To consider the Executive’s response to the Scrutiny Review of Tourism and Tourist Information Centres in Herefordshire.

(Mr P Hands registered a personal interest)

The Committee considered Cabinet’s response to the recommendations made to it in the ScrutinyReview of Tourism with Specific Reference to Tourist Information Centres.  The Director of Regeneration apologised to a Member that the response to this Review had taken a while, and said that the economic downturn had meant that the Directorate’s position had been reconsidered in the light of public sector funding reductions.  A further review of tourism would be undertaken shortly in order to provide a report to the Cabinet Member (Economic Development and Community Services) to ensure that the service was fit for purpose.  He added that the initial response that had been made to Cabinet on 30June 2009 and had been revised by the Regeneration Directorate after Cabinet had deferred consideration of the report, and the subsequent Action Plan had been approved at the Cabinet meeting on 26 November 2009.

A Member expressed concern at the quality of the Action Plan attached to the report, and asked why two recommendations had not been accepted, whilst three other responses apparently missed the point of the original recommendations.  He went on to draw the Committee’s attention to the specific recommendations in the report to which the responses in the Action Plan where not, in his opinion, appropriate:

• Recommendation 1 in the Action Plan linked back to Recommendations 11.4 and 11.5 in the report submitted to the Committee on 18 April 2008.   These had been addressed by the production of an Asset Management Plan, which had not been provided to the Committee.

• Recommendation 9 did not provide concrete proposals to the original recommendation.

• He went on to say that he felt that the Action Plan was an inappropriate response to the work undertaken by the Committee.

• In reply to a question from a Member, the Cabinet Member (Economic Development and Community Services) said that the planned Tourism Review would look at how the marketing budget for tourism should be spent.  There had been a change in how the TICs were used across the County, and it was important that this matter should be addressed. The budget for the consultation exercise was tight, and the outcomes would be used to good effect. 

• The Chairman of VisitHerefordshire said that he was glad that tourism was valued in the County.  He pointed out that VisitHerefordshire had helped to bring £410m into Herefordshire in the previous year, on a small budget.  The service was good value for money, as much of the work was undertaken by volunteers.  If their work were to be costed in, the rate of return would be much less appealing.

RESOLVED

THAT  (a)     Cabinet’s response to the findings of the Scrutiny Review of Tourism with Specific Reference to Tourist Information Centres should be rejected and the Cabinet Member (Economic Development and Community Services), should be invited to reconsider the Scrutiny Review report in a competent and professional manner;

            and;

            (b)     that a report should be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee that included the outcomes from the present review of tourism as well as addressing the concerns that had been expressed by the Committee regarding the Scrutiny Review Action Plan.