Minutes of British Destinations Board Meeting held at 12:30 pm on Tuesday

16 May 2017 at VB/VE offices LondonPresentKevin Boorman Hastings (Coastal)Mark Catherall Sefton (Coastal)Peter Hampson British DestinationsCllr Iris Johnston Thanet (Coastal) Chairman British DestinationsCathy James Global Tourism Solutions (Commercial/Associate) Kurt Janson Tourism Alliance (Observer)Sergi Jarques Tourism South East (Destination Intelligence) Peter Lane Chair of the Executive, British DestinationsSam Oakley VisitEngland (Observer)Sally Porter North Kesteven (Rural North)Ian Rayner East Riding of Yorkshire (Coastal and UKBMF)Diana Roberts Guildford (City 2)

Apologies tenderedCllr Margaret Bannister Eastbourne (Coastal)Alan Carr Great Yarmouth (Coastal)Alan Cavill Blackpool (Coastal)Laura Dickson Maidstone (City)Christine Dier Maidstone (City)Malcolm Bell Cornwall (County/ Coastal)Scott Dolling Southend (Coastal) Janet Deacon Scarborough (Coastal) Phil Evans Eastbourne (Coastal)Martin Goodhew Swale (Coastal)Cllr Anne Holland Southend (Coastal)Cllr Derek Jarvis Southend (Coastal)Cllr David Jeffels Fellow/Scarborough (Coastal)Cllr Andrew Jenkinson Scarborough (Coastal) Alison Macdonald East Lindsey (Coastal)Cllr David McMeekan North Tyneside (Coastal)Lyn Newton Swale (Coastal)Karl Read North Norfolk (Coastal)Peter Sandman Liverpool LEP (City/Coastal/Rural)David Thornton Isle of Wight (Coastal)Claire Williams Stoke (City)

Items 1. 2. & 3. Chairman's welcome Minutes and Matters Arising

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

1

Iris Johnston (Thanet), Chairman of British Destinations, welcomed representatives to the first of the new style Board meetings; apologies from those listed above were recorded.

The minutes of the last of the old joint Executive and Board meetings held on 27 October 2016, were approved with no matters arising. See: https://britishdestinations.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/joint-board-and-executive-minutes-27-oct-20162.doc .

The Chairman announced that due to personal circumstances she would be unable to continue as the Thanet representative to British Destinations and therefore as Chair of the organisation. She thanked the Board for all the organisation had done for her local area, for destination management interests and for UK tourism industry in general. The Board note the decision with regret, thanking Cllr Johnston for here support over a period of many years and for her wisdom as a Board member and leadership as Chairman. She was asked to consider attending annual conference in October in order to allow her departure to be properly marked.

Item 4. Quick Update

4.1. The CEO gave an overview of some of the overarching factors that were influencing current strategic direction for tourism:

4.2. National statistics. Headline International Passenger Survey (IPS) figures presented at a recent VisitBritain (VB) British Tourism Industry Group meeting (BTIG) showed double digit percentage growth for international tourism, as compared to the equivalent months of 2015/16. A noticeable uplift started from November 2016 and was continuing, albeit that the comparative months from November 2015 onwards were described as, “relatively quiet”. Likely drivers for growth included the relative weakness of sterling particularly against the Dollar and Euro, whilst perhaps good for tourism in the short term the CEO did questioned if this was potentially less good for the UK economy over all and, thus, UK tourism (c 80% domestic and c 20% international combined) in the longer term?

4.3. Domestic tourism figures also indicated growth. Due to unforeseen difficulties with a much needed update of the externally contracted data management systems, the monthly and annual Great Britain Tourism Survey (GBTS) figure have not been available during much of 2016 and into early 2017. The technical issues have now rectified with the volume data for January 2016 and beyond released in recent weeks and the value data to follow shortly. (GBTS normally released monthly, a quarter in arears). Prospects for international and domestic tourism in 2017 were thought to be good, subject to the absence of any severe shock (political, economic, terrorist, etc.). Latest figures from all the National Boards can be accessed at their individual websites, links and/or key elements can also be found in one place on Britishdestinations.net here.

4.4. Strategic points the CEO wished to make by discussing performance were:

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

2

4.4.1. The importance of maintaining timely, good quality national level research and statistics (a function of the National Boards and of ONS’s excellent Tourism Intelligence Unit) should never be underestimated, nor critically should it ever be taken for granted as a given in any of our strategic, tactical or operational discussions with Government. This was true at any time but particularly so now since Government’s statutory duty to collect such data and, thus, our guarantee that they always will, are currently allied, directly to EU membership requirements.

