| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 523
the economic climate. As that economic climate improves--and the Budget will help that--so the tourist industry will benefit.Mr. Pendry : Once more, the hon. Gentleman shows that he is absolutely out of touch with reality. Those of us who have been in touch with people in the industry over the past few days since the Budget know that that is not the case. At best, many of them are saying that it is neutral. However, the Budget is certainly not welcomed.
During the decade in which the treacherous acts occurred, every sponsoring Department cut funding and reduced staffing levels at the BTA and ETB. Therefore, perhaps we should not have been surprised that the Chancellor did not do overmuch for the industry in his Budget. When the Chancellor was the Trade and Industry Minister responsible for tourism in 1983, he cut the grant to the BTA and the ETB. That resulted in 50 job losses.
In 1989, the current chairman of the Conservative party, then the Secretary of State for Employment, announced changes that resulted in 150 job losses. Now, in 1993, out of a total United Kingdom establishment in those boards of 340, 72 posts have been lost as a result of cuts in funding by the current patron of tourism--the Department of National Heritage.
The situation is bound to worsen this year and next unless the projected grants in aid to the ETB for 1994-95 and 1995-96 is restored to current levels. Any cut in funding to the ETB is bound to have a dramatic effect on the BTA. I accept the praise that the Minister heaped on the British Tourist Authority, but it is no use his playing one off against the other.
Both organisations have been inextricably linked for more than a decade through the establishment of common services departments. That relationship has had to change this year, with the BTA increasing its share of the common costs. If the funding for the ETB continues to decrease, it is obvious that the BTA will be forced to absorb the whole cost of common services--a cost which it cannot afford to bear. Those additional costs come on top of the reduced spending potential of the BTA's grant in aid following the devaluation of the pound. That will dramatically reduce the BTA's overseas spending capacity by, some say, up to 15 per cent., as most of its expenditure, as the Minister is aware, occurs overseas and is payable in local currency.
Even a Select Committee on Employment report in 1990 recommended that an increase in funding for the BTA's overseas marketing would produce significant returns. Without adequate resources for the BTA, the United Kingdom is unable to compete effectively for the international tourist trade. In 1991, Aruba--a small South American country in the Cayman islands --spent more on destination advertising in the USA than Britain. That is a disgrace.
The way in which tourism has been shunted around from Department to Department and from Minister to Minister has not helped to stabilise the industry or helped its morale problems, However, the buck now stops with the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage. He must carry the can from now on. To show the feeling out in the real world, I want to quote from an editorial in the latest publication of Travel GBI :
Column 524
"The government is supporting neither tourism in general, nor England in particular. No-one in Cabinet is fighting tourism's--or England's--corner. Ministers need to be made aware that the patience of the United Kingdom tourism industry is exhausted and that the time has come for action. Perhaps withdrawing Robert Key's invitation to British Travel Trade Fair, where he would bask in the reflected glory of a battered but still remarkably successful industry which neither he nor his colleagues have done anything to support, would be a start."I do not know whether that invitation has been withdrawn, but an invitation to that fair is winging itself to me as I speak. What are the major casualties of the current cuts? They include the elimination of the common services division set up by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) in 1983. I am told that its director and a number of staff have been made redundant, and were given five days to clear their desks. That is, of course, no way to behave towards staff who served tourism so loyally over the years. However, what is worse, they have taken with them a wealth of knowledge and experience, particularly in areas of information collection. Perhaps the Minister would inform the House whether the future of £2.5 million tourism database is secure.
Another casualty of the cuts has been the tourism resource library--a net revenue earner, and the only tourism reference resource if its kind in the country--which is invaluable to industry and educational bodies. The abolition of the post of resource manager threatens the continued publication of three widely used research reports. I understand that messages of concern are flooding into the boards in respect of the future of those reports. Will the Minister give the assurance that that fine service will not be eroded along with the jobs?
