Memorandum submitted by Oxford City Council
INTRODUCTION
This paper has been prepared following a request
for further written submissions to the Culture, Media and Sport
Select Committee in reference to the Tourism Inquiry.
Oxford City Council has not previously made
a formal written submission to this Inquiry but has made representation
via the Destination Performance UK Group and Tourism Management
Institute.
RESPONSE TO
THE SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS
Q1: The challenges & opportunities for
the domestic and inbound tourism Industries, including cheap flights
abroad, and their impact on traditional tourist resorts
The main challenge facing tourism at a local
level is that of competition from lower cost destinations offering
a greater appeal. There is an under-investment in both overseas
and domestic marketing to counter-act this.
The rise in day visitors also is a challenge
in the case of Oxford, particularly in terms of converting these
into staying visitors and therefore reducing sustainability issues.
Domestically, the UK is seen as an expensive
place to visit with public transport difficult and costly and
in general the road network being at capacity. Cheap flights undermine
the ability of the UK to compete domestically for the short break
market.
However, the challenge of competition and the
fact that visitors have increasing pressure on their free time
is prevalent.
There is a need to address the image that domestic
visitors have about taking a holiday in the UK, many international
destinations offer examples of how to re-invigorate the domestic
tourism market.
Other challenges come from potential threats
such as terrorism, foot and mouth disease and flooding. Media
coverage of these threats can also create longer-term, significant
threats.
Q2: The effectiveness of DCMS and its sponsored
bodies (such as VisitBritain) in supporting the industry
Overall the effectiveness of DCMS in supporting
tourism has been disappointing, despite the fact that tourism
is one of the fastest growing sectors of economic activity in
the UK. There are no dedicated tourism staff in DCMS to support
the industry's development and suffers from a poor funding allocation
and lack of recognition. This lack of focus for tourism is highlighted
by the lack of performance indicators for tourism as part of the
culture block. Sport England and the Arts Council have seen increases
in the proportion of DCMS funding since 1997 with VisitBritain's
share being reduced by 9%. With the important role that tourism
has to play in London 2012, it is vital that DCMS recognises this
and engages more effectively with the tourism industry in the
UK.
VisitBritain continues to effectively market
Britain overseas, however it does not effectively cover strategic
intervention required at a national level to ensure that there
is a structured approach to tourism policy and development.
As a result of declining funding streams, VisitBritain
are increasingly income driven rather than supporting the very
destinations they are promoting. They are now charging individual
destinations, like Oxford, huge sums to allow us to promote the
destination in their overseas offices in print and online.
Q3: The structure and funding of sponsored
bodies in the tourism sector, and the effectiveness of that structure
in promoting the UK both as a whole and in its component parts
There is a lack of cohesion of tourism in England
in recent years. RDA leadership and support for tourism development
has been much stronger in some regions than others, this is particularly
evident in deprived areas in the North and Midlands where Destination
Management Organisations (DMOs) are receiving strong support from
RDAs. However in other areas, such as the South East, which is
seen as relatively affluent, funding is low and at a local level
we receive little financial assistance for tourism development
from SEEDA/Tourism South East. Not only are there regional disparities
but at a local level this two-tier approach does not work effectively;
it would be better to follow the examples in the North of England,
have RDAs fully engaged with local authorities and DMOs and recognising
the important role that tourism and local authorities have to
play in the local economy and in the place shaping agenda identified
in the Lyons inquiry.
There also appears to be little engagement or
interaction between RDAs and DCMS where the responsibility of
tourism lies and how it fits within the economic development agenda
of the RDAs.
Unfortunately, the structure is confusing to
the consumer and does not offer the brand recognition it should.
To promote Oxford under the banner of "South East England"
is not a viable option, particularly in the international market.
Domestically too, Enjoy England campaigns have not matched the
successes that are seen in comparison to Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
Q4: The effect of the current tax regime (including
VAT and Air Passenger Duty) and proposals for local government
funding (including the "bed tax") upon the industry's
competitiveness
The UK is already regarded as an expensive destination
and unfortunately this is not compensated for with quality, distinctiveness
or value for money. Whilst it is recognised that additional funds
to support UK tourism may need to be sourced, there has been no
reassurance that these new funds would be re-invested in the industry
itself.
The VAT on accommodation in the UK paid by tourists
is at one of the highest levels in Europe. To implement a bed
tax would further reduce the opportunity for the UK to be competitive.