4.4.2. Similarly it was important to make Government and others aware that one of the many largely unseen consequences of diminishing destination management interests and diminishing resources among those DMO that remained active was a gradual loss of quality local data and thus the lose of finer grain detail, that in its turn helps inform the processes by which accurate national estimates are derived. Whilst we were making that point and encouraging others to do so too, member destinations should be urged to maintain their commitments to local research and local statistic activities, wherever that remained possible.

4.5. Terrorism and international stability. At the VB BTIG meeting on 2 May the impacts of the Westminster terrorist attack on tourism were also discussed. Early evidence, much of it anecdotal, suggested that the impacts were less marked than in previous incidents, leading to speculation at that meeting that a mixture of timing and a growing acceptance of the potential risks may be factors. That view had since been repeated more formally elsewhere. The CEO cautioned that if the UK public and/or international visitor were truly becoming more “immune” then at best this would only bring relative short term relief; by its very nature terrorism almost always adapts and changes pace to achieve and maintain its nefarious aims.

4.6. It was also important not to lose sight of the fact terrorism aboard and continuing international instabilities, especially in near European international competitor destinations and popular Eastern and Southern Mediterranean outbound destinations continued to unpredictably influence the UK inbound and outbound markets and, thus, the overall performance of different sectors within tourism and UK tourism plc as a whole. There was a multitude of dynamic factors in play making it unusually difficult to assess what the National strategic directions should be, principally because old certainties and even discernible new trends couldn’t be relied upon to deliver beyond the short term. In such circumstance focus on that you can most easily influence (for example, domestic tourism) as much as on that which is more difficult but that you might most wish to influence (for example, international tourism) would seem the most sensible approach, i.e.” not putting all your eggs in one particular basket”, or “spreading your beats” to reduce exposure to risk.

4.7. General Election. At previous meetings, prior to the announcement of a General Election, the CEO had expressed the view that strategically the industry hadn’t perhaps recognised quickly enough the change of emphasis

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

3

and, therefore, the opportunities or threats created by changing Government and especially significant changes within Government. With an unexpected election looming that concern suddenly becomes a live issue. Regardless of the result, in our future dealing with any Government of any colour, shape or form, we needed to be as mindful, if not more so, of the changing hues and nuances of internal Party politics, as we are of the recent and/or traditional headline Party approaches. We also need to be fleet enough of foot to adapting our core messages to exploit opportunities as they present themselves and not much later on when the opportunity may already have largely passed us by.

4.8. Brexit. As an organisation representing the broader interests of destinations and not just those of an individual business sectors within tourism we may now need to take a much wider view on some of the emerging Brexit issues as they relate to tourism. For example, if we accept that EU migrant staff are as universally important to the industry as most informed industry sources believe, then we can either devote all of our efforts in to trying to persuading Government to allow “lower skilled” migration as many of our partner trade bodies are doing, or we could start look instead, or at least in parallel, at tackling as many of barriers to replacing quality service sector staff with UK residents as possible. This would take us in to potentially complex territory including: wages levels, unsociable hours, physical accessibility to the work place, local accommodation capacity, affordability of accommodation in popular tourist destinations, seasonal driven rental accommodation availability and seasonal accommodation pricing spikes, schooling (issues around transience and quality) and a raft of other family and life related issues many of which at first sight might seemingly have very little to do with tourism. Issues that essentially make the difference between: employment in the tourism industry being a largely short term job and/or stepping stone to other employment, elsewhere and it being seen as a viable, long term career prospect for a local resident populations, especially, in popular destinations of all types and sizes.

4.9. Alternatively, if employment in the industry is so often, truly a stepping stone to other employment, then rather than bemoaning the churn and lose of skills should we not instead celebrate the reality and actively move to reposition tourism as a (the?) primary in-work service sector training ground; a route by which many can learn and hone interpersonal and other vital employment skill that will lead them to success in tourism and almost every other industry sector?

4.10. Given the known importance to destination based tourism of EU derived funding we should also be prioritising efforts, not only in to arguing the case for future UK equivalents to the current EU funds and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as we and others are already doing, but also into efforts to ensure that tourism, tourism related public infrastructure and destination management and promotion are well positioned to benefit from such funding, once in place. Many other sectors are also supporting the case for UK equivalent structural funds and there is danger that whilst there may well be funding streams, they may not be shaped to allow tourism to derive maximum

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

4

benefit from the outset; a problem we have experienced initially with almost every iteration of EU and UK funding schemes to date.

4.11. Sector Deals. Prior to the unexpected announcement of a General Election the Westminster Government had announced a Sector Deal approach to its UK industry strategy. In response to requests from the tourism industry VB had agreed to assist by pulling together a sector deal bid for UK tourism and, in the absence of any other timetable, to do so to the original tight September deadline. This could of course be nugatory effort subject to the outcome on 8 June elections. The CEO attended an initial planning meeting on 10 May (see copy of the calling notice for more detail here).