The tourism information centre network is one of the ETB's major achievements. It has taken 21 years to build it up, and it has been instrumental in spreading the benefits of tourism throughout the country. However, many at the ETB believe that the network cannot survive with so many of its team being made redundant. The loss of the BTA's product marketing department will affect the board's ability to stimulate the marketing campaigns which have so often generated a huge amount of free press coverage for Britain. The list that I could recount to the House of the important areas of activity that will be affected by Government cuts is indeed long. I hope that other hon. Members will deal with areas of concern other than those that I have highlighted. However, it is clearly absurd for the Secretary of State to maintain :
"the case is now much less strong for central Government funding of the promotion of tourism in England."--[ Official Report, 13 November 1992 ; Vol. 213, c. 997. ]
I know that Conservative Members, who perhaps are being rather loyal today, nevertheless share that view.
Is it any wonder that the staff of the English tourist board, who were not given the opportunity to contribute to the review to which the Minister referred, reached that conclusion and are at a loss to understand how the Government, who purport to support the tourist industry, can allow such destructive cuts to be made?
Is it not ironic that, at the time that the Government were announcing a reduction of £6 million in their funding to the English tourist board over the next three years, they managed to find £6 million to support an arts festival in celebration of the Prime Minister's uneventful presidency of the EC? Why were not the commercial friends of the
Column 525
Tory party asked to stump up that cash, instead of taking it from tourism? I bet that the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) and Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), who is not in his place, would have loved to see a slice of that money, as would other hon. Members from both sides of the House. It is amazing how easily the Government can abandon their commercial principles in such situations. The March edition of Holiday Which? graphically points out that the historical sights of Britain leave a lot to be desired, yet we have relied on the historical significance of those sights in the past to attract visitors. It is clear that there is an urgent need to face ever-increasing competition from abroad.As the Minister said, it was a welcome initiative of the English tourist board to launch its £650,000 campaign to promote English seaside resorts in 1992. It is vital that our domestic tourist market be promoted, but £650,000 is a relatively small figure when set against the £100 million which tour companies and overseas Governments spent last year in persuading Britons to holiday abroad. With the Minister commending the English tourist board's initiative, it is disgraceful that the Government turned down a request to give a mere £150,000--the same amount as that provided in 1992--for this year's initiative. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that matter and perhaps do something about matching those funds. Britain's tourist industry needs resources to develop its considerable potential for growth. Let us face it : how many potential areas of growth are there at present? The Government must invest more if Britain is to maintain its share of tourist receipts in the face of increasing competition from abroad--especially from the United States, France, Italy and Spain. While it is right and proper that Britain needs to spend substantial sums on promotion overseas to maintain the increasing incoming tourism to this country, it is equally important that the Government increase funding for the promotion of United Kingdom holidays to the domestic market, because it helps to create and maintain jobs and naturally has a positive effect on the balance of payments.
As Baroness Young pointed out in another place, the tourist industry is the fourth highest earner of invisible exports. Indeed, if restaurant and theatre earnings were included, tourism would be the highest invisible export earner. In 1991, invisible earnings grossed £109 billion, producing a surplus of £7.5 billion, compared with a £10.3 billion deficit on visibles.
Clearly, the cuts to the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority will not help the situation in future. Many small hoteliers do not have the clout to promote themselves in domestic or overseas marketplaces. Of course, the Government may well feel that the recent devaluation of sterling and the general recessionary pressures will camouflage the underlying problems of our tourist industry, but is it not ironic that the biggest boost to United Kingdom tourism comes from the Government's own economic failings? The proportion of overseas visitors to the United Kingdom is not all good news, either. Recent figures show that a high proportion of overseas visitors are here, as the Minister acknowledged, on business and not pleasure. One might surmise that they are foreign salesmen engaged in activities that will increase the United Kingdom's import bill. From any close analysis, it becomes abundantly clear that the economic potential of the tourism industry is not
Column 526
being realised, and that the United Kingdom's competitive performance is in decline, despite what the Minister said this morning.I hope that the Minister had an opportunity to read the fine publication from the National Economic Development Council's working party on competitiveness in tourism and leisure. That body gave an informative insight into the current state of the British tourist industry, which is perhaps why it was abolished in June 1992. Figures from the report highlighted the fact that the United Kingdom's share of world arrivals was the same in 1990 as it was in 1970. Indeed, the share in receipts generated from those arrivals declined from 6.1 per cent. in 1970 to 5.6 per cent. in 1990. [Interruption.] It is no good the Minister chuckling at those figures.
