| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
My second point is that a lot needs to be done to make central London cleaner. Around Parliament Square, there are no litter bins for security reasons. Something must be done to cope with the litter. It may be that people who do not walk much do not notice, but the remains of meals and half-drunk cartons of drinks are quite revolting. If we want to welcome visitors, it is important at least to show a clean city so that when they come here and enjoy the experience, they will come back again. It is not only the litter problem that has to be dealt with, it is also the cleanliness of the pavements. It is horrible that people seem to spill food and other things all over the place and nothing seems to be done. There seems to be no system for cleaning up that sort of mess. Many people berate our French friends across the Channel, but in France they have a system of washing down the pavements. Every shop holder washes the pavement outside his or her shop. Is there not something that can be done here? With the new mayor of London, the time is ripe. Let us hope that we can get the message across.
8.09 pm
Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on securing this debate on tourism. In this House, tourism has a very small number of champions, but a number of us are here this evening to support her. I am delighted to participate in this debate and declare an interest as a former tourism Minister in the late 1980s. In addition, since its foundation I have been chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, the 42 members of which each have to receive more than 1 million visitors a year. I am glad to say that the Palace of Westminster is a fairly recent addition to our membership.
As has been said, London is the number one city destination for international travel. No other city in the world has such a rich tapestry of tourism opportunities: history and heritage through museums and galleries; theatres and restaurants, as the noble Viscount mentioned; historical palaces; and more modern attractions such as the London Eye. The statistics were mentioned a little earlier. The visitor economy is worth £15 billion to London. It provides 280,000 full-time jobs—heaven knows where those jobs would be filled from if we did not have all those who come from eastern Europe to work in our hotels and restaurants—and provides 10 per cent of London’s GDP.
6 May 2008 : Column 511
At a time when the financial services industry, which is so important to us, is suffering a decline, thankfully we have tourism to sustain London’s economy. Last year, 16 million overseas visitors came to London, nearly double the number that visited New York and, of course, London is the national gateway to the United Kingdom. Some 50 per cent of overseas visitors come to London and 75 per cent come through London airports.
However, the current trends are not over-encouraging—2008 will be a tougher year, not least because of the situation of the world economy. As far as London is concerned, we saw strong growth in 2006 when the numbers were up by 12 per cent, and in 2007 when they were up by 3 per cent, but this year looks like more of a standstill. The broad trend is that we have an increasing number of day trips to the capital, particularly domestic ones, but a declining number of overnight visitors.
We are seeing a gradual decline in London’s percentage of global tourism. London is not sharing proportionally in its growth. There are some considerable opportunities. The Olympics have been mentioned. It is a great tragedy and a lost opportunity that the Government have so far—I repeat, so far—not allocated any hypothecated money to promote the Olympics. We are spending billions in capital terms—surely we should be spending some in income terms as well.
Without wishing to be too political tonight, I have to say that this Government have taken very little interest in the tourism industry. Reduced funding for VisitBritain has been the message. The terms of office for its chairman require him to do just six days per month, which frankly is an insult to the industry. I know that he does more, but we should have a full-time chairman.
Major challenges have been referred to. It is crazy that London has no major conference or convention centre. We have lost a huge amount of business, as has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. On hotel accommodation, we may have a substantial number of beds in total, but we certainly do not have enough budget accommodation in London. The Government were not very clever when they abolished the 4 per cent hotel building allowance, as has been referred to earlier. That was bad news.
In terms of minor improvements that would make a difference, I would like to see the pedestrianisation of Parliament Square and an improvement in the Exhibition Road tunnel leading to our major museums—it is tired and unimpressive. We could also smarten up a number of this country’s entry points.
The previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, substantially supported the London Development Agency and I hope that Boris Johnson, our new Mayor, recognises the importance of the tourism industry to London and becomes its champion.
8.13 pm
Lord Howard of Rising: My Lords, it has been most instructive to hear what noble Lords have had to say in this interesting debate, introduced by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes; I congratulate her on doing so. I have a tourist attraction—it is not in London but, just in case, I declare my interest.
6 May 2008 : Column 512
Whatever view is taken on the right level of support for the tourism industry, one or two facts stand out. The tourism deficit stands at £19 billion, compared with £4.7 billion in 1997 when this Government were first elected. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, has commented on this. I do not think that all of that deficit can be attributed to government incompetence. For example, the massive reductions in the cost of air travel—reductions available entirely through action by the private sector—have meant that more Britons are able to go abroad for their holiday although it is also cheaper for tourists to visit Britain.