4.12. The CEO’s immediate thoughts were that the sensible proposal to engage widely to gain consensus, might lead to the development of an ineffective shopping list of issues approach, rather than to a small number of big issue headings, albeit headings under which many items on the, “shopping list” might reasonably fall and could therefore be addressed in the delivery of the strategy. Neither was the CEO entirely convinced that the 4 groupings under which the strategy was being developed represented all the big issue headings needed. For example, dealing with the lack of or failing local structures and national networks, especially within England might in itself be a key productivity issue and not simply a shopping list item? Striking the balance between being seen to represent everyone’s interest on paper and truly serving everyone’s best interest by presenting a compact and compelling case that would secure a sector deal and the priority industry status for tourism associated with it, was going to be a difficult.

4.13. The CEO had also cautioned colleagues at the initial planning meeting of the danger of assuming that current VB/VE support was a given and that the benefits of any sector deal would automatically be additional to it. On this basis he was keen to ensure that, wherever possible, VB/VE’s critical roles and functions were intrinsically linked to the success, or delivery of the sector deal. He cited passed complacency as a major factor in the unexpected loss an independent VE in 2015/16 and it was this experience that was driving his determination not to allow history to repeat itself in regard to the future of VB/VE now.

4.14. The latest activities indicator which illustrates where and when the organisation is representing the member’s interest at key meeting and events was tabled. The Board noted that these were principally formal meeting and any formal submissions, for example, responses to consultation papers. In terms of representation much else was being achieved on an almost daily basis by email and telephone conversations and at the fringes of meetings, conferences and events, which couldn’t be reflected in the activities indicator.

Item 5. Staffing, Finance and Governance

5.1. In the absence of Honorary Treasurer Mike Evans (Sefton) the CEO and Mark Catherall (Sefton) briefed the meeting on the financial and associated issues:

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

5

5.2. Staffing: The CEO had again taken 6 weeks unpaid leave during the last quarter of 2016/17, undertaking c 4 weeks of reserve service during that period. Throughout the 6 weeks he had maintained a watching brief on emails, responded to critical communications, updated websites and communicated important items to the membership and all to a level where the majority of members would have been largely unaware that he was technically not in work. Whilst this wasn’t an issue for the CEO personally, the organisation needed to be fully aware that it couldn’t always be business as usual during the 6 week absence and that with no other staff resource available, some items of routine administration, nice to do projects, some ongoing tasks and certain non-essentials had to be left largely undone and some would remain so. The Board accepted the that some potentially less obvious background activities had and would suffer, agreeing that this was an entirely acceptable consequence of reducing our principal cost centre, in order to ensure that the organisation could continue to operate and do so to a satisfactory standard in all other respects.

5.3. Predicted outcome for the 2016/17 finical year. The draft accounts had now been produced and the outturn was within £500 of the estimated “most likely” case presented in October (and c £3.5k better than the worst case). As a consequence the organisation would break even and commence the new financial year with the same reserve of c £29.5k.5.4. Audit 2016/17. Members were told that the CEO maintained detailed excel accounts system, supported by paper invoice, payment voucher, bank statements etc. Accounts were regularly updated and income and expenditure items reconciled against weekly bank statements. Periodically the electronic accounts were also sent to the Sefton finance department and latterly these were being enters into parallel system which again reconciled receipts and expenditure against bank statements and effectively produced most of the detail for the formal annual accounts. Both systems had to balance and reconcile individually and both the CEO and Treasurer then had to agree the other’s versions of the account, resolving any minor variations there may be before the annuals accounts are published. Separately CEO’s paper, electronic and treasurer’s final accounts where then audited by an independent accountant, (currently also working for Sefton) who is paid £480 for the privilege.

5.5. Given the relatively small number of transactions (166 in 2016/17) and the fact that the accounts were now already being internally audited (twice), the CEO now recommended that the external audit be dropped, thus, saving £480 a year. Detail questions were asked and answered and members then agreed to cease eternal audits, with the proviso that the accounts were retained and would be available on request for inspection by the Board or any member representative. The CEO confirmed that the full accounts were in any case retained for 5 years for VAT inspection purposes and that they could and would be made available for inspection on request. 5.6. Forecast for 2017/18. Regrettably a small number of members had given notice during 2016/17 that they would not renew and one or two of those already invoiced, or yet to be invoiced were, under prevailing circumstances, not 100% certain to pay. We had also yet to secure

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

6

sponsorship for annual conference, which might now limit the contribution to income from this year’s event. Combined this meant that without a number of new recruits, additional or new commercial activities, or any other additional income streams, we were likely to face a deficit in 2017/18. It was too early to predict beyond a best to worst case range of a £500 to £5k variation on the 2016/17 outturn, a figure well within the margins of our current £29.5k reserves. The recruitment of new and/or former members and, in particular, proactive support from existing members to help achieve it remained of paramount importance.