Mr. Key : That is an entirely false way of looking at those arguments. If one is looking at the massive development in the world market, it is not surprising in the least. The hon. Gentleman should address the fact that Britain remains one of the top six destinations in the world. He should be proud of that fact, not denigrate it.
Mr. Pendry : I will not give way too much to the Minister, who distorts the argument. I shall continue with my speech. I shall make a much more constructive speech than he gave.
According to the provisional figures issued by the World Tourism Organisation, the picture has worsened in 1991 with the United Kingdom's share of world arrivals falling to 3.7 per cent. while its share in receipts fell to 4.9 per cent.--
Mr. Brandreth : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Pendry : No, not again. I know that many hon. Members want to speak, including the hon. Gentleman.
Overall, investment in the tourist industry for the first half of 1992 declined by £2 billion compared with the same period in 1990. That is happening at a time when capital values for hotels have fallen dramatically throughout the country. A record number of hotels are in receivership. Soon, the banks will own more hotels than the major hotel chains.
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?
Mr. Pendry : No, I will not. One of the most significant reasons for the lack of investment and development in new tourist facilities is the withdrawal of section 4 grants to England in 1989. The Scottish and Welsh tourist boards operate with rather more help from central Government. They receive a constant level of grant in aid, as well as section 4 assistance. Also, the national boards for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have independent powers to market overseas : England does not.
I read in the current edition of Tourism Enterprise that, following a delegation to the Minister, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North said :
"When asked why it was that tourism in Scotland and Wales had maintained their funding levels whereas the ETB funding had been drastically cut",
the Minister allegedly said :
"they had a Minister batting for them".
If that is true, it is a disgracefully complacent remark. We had hoped that the Minister was batting for England when his colleagues were batting for their boards.
Column 527
Mr. Pendry : I am glad that the Minister is denying that. I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will put his own point of view if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister will address the remarks of William Davis, who said : "The Ministers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland clearly take a different view of the domestic market than the Department of National Heritage. In the next financial year, for example, Scotland and Wales will each receive almost as much money from the Government the ETB and the 11 English regions combined. It is a pity that there cannot be an agreement on a common policy."
I concur with that, because many regions of England are every bit as deserving of those grants as Scotland and Wales. There seems to be a clear lack of fairness and balance in the allocation of those grants. The Minister must address that imbalance, as there has been an increasing fragmentation of the tourist industry in recent years. If the United Kingdom is to improve its competitiveness, every organisation that is contributing an element of the total holiday experience must play its part. Mr. John Lee, who is a former Member of the House and a former tourist Minister, stressed, in an article in this month's Leisure Management, that he favoured an increasing partnership between the private sector, local authorities and the Government. If ever he was considered--rumour has it that he was--as a replacement for William Davis as chairman of the BTA and ETB, he blew it when he stated in that article :
"There is a clear need to convince government of the importance of increasing tourism funding, and that means making individual MPs more aware of the role of tourism in their own constituencies I have always argued for government to give more funds to the industry." He also shared a belief with the National Economic Development Council that a national body is needed to co-ordinate and bring the regional tourist boards together, ensure participation in national schemes and also lobby and advise Government on tourism in England.
Mr. Waterson : In his discussions with hoteliers and the like in his constituency or other constituencies, has the hon. Gentleman ever made clear to them the implications for their businesses of his support for the social chapter, the continuation of the wages councils and other anti- competitive measures which would effectively put many hoteliers out of business?
Mr. Pendry : I am amazed by that intervention. If the hon. Gentleman were to look at some of our competitor nations in Europe who have the social chapter and a minimum wage and at the graph in Holiday Which? this month, he would see that those nations are much more competitive than we are, even with those wage levels. Anyone can go to the Library and read that ; it is a fact.
Some local authorities within my region of the north-west are already working with the private sector to market and develop their tourist attractions, but, without adequate funding at national level, the regions cannot co-ordinate their efforts. The potential success of implementing a policy that pulls all the tourist attractions in a region together and selling that region to tourists across a wide range of attractions is clearly the way forward.
