VisitEngland has announced that it is undertaking a review of the harmonised hotel grading scheme in which 13,000 accommodation businesses are being canvassed for their views.

In the autumn, consumer research will also be undertaken to assess the relevance of the criteria presently used. The cost of this has not been revealed but at a time when the agency is declaring itself short of funds for marketing - its primary purpose - this exercise would appear to be a singular waste of time, money and effort.

Why? Because the present scheme took three years of debate and discussion before it was agreed - and not a lot has changed in the industry since 2005, when it was introduced. No star system can ever be perfect. And every star system has its opponents and defenders. Why undertake such an expensive review now to assess whether, for example, people understand such terms as guest accommodation, small hotel and B&B? And what concern is it of the England marketing agency, anyway?

Stars are certainly important to independent hotels because they give an indication of the type and quality of the hotels; for many a star rating is critically important. But for internationally-known, branded hotel chains, stars are relatively unimportant because the brand name tells the customer what he needs to know about the product.

And, of course, there are many other ways of getting information - company and hotel websites and TripAdvisor, for example.

So why is VisitEngland getting so involved?

It's clear that grading costs money - in the case of VisitEngland it's public money that could be better spent in marketing and promotion. In an economic recession, when money is tight (and will get much tighter when the new government - of whatever hue - takes office next June) there's a strong argument that public funds should not be spent on providing a scheme which is perfectly well provided by the private sector - in this case, by the AA. If funding is to be cut back, then all available money should be spent on promotion and marketing.

This is a powerful argument, especially as the AA has such long experience of running a star scheme. No, it's not perfect - and it never can be - but AA stars nevertheless give a realistic impression of a hotel's grade and, in the higher grades, entail a number of inspections. Inspections also enable a hotel to raise its standards if it wishes. And customers have confidence in the star ratings, despite their imperfection.

Why, then, is VisitEngland undertaking such a massive study?

What is a certainty is that all hotels must be fit for purpose in certain basic areas and local authorities have a statutory duty in terms of health and safety, food safety and other legislation; there is no case for tourist board involvement here.

Without a nationwide statutory hotel registration scheme - too costly and too bureaucratic to justify, with too little benefit - grading should be left to the private sector. Public money should not be spent on a grading scheme that the private sector undertakes perfectly adequately. Why should a tourist board become involved when it duplicates this activity and (more important) cannot improve on what the private sector provides?

To the industry's advantage, the tourist boards should concentrate on marketing and promotion not on duplicating a scheme provided by others, at no cost to the taxpayer.