---

Tourism

My Lords, a friend of mine runs a hiking and mountaineering shop so I have no doubt about that. Although that is an important growth area in the market, it is measured more by British and overseas populations’ appreciation of our wonderful scenery, glorious mountains and countryside. Walking may play a more modest part in the overall statistics because it is one of the least expensive countryside pursuits. I appreciated the noble Lord’s point. Walking is an important part of tourism marketing in this country. We never talk about an area of England in more positive terms than the Lake District, which is one of our primary walking areas. Scotland’s tourism also depends a great deal on it. I was grateful to the noble Lord for making the point and he rightly indicated that he would receive a warm response from me for that particular dimension of the tourist industry. I emphasise that our figure of £74.2 billion received from tourism is colossal but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave a significantly higher figure. However, I am only too happy to comply with his analysis that we need to recognise the importance of tourism to our economy. The problem is, as we all recognise, that it is an extraordinarily difficult industry to organise, develop and support. There are so many various components, trends and contributors. In governmental terms, when it comes down to directing resources, it is a significant challenge. Tourism impacts on so many features of our national life; on our transport, on our environment, and on our rural and cultural agendas. It is not therefore to be calculated only as a generator of wealth. We value these features intrinsically for our own enjoyment and that of our fellow citizens. At the same time, we recognise that they produce significant additions for the national economy. I concur with the proposition behind the debate: that we need to place a greater emphasis on tourism. The Government are doing just that. We are concerned to bring pressure to bear wherever we can. On providing information, we have greatly appreciated the development of EnglandNet because it is critical to ensure that information is available to the intending visitor. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the case even more extensively—or intensively, perhaps—than his noble friend. Of course we accept that proposition and we are concerned that there are resources to support it. We were pleased to see the progress being made on the grading of accommodation. There is no doubt that for any tourist, the most crucial information is an assurance about the kind of accommodation they contract for and a guarantee of the accuracy of its description. The industry has made significant strides on that during the past 18 months. The Government are playing their full part in supporting that development and it will be recognised that it is an important element in ensuring that foreign visitors and our own internal tourist traffic receive good value for money and accurate information. Noble Lords dealt with other important opportunities for tourism. As the President of China is visiting this country next week, it is right that within the debate some emphasis is placed on the potential market from China. We all recognise the significant opportunity which China offers to a whole range of economic activity and tourism is clearly one of those. So I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who mentioned China, that we have been working on the issue for the past year. We have been very concerned that, through the Foreign Office and other agencies, we establish confidence in China that visits to Britain can be conducted with enormous rewards to Chinese citizens who are prepared to come here and that we have great resources to offer to give support to such visits. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, said that we could cross-reference to a previous debate. I was grateful for his reference to my noble friend Lord McIntosh, who was certainly very committed to the issues on the half of the country but who always showed a particular interest in London issues, as would be expected from someone who played a prominent part on the old GLC. All debates on tourism from now on will include the new dimension that, in 2012, London will be the Olympic city. That provides the most enormous opportunity for us. We project that the economic benefits could be as high as £2 billion. That will not come easy. I heard what the noble Lord said: that we should learn from Athens and Sydney. We are learning from both. As he will know, we had close associations with Sydney in certain aspects of the preparation of the bid. There are lessons to learn from Atlanta as well, which is the most obvious disaster in recent years in Olympic Games. Of course we are working on that. I think that the noble Lord will recognise that we have already established a structure for the development of the Olympic bid in which the Government will play a critical role. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will chair the overall body, but the bid is London’s bid and a great deal of the work must be done by London. I emphasise that we do not expect the Games to fall readily into our lap. Experience of inadequate planning and foresight for the Games has led to a whole range of disasters. In particular, the issue that causes so much concern is when facilities have been created for an Olympic Games and, six months later, are derelict and unused because they have been so badly planned for future usage and benefit to the community. The strength of the London bid was its inheritance and heritage. From the Games will come such enormously enhanced facilities very close to—inside—the capital city.