However, at a time when new tourist destinations are opening up all over the world, the Government have introduced a number of measures which, if not specifically designed to keep visitors away from this country, have certainly had a negative effect. Indirect taxes aimed at tourists increase the cost of visiting the country. If costs are increased, Britain becomes a less attractive destination. For example, the cost of a student visa has increased 130 per cent and now costs £60, whereas a visa to visit the 15 Schengen countries costs €60. It was very nice to hear the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, showing the same enthusiasm for London as he shows for Liverpool, although I cannot share his enthusiasm for the euro. The fact is that €60 is considerably cheaper than £60 and for his or her money the student gets 15 countries to visit rather than one. The air passenger tax has doubled. The Licensing Act 2003 has meant that the cost of a licence for a bed-and-breakfast establishment to sell alcohol has risen from £30 to £300—and so on and so forth.
Her Majesty’s Government think that if you increase the cost of goods and services there will be no impact and life will continue as before, but there will be an impact. If the Government are in doubt about this simple principle, they have only to look at the current exodus from this country of a number of international corporations, unwilling to pay Britain’s higher corporation taxes. However much the Minister may disagree, let us hope that the business tourist does not also disappear.
A number of steps need to be taken to improve tourism. My noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Hooper have alluded to some of these. Of course, the first and most important step was to get rid of Ken Livingstone, so the capital can be run properly. Now that has happened, it is hoped that Her Majesty’s Government can try and remove some of the other impediments to visitors considering visiting London.
8.17 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing this important topic. The Government welcome the opportunity to discuss tourism on all occasions. The short answer to the noble Baroness’s Question is that the Government regard the tourism and hospitality industries as vital not only to the capital but to the wider economy of the whole country. As such, the Government are working hard with their partners in the public and private sectors to support
6 May 2008 : Column 513
The scale of London’s visitor economy is vast, as noble Lords have attested this evening. Visit London, the former London Tourist Board, estimates that the capital’s tourism and hospitality industries are worth £15 billion a year, which is 17 per cent of the total £85.6 billion turnover of these industries across the UK. That shows how significant London is in this respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, rightly identified it as the crucial gateway. There were 26.2 million overnight visits to the capital in 2007 and an estimated 150 million tourism day trips, including 52 million people visiting London’s free and paying attractions.
I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee, that we look not only at overseas visitors when we consider London’s tourism role but at UK citizens, who visit London in very large numbers and need to be catered for adequately. These are big numbers, but as noble Lords have identified in this debate, London faces big challenges in an increasingly competitive world tourism market. We know how sharp the challenges are because our own people travel abroad more readily, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard. London needs to compete with the opportunities that British citizens take up elsewhere in the world.
Overseas visitor numbers increased by 3 per cent in 2007. We have to compare that with the 12 per cent rise in 2006, so there is no cause for complacency. The trend is for the numbers of domestic visitors staying overnight in the capital to fall, as they did by 7.5 per cent in 2007. Visit London has forecast a fall of 1 per cent in visitor numbers over 2008—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee—but we hope and indeed plan for the fact that the capital’s performance can buck that trend over the past year or so. The latest available figures show that the numbers of people visiting London’s tourist information centres increased by 12 per cent in February. That is a very positive sign, and indicates to the Government that there is no reason for gloom in the London industry. We do, however, need to look at the things that we can improve so that it can increase its advantages. Its advantages over its competitors in Europe and beyond have not gone away, and show no signs of doing so. The four world heritage sites—Greenwich, Kew Gardens, the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster—have been here for a considerable time and show every evidence of being a feature of the London tourist landscape for the foreseeable future. The retail sector in London generated sales of £4.4 billion last year—a significant number. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, emphasised London’s 26 Michelin-starred restaurants and nine major concert halls, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to our national museums and galleries, which are a major attraction for tourists to this country.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, emphasised the concern about business visitors. A London convention centre would certainly
6 May 2008 : Column 514
Let me say to wider parts of the United Kingdom, for I was glad that my noble friend Lord Harrison broadened the debate to stretch beyond London, that 2012 has to be not just about London but about spreading the benefits wider in the country. We expect that tourism businesses outside the capital will start to benefit from the increased interest in the Olympic Games.
I was chided in the debate for the limited progress, thus far, in selling the Games, but it is a little early given that we still have to complete the Beijing Olympics. We have not formally had the torch handed to London; that will happen with the emblem of the Olympics at the end of those Games. It is Beijing’s Olympics at present, but it will soon be London’s—and as soon as the banner is taken up then London will be required to begin to sell the Games, within the preparations of the next four years. I have not the slightest doubt that there will be co-operation between the Government, the mayor and, indeed, all other interested contributing parties—including industry and, particularly, the tourist industry in London—which are eager to play their parts in reaping the rewards from that quite unique opportunity.