5.8. Discover England Fund (DEF) BID. A DEF year 2, pilot project BID submitted by a consortium of Northern Coastal British Destination members and led by British Destination could impact on our finances and staffing (bid detail here) during 2017/18. If successful (announcement in June) it will result in the CEO undertaking additional coordination work with a working group and individual officers from the destinations and private sector partners involved. Some of the cost of that work would be off set against the project budget. However, workloads may well reduce the CEOs ability to take unpaid leave during 2017/18, meaning that some of the potential financial benefit may be of less assistance than it might otherwise have been. The fine detailed assessment of the financial implications v additional workload had been deferred until it is know whether or not the bid is successful. The purpose of undertaking the project is not about improving our financial position; however that said, it was entirely appropriate to seek to recover a proportion of our legitimate staffing costs from within the project and indeed that is how the bid has been framed.

5.9. Governance. The first trawl for name and contact detail for up to three Board member representatives from each member (officer, senior representative, senior trade/partner representative) had been disappointing, with relatively few new nominations, beyond those we already had for the old committee structures. The task of producing a detailed governance paper had been one of the major victims of the period of unpaid leave discussed above. The Board were reassured by confirmation that a number of represent from members, not previously engaged in either the Executive or Board had come forward and expressed an intention to take part in future Board meetings, (see attendance and apologies above) so whilst we hadn’t expanded our contact lists we had started reinvigorating the board and governance arrangements. The CEO acknowledged that more promotion of the new arrangements was now needed.

5.10. The Board members were content for the Board and Governance structure to continue to evolve rather than be forced, especially when it was clear that engagement in external meetings was an increasing issue for all member organisations. An effective Board, open to all to attend, with all the remaining membership broadly happy to allow those whiling and able to attend, to represent the membership’s joint interests, was what was required in practice. The flexible approach also allowed those not normally able to engage the opportunity to do so where and whenever practical or when a

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

7

particular agenda item exercised their interest, or indeed where they wished to raise contrary views or hold the Board to account for its previous direction.

Item 6. Tourism Alliance Update

6.1. Kurt Janson Policy Director Tourism Alliance gave a presentation on the issues exercising the Tourism Alliance, which can be accessed here.

6.2. One of the key documents produced in recent months was Post-Brexit Policy for UK Tourism launched at the Alliance’s Parliamentary reception on 27 March 17. Following the announcement of the election it was decided to use this document as the principal tool for influencing party manifestos, rather than producing a separate document that logically would, or at least should, contain precisely the same detail. Access it here.

6.3. Members were particularly interested to hear Kurt’s views on the implementation of the revised EU travel package regulation that would still need to be enacted by 2018, i.e. before we left the EU. Rather than being an unwelcome and wasteful, nuisance Kurt expand the view that, if handled correctly, this could be used to ensure an early Brexit gain for a significant proportion of the UK tourism industry. The EU Directive included many useful protections for international travellers for product bought at distance in a “foreign countries” potentially in a “foreign language” with variation on redress and the systems to achieve it. However, these same safeguards when applied domestically could acted as barriers to UK internal tourism, since any combination of two or more of three key components of a “package” (travel, accommodation and activity/service) at whatever scale, rendered the supplier legally liable for the content of the whole package and came with onerous requirements, including the need for significant financial bonding.

6.3. If the revised directive adopted in the UK by 2018 were to include a sunset clause that then had the effect of allowing typically small UK tourism businesses to package their services, post Brexit, by agreement with those of other neighbouring business, (taxi from the station, accommodation and/or a ticket to an event, for example) with each party to the agreement retaining their own separate liabilities, it would open up all sorts of new and potentially exciting opportunities. Theoretically at least, local DMO’s would be well placed to act as an honest broker and knowledgeable, local coordinator (local travel agent/operators?) potentially reinvigorating the roles and functions of many DMOs. Correctly framed it would allowing many small local business to start competing on differential, on local services and on value added, rather than trying to compete mainly on price and on online presence against the major online travel agents, who have the scale and reach to dominate on both. Work was in hand with VE to demonstrate the scale of financial benefit this approach might reap for tourism in the UK.

6.4. Kurt was questioned about the true likelihood of the stalled EFRA rural tourism enquiry being resurrected in the new Parliament. He confirmed that

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

8

whilst the technical obstacles were significant, so was the desire to try and get the new committee to take up the reigns of the old where they had left off, or failing that some variations on that theme. Obtaining a UK equivalent to EU CAP funding and ensuring tourism, which was now a bigger contributor to the rural economy than agriculture, was very well represented within that funding mechanism was of paramount importance. He also confirmed that the plans to convene an All Party Parliamentary Group inquiry to look at the evidence submitted on the Sharing Economy via the Tourism Alliance last autumn had simply been put on hold until post-election. APPG are not as formally constituted as Select Committees and in all likelihood there would be sufficient members in the new Parliament willing and able to support the recreation of the Tourism and Leisure APPG. If that was the case the Tourism Alliance would offer to continue to provide administrative support to it and, if that was accepted, the Sharing Economy would be offered up as the most obvious first piece of business. (Realistically post the summer recess at the earliest?).