We really do live in a beautiful country, and we do undersell it. If one looks at the north-west, for example,
Column 528
where my constituency lies, we can see the North-West tourist board actively working closely with local authorities and the ETB to develop new tourist site opportunities, as well as infrastructure improvements on existing areas of interest.Let us take Blackpool. I am sure that, if the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will expand on the tourist industry in Blackpool. I understand that Blackpool is embarking on a scheme such as I have described. Blackpool council is working with Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Blackpool Leisure Co-operative-- two of the area's major private leisure industries. Blackpool football club is developing a super-stadium for not only its soccer team--which is not doing quite so well as it should at the moment--but for Pavarotti or Madonna concerts. It is also developing a new built-in hotel complex. Liverpool council is also working with the private sector and British Rail to provide visitors to the city with complete tourist packages. Those exciting developments, coupled with the natural beauty of the Pennine range and the nearby Lake district, should be expanded upon in a regional context, but we need an English tourist board with resources to bring them together within a national strategy.
While I am dealing with the north-west, and perhaps wearing the shadow Minister for Sport hat, I must ask how the Government can be committed to the Manchester 2000 bid and not develop the tourist industry to the full in that region. I can tell the Minister from my experience that the International Olympic Committee members, and particularly their wives, have to be sold a diverse and interesting package of tourist and leisure facilities alongside the sporting ones on offer.
Opposition Members and, I suspect, many Conservative Members believe that investment in Britain's tourist industry is vital. It may well be that the sun, sea and sand sightseeing tour which dominated the 1980s is in decline. The forms of tourism that are expected to grow faster in the next decade are cultural tourism, active sport-related tourism and rural tourism related to local crafts and products. Those forms of tourism can make Britain's climate less of a drawback and its historical heritage an even greater asset.
We need a tourist policy that takes advantage of the EC action plan, because it is chiefly in the context of regional development plans that EC funds can be accessed. The debate gives us all the opportunity to give the Government notice of the hon. Members who represent constituencies throughout the land want--indeed, they are determined to ensure that tourism is taken seriously and funded properly. I certainly welcome the Minister's statement that we shall now have an annual debate on tourist. The more debates we have the better. The tourism industry deserves nothing less.
10.44 am
Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale) : I begin by commenting on two of the points that my old friend the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) made. First, I associate myself with his welcome for the creation of the Department of National Heritage to embrace tourism. That seems a logical place to put tourism. In recent years, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have had too much of tourism being bandied from
Column 529
Department to Department simply because a Secretary of State felt that he did not have enough work to do or enough responsibility. That is no way to treat tourism.I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team are now looking after tourism within the context of their overall responsibility. However, I did not agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Budget. It is appropriate that the debate on tourism comes in the middle of the wider debates on the Budget in which the House is engaged. The Budget has been warmly welcomed by many people, especially people in the tourist industry, who largely own small businesses.
I quote as an example a letter that I received, funnily enough, only yesterday from the chairman and managing director of one of Lake district's largest hotel groups. He said :
"On a personal note, I thought the Chancellor's budget was strategically very sound for the long term interests of the country."
To demonstrate his impartiality, he followed that up by saying : "This is the first kind thing I have said these last 3 years of either him or his predecessor."
The Budget was good for the tourist industry.
Of course, I am principally interested in the tourism industry in the Lake district, which I have supported for many years in the House and about which I have spoken on many occasions. It is by far the most important industry in the Lake district. It involves 40,000 jobs directly and indirectly, and has a turnover of £364 million. The Budget has been warmly welcomed. That comes on top of the welcome given to the abolition of the wages councils. The various VAT concessions in the Budget are warmly welcomed. So, too, are the new arrangements for capital gains tax, which will be helpful to many of my constituents.
The third particularly welcome factor is the freezing of transitional help with the uniform business rate. That has been warmly welcomed. However, in that context, I wish to make a point that is not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage. I shall take it up in the next day or two with the Treasury. However, I should like my hon. Friend to look into the problem, which I regard as serious. It is summed up in a letter that I was handed literally on my way to the Chamber this morning. It is from one of the largest firms of chartered surveyors, which is a specialist hotel rating valuer in the north of England. The firm, which is based in Leeds, expressed to me its serious anxiety about the way in which its appeals against rating assessments, in the hotel industry in particular, are being dealt with in Cumbria. First, it refers to the delays at the Cumbria valuation offices. The letter states :
"We had a period of 18 months when the valuer who had dealt with hotel business rating was taken off that work to carry out Council Tax work and in that period, no progress was made."
