Ups and downs

It was a series of conversations with people in the tourism industry that identified two interlined issues.

I was initially astonished to hear that the Lewis & Harris tourism trade is down by about 25% compared to last year, and that this looks like being the trend for the entire year.

It's actually quite obviously - with hindsight - that the success of tourism was grossly oversold last year.  The truth is that the demand for beds was wildly distorted by the demands of the contractors who were absorbing so many bed nights.

They were generally occupying the cheaper accommodation and pushing the tourists into higher priced/better accommodation, giving a huge boost to hotels and the higher-end Guest Houses.  Suddenly, this year there is a dearth of tourists - or more accurately, the number are back to where they were before the major construction worker inflow took place.

In the meantime, the demand has encouraged more people to make houses available for self-catering, and I understand that there are more than 100 extra properties available this year then 2/3 years ago.  This excess supply is pushing down prices, and fewer people are going to have a decent living.

There are a couple of other issues that need to be resolved too.

I am reliably informed that there are more available beds in Harris than the ferry could cope with, if all the guests left on the same day.  There will have to be a lot of work by the industry in encouraging different patterns of visiting.

Allied to this, a recurring and long-flagged up issue arises.  The ferries are not big enough and potential and actual tourists are being turned away due to a lack of capacity.  You reduce fares, passenger numbers increase.  It's not rocket science, and we need a practical demonstration that RET is here to stay by the Government committing to new, much larger ferries on all routes: and not another 'consultation' to defer the issue.

It was during the course of these chats that I was told some important and sensitive information about a local business, which I can't even hint at, due to real or perceived client conflicts.

In just the past few weeks, our firm has won some new major local clients which has effectively blocked me from commenting on some major local issues due to the business or location of the clients, and some topics are now completely off limits for me, which is a bit of an explanation to an anon correspondent.

This has been a growing problem, that is going to have to be addressed by me....

Pairc - the saga continues

With Thursday seeing the next round of the legal actions in Stornoway Sheriff Court it seems fairly clear what the pattern is going to be.

The legal actions are going to be long and drawn out.

The Government have already acknowledged that the legislation is flawed, which I think means that they are on a hiding to nothing in Court; but that they will drag this out until they can decide how to rewrite the legislation.

The landlord has apparently offered the crofters an amicable buy-out, if the existing Committee remove themselves.

This last element is the most intriguing, as it shows the animosity between the existing Committee and the landlord, and represents a very smart move by Mr Lomas.  Will the existing Committee withdraw and challenge Mr Lomas to stand by his word?  Well, with silence from South Lochs, it looks like that offer has been rebutted; and that no-one seems prepared to try and knock heads together and get legal paperwork in place.

The animosity can be explained by the claims of self-interest against the Directors of Pairc Trust, in that it is claimed by Barry Lomas that the suggested siting of some turbines will give disproportionate benefit to those crofters, some of whom may be the Directors of Pairc Trust.  Let me make it very plain, M'Lud, that I do not know whether these claims have any substance, but that the Directors strongly rebut this argument.  I am aware of some matters they need to refute, rather than just rebut, but I am not aware of any substantive attempt to demolish these arguments.

And, yes, I know I have said all this before, but for the reasons that follow, these arguments need to be demolished if the Pairc buyout is to have the widest possible support; and credibility lies at the heart of that.

I was reading back through the Pairc buy-out Business Plan just recently.  It's been apparently removed from the Pairc Trust website, but if you find the old cached pages on Google, the now-deleted links still took you to the pdf; which you could download for posterity.  This probably won't be possible after tomorrow.


Page 49 of the plan - as approved by CnES and the Scottish Government - has a most interesting comment on the type of holidays that Pairc Trust will be offering to the public:

A short break (3 days) with meals would cost in the region of £200 per person per night. Extra
charges would be levied depending on which activities the holidaymakers would be enjoying.
This is averaged to 20% on top of the accommodation costs.

So a couple coming for a 3 day break would spend £1,440 - which one assumes includes ferry costs, but not petrol - instead of perhaps £500 in a 5* hotel in Edinburgh (Scotsman, advance purchase rate) of £900 for a week in Crete (Thomas Cook, Aghios Nikolaos in October).

Now why is this important?

Simply because the business plan assumes that for a one-off outlay of £9,000 (what no recurring marketing costs?), Pairc Trust will be able to sell 150 bed nights the following year, generating income of £6,000.  I did mention the 20% commission the Pairc Trust will take (at page 49), didn't I. 

The Pairc Trust as promoter would take a fee (e.g. 20%) from the holiday price to cover
promotional and organisational costs and the costs of the activities while the partners in the
enterprise would benefit from increased reliable trade and collective marketing of their local
businesses.

Now, current tariffs for B&B or self catering in South Lochs are £25 per night or £250 per week for an entire cottage; or about £50 pppn in the only hotel in the area.  All of which raises all sorts of questions about the supply of suitable accommodation, given that to upgrade is going to cost £60,000+ for the majority of current providers.  My rough and ready guess is that it will cost perhaps £1.2m to provide enough suitable accommodation in the area or as little £250,000 if there is only one new-build provider.  Where is all this going to come from on the hope of getting bookings through an untested provider selling beds in an unbuilt facility?

Realistically, you can see a new provider or two trying to fill that market; but when they can sell the beds direct or via VisitScotland, why go through the Pairc Trust.

That is just one example I have seen of an element of the business plan that has been allowed to go through, and which is being touted by local and Central Government as a model of sustainability at which large sums of money should be thrown.

If the Pairc buy-out is to succeed it must succeed on a realistic basis, and not on fantasy figures, or Barry Lomas will tear this all to pieces in Court and discredit the entire process.

Unless, of course, that gives the Government their out from the entire process and time to rewrite the laws; which the cynic in me thinks might just be the case.

Whatever happens, Pairc is going to face a long slow decline as the legal process takes it's slow and winding course; something I don't think anyone wants to see.

BASE jumping in the Western Isles

Words almost fail me....