6.4. Kurt gave an over view of the industry strategy plans. He also supported the view that getting tourism recognised within any future Government’s industry strategy, assuming that was the vehicle adopted post 8 June, was a perquisite to building and maintaining tourism’s status within any future Conservative, May lead Government. It would be illogical to continue to try to promote the vital social and economic importance of tourism to Government, having failed to put the case forward for tourism under the mechanism of the industrial strategy. In the event of different administration not all of the work undertaken would necessarily be nugatory. Tourism need to be able agree or to reconfirm what its joint ambitions were, whatever Government was in power. The Tourism Alliance with its widely representative, trade association based membership continued to play a key role in this.

Item 7. English Destination Management Forum (DMF).

7.1. Members were updated on the development of a VB/VE destination management forum for English destinations. The new forum, now open to all English destination management organisation that were recognised as such by their local industry would now meet annually and not biannually. The destination’s contribution to the agenda would be discussed by four independent groups convened by VB/VE, covering Cities (Core Cities Group), Heritage Town, Coastal destinations and rural destinations (these groupings are perhaps not actually as all-embracing as VB/VE perhaps thinks?). Any lobbying ambitions (of which there were many expressed at the inaugural DMF meeting) would be handled by those groupings and the destinations themselves and not by VB/VE who as a non-departmental body funded by DCMS had no lobbying role, as such, although they do have an advisory role which may be rather less overt in the nature of how it influences. The view at, and reinforced after, the first DMF meeting being that lobbying should be achieved, where possible, via the existing Tourism Alliance arrangements. This would avoid further fragmentation and the risk of undermining the Alliance’s established role as the trade association of tourism trade associations.

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

9

7.2. Unfortunately the understanding of the existing Tourism Alliance arrangements and the strengths and limitations of what the Alliance can achieve in what circumstances and for who are generally poor, outside the immediate membership of the Alliance’s board and sometimes even within it. The CEO a founding board member was attempting to encourage an informal approach, utilising British Destinations, and recently added TMI, Marketing Manchester and Visit Wiltshire representation on the Alliance Board. Others were trying to formalise additional destination and destination category membership of the Alliance Board, but with no understanding of the articles of association, the membership criteria and the board structures, the history and internal politics involved. Essentially attempting overnight to weight the Alliance Board in destination management’s favour, oblivious to the futility of their proposals and the potential counterproductive reactions from other Board members and the rest of the principally private sector orientated Tourism Alliance membership. Despite the CEO’s best efforts misunderstanding still appeared to exist. However, this would be rectified shortly when nominations for this year’s vacant places on the Alliance Board closed and nominations for/from non-existent representative organisations, non- members and other non-eligible candidates where put aside, if indeed it came to these spurious applications being made in first place.

7.3. In parallel the Tourism Alliance had issued a discussion paper (in February) proposing as an alternative several options including the creation of a sub group or sister organisation to themselves the “the Destination Alliance”. The proposal was predicated on a significant number of the existing English DMOs contributing £100 to £200 each to fund the new body. Not unreasonably representative bodies and existing Tourism Alliance members, like British Destinations and TMI, thought this would be counterproductive, undermining the business models of existing representative bodies and all in order to ensure that those that don’t currently contribute to or take part in joint endeavour, are somehow better represented in the future. If destinations wished to be represented on the Alliance then the opportunity already exists either as individual destination members or by joining us or TMI or indeed any other officially constituted destination representative body that then joins the Alliance.

7.4. Our board members concurred with the view that the Tourism Alliance proposal would in all likelihood fail to obtain the critical mass necessary, whilst potentially risking the existing critical mass of bodies like British Destination’s, TMI, Historic Towns Forum and to a less degree some of the informal, unfunded, voluntary groupings, like the Core Cities Group.

Item 8. British Destination’s Lobbying Activities.