The revaluations have caused my constituents great difficulties and for their appeals to be delayed in that way is very serious. I apologise for raising this subject in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), but the same firm has brought another factor to my attention. The letter states : "The Lake District rateable values represent a disproportionate comparison with potential trade, and as compared to other areas such as York and Harrogate where we have successfully obtained reductions of between 25 per cent. and
Column 530
50 per cent. of rateable values, the Valuation Office in the Cumbrian area seems not to be prepared to listen to logical and realistic argument."I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that those are serious allegations and that they are harmful to the tourist industry. I hope that, with me, he will look into them with the Treasury.
Mr. Key : My right hon. Friend will recall that I had the honour of serving as a Minister with responsibility for local government finance and I understand the importance of those issues and the way in which they can, we hope, be sorted out. I will draw those important matters to the attention of the Minister responsible for local government and I very much hope that a solution will be found.
Mr. Jopling ; The Minister is exceptionally helpful. Finally, perhaps my hon. Friend might be good enough to take up, or bear in mind, a third matter that has been drawn to my attention by the samefirm, which told me that some people in the hotel industry are payintoo much. The letter says"but what I am also concerned about are the people that do not seek professional advice and I am finding in many cases are paying far more in rates than should be necessary."
That is a serious matter, which causes me a great deal of concern. In an admirable opening speech, the Minister said that the tourist industry is fiercely competitive, and so it is. Countries throughout the world are spending huge budgets to try to entice tourists. We know how popular foreign travel is becoming. We also know that, with the coming of the channel tunnel, more of our citizens are likely to be tempted into the delights of foreign travel, which will put pressure on our domestic tourist industry. Small fragmented businesses--many family controlled--face the problem of massive bills for publicity, which is essential for the success of the tourist industry.
I speak for all of the north of England, and I believe that a massive publicity effort is essential to publicise the region. I am frequently amazed that so many people in London and the south of England have a negligible knowledge of the north of England. Too often, overseas tourists and many of our citizens spend time visiting London, Stratford, and perhaps Oxford and Cambridge, but then take a jump up to Edinburgh, ignoring the north of England.
I shall give two examples of what they are missing. I am astonished at how few people in this country are aware of Durham, which is one of the almost unknown glories of England. Anyone who has been there never forgets it. Also, few people know the English Lake district where, as the House knows, we have one of the world's greatest heritage sites. Apart from the beauties of the lakes and mountains, there is the rich heritage of Wordsworth, De Quincey, Coleridge, Ruskin, Beatrix Potter and Arthur Ransome, to meet all tastes. I do not need to explain that to the Secretary of State, whose knowledge, interest and participation in the Lake district is so well known --especially his active participation in Dove cottage, the old Wordsworth home.
How are those massive and essential publicity schemes to be financed by businesses that are generally small and family run? That question demonstrates why the role of the regional tourist boards is so vital. Cumbria is well served by the Cumbria tourist board, which does a fine job under the presidency of our old friend Willie Whitelaw and the chairmanship of Mrs. Sheila Hensman. They get only
Column 531
one quarter of their £1.8 million budget from the Government and the rest is raised locally, so there is no question of the Cumbria tourist board lying back and expecting the Government to do everything for it.I welcomed the Secretary of State's statement that central Government support for the regional tourist boards will be maintained, as that is essential and it is not as though the Government are supporting everything. They are making a vital, minority contribution and most of the money is being raised locally. What concerns me is that the continuation of such support is likely to denude the English tourist board of much of the budget that it needs to do all the other things besides supporting regional tourist boards.