As TMI have highlighted in their response to this inquiry, research
by Nottingham University has shown that a 1% increase in prices
leads to a 1% decrease in international tourism, with VisitBritain
suggesting a higher ratio of 1:4:1.
Q5: What data on tourism would usefully inform
Government policy on tourism
The June 2004 Dennis Allnutt paper produced
jointly by ONS and DCMS "Review of Tourism Statistics"
highlighted the notoriously poor methodology surrounding data
capture in tourism. This reflects badly from a local through to
the national level. Given this, the under-investment in the industry
and lack of recognition in the wider economic development arena
is not surprising. Without effective data capture it is difficult
to justify local authorities investment in tourism.
It is disappointing that the findings of this
useful piece of work were never implemented by DCMS.
Q6: The practicality of promoting more environmentally
friendly forms of tourism
Oxford is supportive of sustainable tourism
and has developed and marketed Oxford as such a destination. However,
there is a cost involved in doing this and there is a lack of
national guidance and support on sustainable tourism, despite
the range of good practice activities being carried out at destination
level across the UK.
Q7: How to derive the maximum benefit for
the industry from the London 2012 Games
In November 2006, Oxford City Council in partnership
with the Oxford Marketing Group, submitted a response to the Consultation
on Welcome>Legacy—Tourism Strategy for the 2012 Games
to DCMS. It might be helpful if I reiterate the key points made
in that response here:
1. Funding—the consultation document
made reference to several new initiatives that need to be implemented
to help achieve a successful legacy from the 2012 Games. However
at no stage has any financial commitment been made to implement
the agreed strategy. Given the history of the consistent under
funding of tourism in the UK, agreed financial commitments need
to be outlined in the resultant strategy.
2. Media—the effective use of media
and PR for the Games is crucial. Images portrayed need to encompass
surrounding areas of London and reflect the treasures in the rest
of the UK for visitors, particularly those of significant draw.
Relationships with the BBC, both nationally and regionally, need
to be developed to reflect this. Given advances in new technology,
more attention should be focused to develop podcasts and similar
initiatives encouraging visitors to explore further afield. London
TV and similar hotel based channels should be used to reflect
a cohesive marketing image to visitors.
3. UK Tourism Strategy—this tourism
strategy for the 2012 Games should become a key part of a robust
UK tourism strategy, which can be effectively implemented. Relevant
bodies need to be allocated the necessary funding to ensure effective
implementation of the overarching strategy. This strategy needs
to be suitably effective so it can be used to shape tourism strategies
at a local level.
4. Hosting of Visitors—there needs
to be a recognition in the new 2012 strategy that London should
not, and indeed is not capable of, hosting all potential visitors.
Cross-promotion of nearby areas with available bedspace and good
transport links should be maximised. VisitBritain/Visit London
should enable visitors to create unique packages, thus focusing
on the visitor as the key concern.
5. Learning from other countries—it
is important to fully research lessons that can be learnt from
other tourism agencies in previous host countries and this should
be an action point in the new strategy document.
6. Joint Body—If a joint body of VisitBritain/Visit
London is established relevant linkages and awareness needs to
be made of external partners. For instance, until recently the
Visit London conference desk were unaware of Destination Oxford,
the Oxfordshire conference desk and as a result international
enquires for Oxford coming in initially to Visit London were being
"lost".
7. Accessibility—the questions raised
regarding accessibility in the consultation report require careful
consideration. Whilst we recognise the merit of the ideas, we
would not want to force the industry with more changes to standards
that could also potentially limit the "official stock"
on offer to the visitor. Perhaps this could be something that
is strongly encouraged and that businesses can chose to opt-in
to?
8. Public Transport—public transport
has a key role to play in giving visitors the opportunity to explore
further afield easily. However this needs to be supported with
a quality range of information. There is certainly a role in which
alternative means of transport should be investigated, such as
the use of regional airports and of the River Thames.
9. Targets—if targets are to be implemented,
it should be taken as an opportunity to make a significant improvement
in data capture in tourism which is notoriously poor, as highlighted
in the June 2004 ONS/DCMS paper by Dennis Allnutt "Review
of Tourism Statistics". Without these improvements in data
capture it will be difficult to set and monitor targets effectively.
10. Timing—it is essential that a cohesive
strategy (and an associated action plan) is put in place as soon
as possible particularly if there are targets that involve major
changes for the tourism industry and local authority tourism departments.
It is important to recognise the potential benefit
that the Games could offer to locations such as Oxford, particularly
if, as estimated, 40% of visitors to the Games will stay outside
London.
September 2007
| 
