---

Tourism

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing the debate. It is a most important subject that, in one form or another, we debate frequently. However, I hope that we will not debate it late on a Thursday evening again. We have to congratulate the Liberal Democrats on turning up in strength. I thought that I had a supporter, but he is gone; the Minister is not doing terribly well either. Seriously, it does not do any good to the reputation of this House to debate such an important matter in such poor circumstances. Your Lordships will, I hope, forgive me if I hark back to past debates, some of which have been effective and prompted action, and some of which have not. Tourism, as noble Lords have said, is a massive industry—the fourth largest in the country, employing more than 2 million people and composed of 107,000 separate businesses, mostly turning over less than £250,000 per annum. It is pretty remarkable how well this great industry has learnt to pull itself together, tie a knot and carry on after the successive crises of foot and mouth, SARS, September 11 and July in London this year. As we have heard, it has been estimated that the terrorist attacks in July have caused a loss of somewhere around £750 million to the industry as a whole—domestic and incoming—with £500 million of that incurred in London. Nevertheless, it is expected that more incoming tourists will come to Britain in 2005 than 2004. That says something about the resilience of the industry. Despite that, it sometimes seems to be the forgotten industry, which is extraordinary considering that it is worth approximately £75 billion per annum and generates 4.5 per cent of gross domestic product. Not only does it not apparently merit a government department to administer and assist it; it does not even figure in the name of the department that does look after it. Numerous bodies play a role in promoting tourism in Britain and one is tempted to wonder whether there are too many. For example, the regional development agencies have recently been required to formulate strategic tourist policies in their regions and also to fund the regional tourist boards. Why are they both involved in promoting tourism? Surely scarce resources would be better used if the effort was from one body, which would be more effective. I suggest that the Government do a U-turn and restore the RTBs to the job they were set up to do. They should be made responsible for developing strategy in their regions as well as carrying out that strategy. In recent years, tourism’s sponsoring department has moved from the DTI, to employment, and then to national heritage—which became DCMS. Does that not point to indecision by government regarding tourism? I believe there is a current impetus towards returning it to the DTI. Does the Minister have anything to say about that? Some 70 per cent of all tourists coming into this country come to London. Some, particularly those on package tours, will also visit the home counties, Cambridge, Stratford, Bath, Oxford, and Windsor and sometimes Scotland—although many will fly directly to Scotland—but, inevitably, a large majority of them stay in London. Hence, the London attractions—especially heritage sites such as Parliament, the Tower, the Eye, Buckingham Palace, museums, galleries, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul’s Cathedral, and of course the River Thames itself—are, and always must be, the paramount consideration in marketing Britain abroad. It is, however, a great pity that traffic congestion in London is such a deterrent to tourists. This afternoon, I saw 16 buses stretching one after the other down Haymarket and around to Trafalgar Square. As far as I could see they were all nearly empty. Whose job is it to regulate them according to demand? Or is that a dirty word, like ““car””? And whose job is it to clear up litter and other detritus scattered across London? As anyone can see, I do not think that it is overstating the case to say that London is the dirtiest capital city in Europe. There are considerable opportunities to market London in the next few years—the Olympics, for instance. The pledge by the hospitality industry to provide 30,000 hotel rooms at competitive prices had a lot to do with winning with our bid for the 2012 Olympics. With regard to rest of Britain, outside London, I am sure that more could be made of our wonderful cathedrals. I shall not provide a list as all noble Lords present will know where they are. Some of them have been featured in the current wave of historical series on television. That also should have a considerable influence on domestic tourism. The attractions of Liverpool, as 2008 European City of Culture, should do a lot for the north-west. I make a plea to the Government to encourage riparian authorities to follow up some of the good work done in recent years on improving facilities beside and on the River Thames. Exactly eight years ago, I had an Unstarred Question, asking the Government to give much greater attention to our great river and how many more tourists could use it to visit the many heritage sites which are adjacent to this river. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, spoke for the Government then, and he is an enthusiastic supporter of greater use of the River Thames. I am sorry that he is not in his place today. We miss him and hope to see him back soon. One of the great issues at that time was the forthcoming Millennium celebrations and the Millennium Dome. There were many suggestions about how to maximise the number of visitors to the Dome. For instance, there was a suggestion for a new river bridge east of Greenwich, a new deep-water quay for tourist liners at Greenwich and mammoth car parks—one north and one south of the river—within easy distance of the M25, linked to the Dome by 20 minute shuttle boats. None of those enterprising ideas was carried out and, because of that and other reasons which I shall not go into, the Dome never remotely achieved its potential. However, all these projects could be most helpful in encouraging both incoming and domestic tourism, to and up the Thames. Has any consideration been given to reviving any of these ideas to improve access, particularly for the Olympic Games, when we shall be expecting many incoming visitors? The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the question of fees for visas. I thoroughly agree with what he said—it is disgraceful. Tourism can, and should, be one of the main leaders of regeneration of coastal resorts, but, to take full advantage of the possibilities, much expenditure will have to be faced to improve access. I remind the Minister that there are some 29 million car owners in this country. If it is government policy to encourage British people to take holidays at home rather than going abroad, the drivers will have to be accommodated and—dare I say it?—encouraged. People buy cars for several different reasons, and one of the strongest is the urge to take the family on holiday. I am sure that if it were made easier and more convenient, many more car-owning families would choose to holiday in Britain. I am aware that I am probably the only person here who would agree with that sentiment. Many hotels—I speak from experience—could transform their bedrooms and public rooms if, instead of spending money on, in many cases, indifferent prints, they acquired original oils and watercolours. Here, I state an interest as a dealer in watercolours. Originals have a way of increasing the feeling of quality in accommodation. Much is right about the tourist industry. As I said, it is brilliantly organised and extremely good at overcoming hazards. It is poised and ready to expand if demand is there. Effective advertising and marketing plays a vital role in that. Do the Government have any plans to increase grant aid? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.