This is a non-executive appointment and it is
the Chief Executive and his team of senior managers who need to
be full time. However, we will review this in the light of the
experience of the first year of the new Chair.
7. Your written evidence states "the
BTA supports work by national and regional tourist boards and
local authorities". However, on 5 November the Chairman of
BTA said "I do not support the RDAs having an independent
tourism promotion activity overseas . . . it is not in the interests
of their region to seek to promote their tourism independently
of the BTA". Is the activity of the Regions and London (and
occasionally local authorities) in promoting their specific destinations
overseas a duplication of effort (and a waste of taxpayers money)?
If so, what can be done to reduce this activity?
We welcome the interest shown by the regions
and local authorities in promoting their destinations overseas,
but it is critically important that they work closely with and
through the BTA to avoid duplication of effort, waste of public
money and, at worst, confusing the market with conflicting messages.
The BTA is able to provide a platform overseas to regional and
local partners, opening opportunities with commercial partners
on-territory, providing advice and market intelligence and shaping
sometimes diverse destination marketing into a coherent whole
which will have more impact in the particular market.
Promotion of specific destinations can `enrich'
a marketing offer, but the degree of local/regional messages that
are appropriate to the marketplace depends heavily on the maturity
and understanding of Britain and its composite parts in the market
in question. For example, it might be reasonable to present more
local/regional product to a European visitor who has visited several
times before; for a first time visitor from an immature long haul
market, Britain is likely to be a more appropriate message.
There are occasions when local/regional overseas
initiatives are ineffective and wasteful. For example, if a local
authority takes a stand in isolation from the BTA at a travel
exhibition overseas managed on appointments rather than passing
trade, and the travel trade audience have no recognition of the
local authority's name, they will not be successful. To reduce
this kind of activity, DCMS, the BTA and other stakeholders continue
to urge local and regional partners to act through the national
and regional tourist boards in the first instance and, as a second
step, to contact the BTA. BTA has also offered to hold an annual
`overseas know how' workshop with each of the English regional
tourist boards (as well as in Scotland and Wales) advising the
regional travel trade on how to address the overseas markets.
8. Please supply, in confidence if necessary,
a copy of the legal advice referred to in evidence on 19 November
confirming that your recent reforms could be accommodated within
the Development of Tourism Act 1969.
A separate note (provided in confidence) is
attached as Annex 1 (not printed).
9. Please supply a list of the private sector
contributors to the Million Visitor Campaign, as discussed in
the evidence session.
The private sector contributors to the Million
Visitor Campaign were:
Accor UK
American Express
Avis Europe
BAA
Best Western Hotels
bmi british midland
British Airways
De Vere Group
DFDS Seaways
Jarvis Hotels
Hilton Hotels
Millennium Copthorne Hotels
National Express Group
P&O
Queens Moat House
Radisson Edwardian
Red Carnation Hotels
SeaFrance
Six Continents
Stena Line
Thistle Hotels
Whitbread Hotels
In addition, the Million Visitor Campaign website
included 2,600 special offers from tourism businesses throughout
Britain.
10. Please supply evidence setting out what
consultation took place by DCMS in relation to the restructuring
of English tourism, which was also referred to in the evidence
session on 19 November. In doing so please specify when and what
action was taken to gather views on the model that was finally
adopted (and from whom).
A separate note is attached as Annex 2.
| 