8.1. The Board were briefed on a number of ongoing and emerging lobbying issues by way of update on the ongoing issues and by way of seeking approval and/or direction on the proposals for emerging issues:

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

10

8.2. Business Rates revaluations in England and Wales had produced some very big winners and equally some big losers, regrettably in general hotels, self-catering establishment and smaller independent town centre business (a vital component of many urban destinations) tended to be somewhere within the losing scale, dependant to a degree on, in which assessment office area they sat. The lack of transparency around the basis for any individual assessments and both the short time frame and draconian penalties associated with appealing were questionable in the extreme (undemocratic?). Many businesses were still trying to assess the impact of the changes phased over several years, meaning that realisation and potential objection was likely to come too late, as the appeals process was now closed. Promised transitional relief for those SMEs worst effected had yet to materialise in some (most/all?) areas, delayed in many cases by the announcement of the elections and the associated slowing of the wheels of National and Local Government, thereafter.

8.3. Meanwhile within England Government were still theoretically committed to a policy of 100% local retention of business rates; a policy that would, without floors and ceiling and an effective redistribution mechanism, leave many authorities significantly worse off than they currently already were. Directly or indirectly the retention of Business Rates would impact on public sector engagement and levels of investment in destination management and public realm in many popular destinations, including many in otherwise more affluent regions. There was also potential concern relating to the unintended impact of retail and destination BIDs, on the simplistic basis that BID levies are linked to business rates and any radical change to how business rates functions as a funding mechanism are bound to cause business to reconsider their local worth and the necessity to support them. (After note: all three main Westminster Parties have made manifesto pledges offering some degree of either review or definite change to the business rates system in England and Wales).

8.4. Online Travel Agents (OTAs) and other digital industry approaches were popular with Government and with VB/VE and the other National Board, for both international and domestic markets. Whilst we could see the benefit of promotion to otherwise hard to reach international visitors, there was a growing concern that too much power and influence was being concentrated within a few multinational player and platforms; players and platforms that had very little commercial interest in supporting and selling product vested in the typically micro and SMEs businesses that made up so much of the UK product, especially outside major Cities. Similarly OTA seemingly had little or no real interest in supporting destination development or management, although they seemed happy to exploit existing levels of destination awareness to sell their selected partner’s products; a new variation on the established freeloader issues all DMOs face.

8.5. OTAs that largely started as a means of selling off distressed stock at a discount, had now become sellers of mainstream and “notionally distressed” products. In the face of reduced margins several of the major internationals hotel groups were now fighting back against OTAs with their own direct websites, generally offering the guaranteed lowest prices available;

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

11

something that smaller accommodation providers and DMOs can’t easily replicate. There is a however a fledgling destination based fair booking scheme being trialled in Cornwall, New Forest, Cumbria and latterly in Wales (see more here).

8.6. There was also a growing concern that as the OTA platforms become more technically sophisticated they are actually beginning to offer the customer far less genuine choice, not more which had formerly been one of the major arguments for supporting OTAs. Individually targeted advertising, increased prevalence of ranking by scale of payments available to the OTA etc. all contributed to customer seeing what the OTA thought they wanted to see, rather than the entirety of what was available. Whilst it might put us at odds with the National Board’s current stance, members agreed that it was entirely right and proper for British Destinations to question the reliance on OTA and to raise concerns at the unintended damage OTAs might be doing to individual businesses and to destinations management and destination marketing.

8.7. Sharing economy, although arguably an off shoot of online sales like OTAs the products being sold on sharing platforms were very different. Envisaged as a means to allow ordinary people to offer occasionally underutilised assets, from say a parking space on your drive during working hours , through a spare room in your house, to your whole home when you yourselves were away on holiday, it had increasingly becoming an unregulated platform for fulltime, professional business ventures; for example for those buying a property or properties and letting it/them permanently to a stream of visitors without necessarily conforming to any regulation that would otherwise apply to a holiday home, hotel or B&B or indeed to longer term property letting. There were a whole host of other concerns from the impact on affordable housing stock in urban and rural destinations, to the lack of visibility and therefore implications for tax take, voluntary contribution to DMO funding, to the accuracy of tourism estimates. (See our submission to the APPG inquiry for more detail).

8.8. Again it was noted that Government and consequently (?) VB were currently very supportive of the sharing economy and major international companies like AirBnB, the best known and therefore now the synonymous sharing accommodation brand. Members shared the CEO’s concerns, agreeing that British Destinations should now step up their representative efforts around the issues for established businesses and destination management that the sharing economy, now brought.

8.9. Gig economy, the growth of no contract and other so called gig economy practices, especially common in areas of the service sectors, were also aired. Again it was agreed that the socio economic issues that flexible/unregulated employment intentionally or unintentionally created should be raised by use where it clearly impacted on local businesses ability to compete or the ability of destination management to manage and maintain stable growth within their destinations.

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

12

8.10. Tourism levies (or tourism taxes if you are starting from a more negative entrenched viewpoint?) and other new and existing funding mechanism (Destination BIDs etc.). Although it was likely to put us into conflict with our principally privates sector, strategic partners in the Tourism Alliance, it was agreed that British Destinations should now champion investigation and wide spread debate around the issue of how necessary destination management, and within that appropriate destination level marketing is to be funded. In an environment of decreasing public spending and more volatility within discretionary private sector contributions, new, revised or reinvigorated funding streams had to be found, if appropriate destination management was to be provided, wherever the local value and volume of tourism clearly justified it.

8.11. Members commented that arguing on the one hand for a decrease in VAT and potentially arguing for local taxation on the other might be seen as contradictory. Whilst there were difficulties involved the key lay in where and for what express purposes the levy was used for. VAT is national tax, contributing to Treasury funding, whereas anything we might recommend in terms of a tourism levy would almost certainly need to be hypothecated expressly for local tourism related usage. We did need to recognise that hypothecated taxation was not something that UK Treasury approved of and that only radical changing circumstances, like those surrounding Brexit, made it a possibility worth pursuing.

8.12. Future Lobbying Programme. In addition to supporting the Tourism Alliance’s lobbying efforts around common goals like reducing VAT on tourism services it was agreed that British Destinations would now make moves to lobby on issues of concern to destination management that may be in conflict with the aims of partner organisations like the Tourism Alliance (tourism levies) or National Boards like VB (OTA, sharing and gig economies). We would also work to encourage other to take up some of our existing but less contentious lobbying, for example encouraging UK Government to view domestic tourism as a tool of economic redistribution and therefore worthy of publically funded support or campaigning for a radical new form of business rates to replace the broken, purely property based model, that is no longer fit for purpose in a business world that is increasingly dominated by digital platforms and online sales.

Item 9. Conference 2017

9.1. The conference would be held at The Hogs Back Hotel, hosted by Guildford Council optional Sunday 29th 30 to midday 31 October 2017. The conference would be themed around and help develop some of the issues and item discussed above.

Item10. Destination Intelligence

10.1. Peter Lane who had attended the VE destination research group meeting earlier in the week confirmed that GBTS was now back on track after unavoidable problems outside VB/VE’s control. It was agreed that our decision not to make an issue of the problems experienced was the correct

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

13

one; there had been nothing practical to be gained by it and potentially much to be lost in terms of excellent working relationships, with VB, VE, the other National Boards and the ONS TIU a. Our pragmatic approach had not gone unnoticed.

10.2 Sergi Jarques briefed members on the completion of the 2016/17 Destination Intelligence Survey now published: http://destinationintelligence.wordpress.com/ and plans for the 2017/18 survey. All members, regardless of whether they submitted data, were included using headline national data available from various sources, including fairly mundane detail from population size to more useful information like the numbers of second and rented homes, through to serviced accommodation and bed stock.

10.3. In discussion with the Board it was agreed that members who were not actively engaging with the process would probably be unaware of the existence of this useful resource. Both Cambridge (via Sergi) and STEAM clients (via Cathy James) could on request either get their annual data inserted in the case of Cambridge clients, or presented in a ready to cut and paste into the survey format in the case of STEAM. The Board felt that more should now be done to promote the free Destination Intelligence Service internally to all British Destination members, as well as externally to non-members by way of an incentive to join.

10.4. The CEO was now working with colleagues in Sheffield Hallam University on the potential third party funding of a nascent research project that would aim to quantify the effects of domestic tourism as a wealth distributor. See early draft outline, concept paper. The use of an independent third party funder had appeal, as it removed the perennial funding issues but also gave the research findings potentially more credibility by avoiding a, “they would say that” label. The current absence of supporting research would not be allowed to delay our ongoing efforts to get the concept of tourism as an engine of economic redistribution to lodge elsewhere and be championed by other strategic partner organisations. To that end the descriptive paragraphs, the nub of the proposition that domestic tourism acts as an economic distributor, would now be refined so that it could be easily understood, easily remembered and, thus, easily repeated hopefully by all in the industry.

10.5. The Board were told that we had recently been approached regarding our willingness to support (champion) some proposed work around the specific benefits of reduced VAT on tourism services in popular coastal destinations. A pilot research project had already been carried out on Dover and the results, perhaps not unsurprisingly had shown the economic benefits to both the local economy and to the Treasury were significantly greater in popular tourist destinations. The discussions subject to external funding were around a study of in c10 sample coastal resorts. The Board were content for the CEO to continue to discuss the opportunities and see where this might lead; not least as there were no cost attached and any research that proved coastal destinations would benefit from lower VAT would be applicable to other popular destinations wherever they were located, the relative volume

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

14

and importance of tourism, rather than the proximity of the sea being the like drivers for any increased benefit.