Some of your Lordships suggested that we were not preparing the ground sufficiently well at present; the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, was concerned at the withdrawal of the hotel buildings allowances as part of the last Budget. That was part of a wider group of measures in that Budget designed to benefit small businesses, including hotels and restaurants. The new annual investment allowance will allow all businesses to claim full tax relief on capital investments of up to £50,000 a year, so I assure him that we have the interests of small businesses at heart. Those interests were part of the business considerations during the Budget, within which the hotel and restaurant industries are important.
I was delighted that we then came on to the question of skills. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, mentioned language skills; I think that other noble Lords did so too. It is not just language skills but that whole range of hospitality skills in which we would be perhaps prone to indicate that our skill levels, on many sides, compare poorly at times with other major centres. To take the most obvious aspect, the standard
6 May 2008 : Column 515
We need to raise skill levels, which is exactly why the Government have invested so significantly in skills. In 2006, the public sector spent about £500 million on skills, including regional development agency and Learning and Skills Council funding, compared to £144 million invested by employers. I bring the attention of the House to the Government’s determination—it is scarcely directly relevant to this debate, but related to the skills agenda—to improve vocational opportunities at secondary level in our schools and colleges. That is absolutely crucial to enhancing skill levels in this country. Undoubtedly, we will only make sufficient progress when we have raised those levels and are able to give the welcome that we should to visitors; noble Lords on all sides referred to that.
That welcome depends on the point of arrival, too, and there is no doubt either that Heathrow has to improve its performance, or that the fifth-terminal mishap was a limited one from which the airport will recover. It was costly, no question, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, indicated that the world was well aware of failures in that respect; however, the fifth terminal is an important and welcome addition to the airport. As a Government, we are clear that the third runway is important, too, for tourist development; the noble Lord leading for the Opposition this evening did not, I think, mention that position, but the third runway is important in access to this country. I was pleased that several noble Lords also emphasised the importance of rail links, with the development of St Pancras and the link with Europe it represents. That not only improves opportunities for people from Europe to come to the United Kingdom, but has brought benign effects on the carbon imprint.
We have not the slightest doubt that, to make a success of the tourist industry, we need to improve our transport infrastructure; yet, on all sides, we can see our railways improving apace with modernisation and the track improvements that guarantee faster rail travel in the UK. That, with the European Channel link, is an important dimension, but it does not alter the fact that we need to pay attention to our airports. For the foreseeable future, a large number of our tourists will come in by air.
This has been a most interesting and challenging debate. None of us underestimates the challenges facing the tourist industry. The Government are providing their support for an industry which is so important to the economy. Great opportunities beckon, not only in the obvious fact that London maintains its position as second only to New York in terms of a city to be visited. We all know that its range of attractions needs to be improved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is right about litter. Standards of cleanliness speak well of a city, but London’s are not high enough. There is a real problem about providing litter bins in these days of guaranteeing
6 May 2008 : Column 516
There are real challenges and the greatest of opportunities. The Olympic Games puts London on the map. I do not think that the country has realised yet what a prize we have secured. I understand those who have a limited interest in sport and those who think that the Olympics can be oversold—but not in terms of worldwide perception, they cannot. Once the Beijing Olympics are over, the focal point of the Olympic Games will be London. It gives us an enormous opportunity to advance tourism. I have not the slightest doubt that the Government will continue to play their full part with their partners to ensure that that opportunity is grasped.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, will the Minister give me some assurance on the completion of the merger of Terminals 2 and 3? If that is not completed on time, there will be a great deal of problems for the Olympics.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a matter for the airports authority. But I assure the noble Viscount that we expect improvements at Heathrow to be achieved within the timescale necessary. Everyone knows that timescale; namely, it has to be ready for 2012.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn until 8.35 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.35 pm.]
European Union (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendment No. 16 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 16A:
“(i) Article 1, paragraph 45, inserted Article 25a TEU, relating to the adoption of decisions on personal data, unless the Secretary of State has given an undertaking to Parliament that he will not vote in favour of, or otherwise support, any decision that requires the processing of personal data which does not contain standards and penalties relating to the reckless loss of data that are less onerous or exacting than any which are set by the United Kingdom Parliament, unless(a) in each House of Parliament a Minister of the Crown has moved a motion that the House approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of a specified draft decision, and(b) each House has agreed to the motion without amendment; and(ii) ”6 May 2008 : Column 517
The noble Lord said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 38. New provisions on the handling and sharing of data appear in several places in this treaty and since I have always believed that debates in this House are at their most constructive when we do not stray too widely, I would like to concentrate on data sharing and protection within the common foreign and security policy, and to look at how the new Article 25A is in danger of falling short of the new right in Article 16B to the protection of personal data. Many of my concerns and questions will be very similar to those that can be raised regarding the new provisions for police co-operation and so on, but there will be a better opportunity to examine those matters when we reach the amendments which are dealing with home affairs.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |