House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Jul 1993

Mrs. Lait : Another horror of the licensing laws is that if an hotelier or innkeeper wishes to change the shape of his bar, he must get permission from the licensing justices.

Mr. Evans : That is another rule which places an unnecessary burden on businesses, in terms of both cost and time. Those running businesses must leave the

Column 616

business to sort out the matter at the local town hall, and we all know how long that can take. The business person's time could be better spent.

I contacted the owner of a restaurant in my constituency, the Inn and Whitewell, which the hon. Member for Burnley probably knows well. The restaurant owner believes that the law on refrigeration of cheeses is a disaster because it ruins good cheeses. He said that processed cheeses carry listeria but traditional natural cheeses, such as Stilton and brie, lose much of their taste when taken straight from the fridge. He also said that the European Community is in the process of considering a law requiring all foodstuffs to be transported in refrigerated vehicles. An hon. Member has already mentioned smoked salmon being sent by post. That, too, may be covered by that regulation.

Another law will require restaurants to give a customer a clean glass whenever a drink is poured, even if the customer wants to keep his old glass. Again, should we consider such a regulation and employ officers to enforce it? It would be better to take a common-sense approach to the introduction of new rules and regulations. Sometimes existing regulations are unused. For example, the long measure is illegal in this country. Under that silly rule, someone who pours more than a pint of beer could be prosecuted. It should be discarded.

The European Community has decided that beaches awarded its blue flag of excellence must deny access to all four-legged animals. I understand what is behind that rule, but it will mean the end of donkey rides, which have brought great happiness to many generations, and future generations should not be denied access to that wonderful entertainment on our beaches.

Mr. Hendry : Guide dogs would also be denied access.

Mr. Evans : My hon. Friend is right. Should people be denied access to donkey rides simply because of that regulation? We must have a common- sense interpretation of such rules and regulations. I am delighted that this debate is taking place. When scrapping May day, we should consider creating deregulation day on 9 July to celebrate the fact that this debate has taken place. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister, and wish him well in his efforts to bring about deregulation.

12.25 pm

Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : This has been an interesting debate. I have great respect for the Minister and I hope that he will remain in his position for a while so that we can hear about the progress that he makes on the regulations in the tourist industry, which many of his hon. Friends feel are farcical.

However, we would pay close attention in our own homes to many of the rules and regulations that have been mentioned this morning, especially those involving appliances. When people go to hotels we must consider the fact that they will not know the layout and we must ensure that equipment that they may need to use is safe. It is so easy to knock authorities, at whatever level, for introducing regulations but we must look at the matter closely before making changes.

In the previous debate on tourism last March, I spoke about London local authorities' concern about their representation on the board of the London Forum. A little

Column 617

progress has been made since March. I understand that two representatives from London authorities will sit on the board of the London Forum. However, many local authorities, irrespective of which party controls them, feel that they will not be adequately represented in a role which they have sought to expand for many years--the development of tourism in London.

The Minister may be in a position today to comment on the fact that, as I understand it, the London boroughs grants committee is still not represented on the board of the London Forum. If he cannot do so today, perhaps the Minister will write to me about that. As we have heard many times this morning, there must be proper representation on, and co- ordination between the London Forum, the London tourist board and London local authorities. I think that I am the first London Member to be called in the debate and I do not think that even the Minister made much reference to London.

I realise that in a debate such as today's it is always open to hon. Members to say that this district or that district was not mentioned, but we must not lose sight of the fact that London is one of the great tourist attractions in the United Kingdom. I agree that there are many other attractions, but London must be high on the list of places that people want to visit when they come to the United Kingdom. Evidence proves that London boroughs have played an extremely supportive role in seeking to develop tourism in London. I hope that we shall hear the Minister's views on how London is represented. I am sure that Conservative Members who represent London would also like to receive some answers on that issue.

This morning, the Minister stated that tourism is big business in terms of money spent and numbers of visitors. I sometimes feel that the tourism industry has become a rip-off. The expensive prices charged for hotels and meals in London has been mentioned. High prices may also apply in other parts of the country. Until last November, I had been for three years the treasurer of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It was my job as treasurer to sign the cheques for the bills for hotel accommodation, meals and other expenses incurred by the British group when overseas delegations came to London. I was able to see how the hotel charges were calculated.

Despite repeated attempts by the staff of the IPU--to whom I give great credit--to ask the management of well-known London hotels whether they would give them, as good customers, a favourable rate, they received no help. They told the hotel management that there was not a one-off business transaction and that, in the course of the year, they would bring many people to London to stay at the hotels. However, they never received a favourable response and the hotel management never said, "As you are good customers, we shall give you a favourable rate which will benefit both you and us as it will ensure your continuing custom."

Employees of the hotel and tourist industry in London and, I am sure, in other parts of the country, work long hours. Their work is often seasonal. I have asked people who work in both the hotel and tourist industry about their conditions and salaries. They are certainly not overpaid ; I do not believe that they are even reasonably

Column 618

paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned the abolition of the wages councils. We know that a gulf divides opinion in the House on that subject.