I have been told that as a consequence of the new arrangements, the budget of the English tourist board, after it has financed the regional tourist boards, will be reduced from about £8 million to about £2 million. I know that many of my constituents are worried--they have told me so--about the effects of such a large reduction in the activity of the English tourist board. Again, I shall quote from a letter that I received yesterday from the chairman of one of the largest hotel groups in the Lake district. Speaking of the importance of the English tourist board he says :
"Because of this fragmentation"--
of the industry--
"it is vital that there is a central' organisation to look at standards ; education and training ; product development". I am alarmed about the reduction in available money, but, above all, my constituents are outraged about the issue on which the Minister was kind enough to give way to me during his speech--the totally dispropotionate amount of money that will be available to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the financial year 1995-96. They can see no justice in the English tourist board getting £9 million from central Government when Wales gets £13.8 million, Scotland £14.2 million and Northern Ireland £11.5 million. It has been suggested, for example by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, that the reasons for the discrepancy are that the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are more enthusiastic and vigorous in their support for tourism, and my hon. Friend the Minister did not dispel my suspicions in his reply to my intervention. That simply will not do. There is no reason to treat England in a niggardly way. I hope that the Government will look at the matter again, because my constituents see no reason whatever for such disparities.
10.59 am
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : I am about to be interrupted by the forthcoming statement, but I shall start. I welcome this opportunity to raise an issue that has caused me some concern since last summer, when one of my constituents visited my surgery. It is the issue of holiday insurance, especially as it relates to coverage for accidents and illness abroad. Ironically, by raising the matter, I may do something for the home tourist industry, which is obviously important. I shall disgress slightly.
It being Eleven o'clock, Madam Speaker-- interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).
Column 532
Liquor Licensing
11 am
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) for interrupting her speech.
With permission, I should like to make a statement. I am today publishing a consultation document inviting comments on a number of proposals for possible further changes to the liquor licensing laws of England and Wales.
It is nearly five years since the Government's last substantial reform of this area of the law took effect. The Licensing Act 1988 allowed public houses and other bars to stay open on weekday afternoons and for an extra hour on Sunday lunchtimes. It also introduced certain other procedural reforms and tightened up the law on under-age drinking. That measure is generally regarded as a success.
In keeping with the Government's step-by-step approach to reform in this area, the time is now right to consider what further changes are desirable to ensure that licensing laws are kept up to date. The first of the proposals in my consultation paper is the replacement of the absolute discretion that the licensing justices currently enjoy over the grant of most licences. I propose that the only grounds on which such applications might be refused in future should be specified in statute, as has been the case in Scotland for well over a decade. This change should, I believe, make the licensing process clearer for all those involved with it, and also more consistent in its application throughout the country.
The grounds on which an application for a licence might be refused are set out for comment in detail in the consultation paper. Briefly, they concern the suitability of the applicant to hold the licence, the suitability of the premises for the purpose for which they are intended and whether the use of the premises for the sale of drink is likely to cause public nuisance or a threat to public order and safety.
We will also consider the important issue of whether under any new arrangements the licensing justices should continue to have the power to refuse new licences because, in their view, there are already sufficient licensed premises in that particular locality, and therefore no need for a new one.
I appreciate that this is a question on which strong opinions are held on both sides. My consultation paper sets out for comment the arguments for and against the inclusion of any "need" criterion among the grounds for refusing a licence. The Government have not yet made up their mind either way on this issue, and will consider very carefully the responses to this section of the consultation paper. The second proposal is the introduction in England and Wales of a system of children's certificates for the bars of licensed premises similar to that which came into operation in Scotland in January 1991. This would permit, after a successful application to the licensing justices by the licensee, the admission of accompanied young children under 14 years of age into suitable bar premises in certain defined circumstances--for example, for a family meal--and then only up until, say, 8 o'clock in the evening. These arrangements have worked well in Scotland, and it is time to consider their introduction south of the border.