Item 11. National Tourist Boards

11.1. Sam Oakley representing Anke Monestel (VisitEngland) thanked the Board for allowing him to observer the wide ranging discussions, which he had found most interesting; not least as it give him access to afresh prospective on issue exercising destinations and on our viewpoint on a range of issues exercising VB/VE. He had intended to update members on a number of items including the development of a Tourism Industry Strategy but on reflection these had been more than adequately covered by Peter and Kurt in their briefings and by members in their subsequent questioning and discussions. Questions were asked around a number of issues discussed earlier in the agenda and answers given where Sam was able to venture a VB/VE position . The Board thanked Sam for his involvement in today’s meeting and VB/VE for hosting the meeting, in their offices.

11.2. The CEO indicated that he had nothing significant to report on developments within the other Home Nation Boards, although under similar financial pressure they, like VB/VE, continued to do a highly professional job of supporting and promoting their tourism industry, within the limitations of their very different allocated budget and the contribution that they could drive out of commercial partners and their own private sector tourism businesses. Of note, however, was that the CEO had been present at two meeting since last October at which Visit Scotland and Visit Wales had both separately volunteered that the UK domestic markets was their primary markets and therefore their primary marketing audience. Accepting that the arrangements were complex and the comparison easily oversimplified this still stood in stark contrast with the new priorities and focus within England.

Item 12. Funding Opportunities for Destinations

12.1 In the time remaining the CEO briefly touched on funding opportunities as they related to different perceived categories of destination and compared these to the amount of national voice and representation they had:

England: Discover England Funding open to all. Wales: Rural Development Programme, Tourism Investment Support

Scheme, access by locality and/or business specific. UK Coastal Communities Fund, the consequence of protracted, well

evidenced lobbying and subsequent follow-on lobbying for continuation, (in which we have played a central role throughout). There were variation in each home nation’s approaches but although not specifically a tourism fund, tourism has taken the lion’s share and is set to continue to do so across the UK. Coastal interests are well represented at National level, not least by British Destinations due to the number a size of the coastal members engaged within the organisation and their willingness to identify shared issues and in the past to fund research to evidence them.

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

15

Core Cities. 10 major UK Cities have formed a collective to lobby UK Government. Although not specifically linked to that formal Chief Executive/Mayor level grouping, a voluntary tourism group has formed to represent the Core City view on tourism. They are well placed to speak to DCMS and VB and to exploit the emphasis on attracting and dispersing international tourist around Britain. By default they are generally assumed to be the voice of City based tourism, but in reality they are not a voice for all Cities.

Historic Cities and Towns. Well placed to access heritage and cultural funding and represented since 1987 by the Historic Town Forum. They not particularly active in tourism circles (perhaps because they don’t feel they need to be?) We have a number of historic towns and Cities in membership and perhaps more needs to be seen to be done to identify and represent any unique issues they may have?

Other Cities and larger Town and other urban destinations. A comparatively large but ill-defined and underrepresented grouping. With the exception of those individual Cities and larger towns in membership of British Destinations and the individual officers from Cities and towns in membership of the TMI there is very limited representation for this group at a national level. They perhaps require a more focused narrative or an evidence based case for more support? This is something we could lead on, provided sufficient numbers were willing to actively engage in the necessary debate.

English Counties and larger national destination brands, a mixed bag often by necessity more marketing orientated than management and marketing focused; some of which are well position to go it largely alone and work on their own marketing directly with VB/VE. The remainder are a much underrepresented group. National Parks now have their own tourism group but it currently isn’t particularly active in national tourism circles. We have a small number of Counties in membership but other than a number of specific rural issues, no substantive case for them to access specific funding or specific County issues.

Smaller rural district and other rural destinations. With the demise of smaller authority run or supported tourism departments and often with a widely dispersed product base this is the least well organised and most underrepresented group within tourism (the SMEs of the DMO world?). We did have high hopes that the rural tourism inquiry might unpick some of the problems of funding destination management in a rural environment (County and smaller DMO). Views now differ as to the prospects of that inquiry reaching the light of day. There are still significant opportunities, however, that a post Brexit CAP replacement might be structured to support rural tourism rather than simply diversify agriculture into tourism and then letting others worry about what then happens to it.

We have a number of purely rural destination members and in the absence of any other body actively supporting and representing their interests, good reason to be hopeful of recruiting more,

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

16

albeit, in small numbers and at the bottom end of our subscription scale. Many destinations categorised as City Town, coastal resort etc. also have significant rural components within their areas and therefore rural issues are already by default a priority for us.

Item 13 and 14. Any other Business and Date of Next Meeting

13.1. There being no other business it was agreed to hold the next meeting, during annual conference on the morning of Monday 30 October at The Hogs Back Hotel. (Hosts Guildford) Options to hold a Board meeting prior to this date were discussed but rejected on the ground of time pressure on busy representatives.

Peter HampsonSecretary to the ExecutiveCEOBritish Destinations

Joint Board and Executive Minutes, 16th May 2017

17