Dunion slams VisitScotland on dot-com deal

Published on Friday 22 June 2007 00:49

SCOTLAND'S information commissioner, Kevin Dunion, has delivered a spectacular blow to the credibility of the national tourism agency, VisitScotland, ruling that the quango had breached the Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) by suppressing details of its contract with the private-sector company that runs the national tourism website visitscotland.com (VS.com).

In a case described by Dunion as "setting a significant precedent", he flatly rejected VisitScotland's contention that documents related to the partnership agreement that established Etourism Ltd, the now largely Austrian-owned company that runs VS.com, were exempt from disclosure because they contained "information provided by third parties" and that to reveal the details would constitute an "actionable breach of confidence on the part of VisitScotland".

In his ruling yesterday, Dunion described such an interpretation as "straining the language" of the Freedom of Information Act, effectively claiming that VisitScotland was deploying a legal technicality to avoid disclosing the terms by which it was obliged to serve the commercial interests of Etourism Ltd.

Dunion said the process by which contracts between VisitScotland and VS.com were agreed was conducted on the basis of a publicly advertised invitation to negotiate. He said that to portray such a contract between a public authority and a private company as involving a "third party", and thus exempt from disclosure under freedom of information laws, was "incorrect".

He concluded: "I find that VisitScotland has incorrectly applied the exemption, and in doing so has acted in breach of the requirements of FOISA by withholding the remaining documents."

Alan Keith, chairman of the Association of Dumfries and Galloway Accommodation Providers, who referred the case to the information commissioner in December 2005, said: "We are extremely grateful that Scotland has this process whereby the public is able to find information routinely denied them, and we will study the documentation closely."

Yesterday's ruling requires VisitScotland to provide full details of its contract with Etourism within 45 days.

Keith added: "What I will look out for is where they have made agreements requiring tourist board staff throughout the country to market Etourism's products, to require them to use the hard sell on those products irrespective of their own judgment of their merits to the tourist.

"My point has always been that, as a tourist board, VisitScotland's first duty of care is to its participating members, and its duty is to give impartial advice to the tourist. I suspect that their contract obliges them to have other priorities."

A spokeswoman for VisitScotland said that the agency was "disappointed" with the ruling: "VisitScotland withheld the information because there is, as is common practice, a confidentiality clause in the paperwork. We did ask the relevant parties if they were prepared to waive this clause, but this was unanimously not the case."