Column 533
Coupled with this is a third proposal for the introduction of a new category of licence which would authorise the sale of alcoholic drinks in cafe -style premises, without a bar counter, provided that food and non-alcoholic drinks were on sale at the same time. Accompanied young children ought, we think, to be allowed into such premises, but again perhaps only up to a set time in the evening. The Government would welcome views on both the principle and the detail of these proposals, which are aimed at providing greater choice for the customers of licensed premises, particularly families with young children. They should also encourage competition and generally higher standards of provision for customers, assist the tourist industry and help to promote the further development of premises for civilised moderate consumption of alcohol, instead of heavy drinking.I must emphasise that, although these proposals envisage greater access by accompanied children to licensed premises than is now permitted by law, the Government have absolutely no intention of relaxing the prohibition on the sale of alcohol to young people under 18, and their consumption of it in the bars of licensed premises. The final proposal set out in the consultation paper is the abolition of the Welsh Sunday opening polls, following any which might be called in 1996. Only one Welsh district is now dry on Sunday, and the Government believe these polls have become increasingly anachronistic, as well as unjustifiably costly. This is, I am glad to say, essentially a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
I am asking that comments on all the matters set out for consultation in the paper, other than those simply concerned with the Welsh polls, be sent to the Home Office by 30 June this year. Comments on the future of the Welsh polls should be sent direct to the Welsh Office by the same date.
Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield) : I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. Does he accept that, as in Scotland, there must be rigorous controls on the granting of children's certificates? Does he agree that their purpose is to allow families to enter pubs together, not to encourage children to drink? Given the enormous problem of under-age drinking in Britain and the link with crime, will he endorse and implement his Department's proposals, set out almost six years ago, to prevent under-age drinking?
How many cafe bars have been licensed in Scotland? Does he recognise that the success of cafe bars abroad is at least as much due to the habits and traditions of the countries as to their licensing laws? Potentially, the most far-reaching part of the statement is the proposal canvassed in the White Paper to remove the criterion applied by licensing justices of "public need" when deciding whether to grant a licence.
I entirely agree that there should be much greater consistency in the granting of licenses, and that the criterion of public need should not be used simply to fortify a local monopoly or to deprive local consumers of choice. However, I should like to offer the Minister a strong counsel of caution in this area.
First, does he not understand that, in abandoning an
anti-competitive view of public need, he should not abandon the whole notion of public interest? There may be
Column 534
good reasons--to do with disturbance to local residents, the character of a town or village or the dangers of trouble and difficulties of policing--to limit the number of pubs. The interests of local people should not be cast aside simply in the commercial interests of those who want to open more public houses.Secondly, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the problem in many parts of the country is not the number of pubs that want to open and are prevented from doing so by the licensing laws, but the number of pubs that are closing and being boarded up? Does he accept that, whatever the motivation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of three years ago, when the brewers had to sell off pubs, last year was the first year since 1960 that the number of licensed premises fell? There are now 2,000 fewer pubs than there were in 1989, and there is a greater concentration of ownership. Does the Home Secretary agree that the practical consequences of his proposals should be their test? Will he comment specifically on recent reports from Australia that deregulation has led to lower standards and a spate of liquidations? If regulations on the numbers of pubs are relaxed and families use pubs more often, as many want to do, is there not a powerful case for that to be balanced by a much stronger and better defined criterion of a fit and proper person to hold a licence? Is it not high time that some form of structured training and qualifications were demanded along with the licence? These important proposals can dramatically affect the leisure of our people and the culture of our country. Will the Home Secretary ensure that they are subject to genuine and open consultation, going far wider than the vested interests simply of the industry concerned, so that the right decisions in the public interest are taken?
Mr. Clarke : I agree with the hon. Gentleman about under-age drinking. Our proposals must be accompanied by continued stringency to avoid under-age drinking. We are talking about encouraging families to have access to premises in suitable circumstances, where the licensed justices agree that the environment is a suitable one for families to gather in. It could be argued that we could help to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse by introducing children to the moderate consumption of alcohol in civilised settings and more up-to-date circumstances in the company of their families. About 1,000 cafe -style licences have already been granted in Scotland, and the innovation appears to be a success. Many people in this country are accustomed, when abroad, to being able to consume alcohol in a variety of circumstances, not just British pubs. Many foreign visitors to this country are perplexed at the narrow range of premises where alcohol is available. It is worth looking to see whether we should follow the Scottish precedent.
I share the caution of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about whether need should be taken into account when granting licences. I accept that we must canvass carefully and ensure that we protect any legitimate public interest when deciding whether to open new premises. We must be certain that the licence holder is a fit and suitable person, and I will consider the suggestion that we should define the role carefully.
We must ensure that the premises are suitable in every way--that includes considering the impact on the surrounding area of the premises to be licensed. Public
| Next Section
| Home Page |