Those of us who are members of the Council of Europe, travel to Europe fairly often and stay in European hotels know that the fears screamed about by the British Government and Conservative Members are not realised in Europe, where such a policy does not put people out of work or drive businesses out of business. Funnily enough, our competitors in Europe are able to apply a minimum wage. Why can they have such a policy while we cannot? We do not even allow people who want to adopt that policy to do so, in the hope that, as other organisations see the benefits to be gained from paying proper wages and operating proper working conditions, they will follow the lead. While the tourist industry obviously brings benefits, it also brings problems. One only has to look around the Houses of Parliament to see those problems. One does not have to be a London Member to know what the problems are. In the debate on this subject in March, I mentioned the enormous numbers of coaches that come to this part of London. There is still no adequate parking for them, and, despite our representations to the Department of Transport and local authorities, there has never been any clear recognition that this is a problem which must and will be tackled. Large, modern coaches continue to park in bus lanes and side streets, often for hours on end. Something must be done about that. In the many years of this Government's term of office there has been little evidence to show that they are willing to tackle this sort of problem.

Tourists and residents of London all want an efficient public transport system that is safe to use and reasonably priced. Despite all the problems- -imposed by the Government--that London Transport has had to put up with, and despite the savage cuts in investment programmes experienced by the London bus and underground network, London Transport has managed to build up a good system. This debate, however, is about deregulation, and London Members know that high on the priority list for privatisation come the London bus service and London's transport system generally, which is to be deregulated. [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."] It is interesting to hear those roars of approval from Conservative Members.

Mr. Raynsford : None of them comes from London.

Mr. Cox : Even so, one assumes that many of them make use of London's public transport while they are here. I have a question for them : what surveys have been carried out to determine public opinion? How many people in the 32 Greater London boroughs have been asked for their views on the deregulation of transport services in London? We hear a great deal of talk from the Government about the citizens charter, about making the voice of the people heard and about ensuring that the Government respond to that voice. Earlier this morning, we heard Conservative Members saying that, despite the problems in their constituencies, the powers that be do not listen. I do not dispute the fact that there are problems in Conservative constituencies, but those who roar their approval of deregulation should ask themselves how much consultation has taken place with the people of London. There has been none--

Mr. Nigel Evans : What about the general election?

Column 619

Mr. Cox : The hon. Gentleman has not been in this place long. We are not so naive as to think that the manifesto, which contains hundreds of little comments, covers the point. During the general election campaign, Conservative candidates in London certainly made no attempt to bring up the issue, which the hon. Gentleman claims was in the manifesto. His senior colleagues, spokesmen and spokeswomen for the party in London, did not want to raise the issue or commit themselves to it. They did not try to find out what the people of London thought about it.

What will happen to London's transport system? There are now some outer- London Members in the Chamber. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has received scores of letters and cards of the type that my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and I have received saying, "Protect the travelcard. We do not want to lose it."

The travelcard is extremely popular with London tourists because London Transport has given it great publicity. Research shows that about 75 per cent. of all overseas visitors to London make use of that card. That is because it offers great benefits. It not only takes people to places in central London to see the shops and visit the theatre, but allows them to travel to attractive outer London areas. People like to visit parks such as Richmond and Wimbledon or Kew gardens. When we visit countries overseas, we like to visit similar places.

The research showed that visitors did not like to have to fiddle with coins when paying the fare on the bus, the underground or the train. I am sure that all of us who have visited countries in which we cannot speak the language and do not understand the currency do not want to have to fiddle to find the correct sum to pay for a journey. That is the great benefit of travelcards.

We have not been given any assurance about how the travelcard will be protected. Many visitors to London make use of that card, as London tourist board research has clearly shown. The Minister spoke about developing tourism in London, so I hope that we shall hear more about that.

The London tourist board made representations to the Department of Transport after the publication of a paper called "A Bus Strategy for London" in March. The board said :

"Visitors and residents alike need an efficient transport network which provides for access into and out of London and for ease of travel in London, whether by rail, bus, taxi or coach. It should be efficient, reliable, and provided at reasonable cost. A network approach which allows for transfer between bus, underground and British Rail using a single ticket, is essential in a complex city like London."

That view by the London tourist board sums it up. I do not think that any hon. Member would say, "Do not take too much notice of them because they are not really representative." We hope that we shall hear a little more about that today, or perhaps in correspondence. There are other aspects. London Transport has set up an excellent information service. One can go not only to London tourist board offices but to London Transport offices and quickly get understandable information packs about the services provided. I am sure that when we go abroad, we want something similar. The packs give useful information such as where to board buses and what is required for every destination, and similar information

Column 620

about underground trains and British Rail. What will happen to that service under the deregulation proposals for public transport in London?

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) naively said that the pledge was in the manifesto. Tory Members claim that everything can be left to the private operators, who will work together to ensure that operator A knows what operators B, C and D are doing, whatever they may be called and whatever routes they may be operating, so there will be no problem. I do not believe that for one minute, and neither do the people who have been running London Transport for many years or the people involved in the tourist industry in London. We all know that if the new operators do not come together there will be congestion and chaos. Already, London has enormous traffic problems. Unless the current system developed by London Transport and British Rail is protected, I and many other hon. Members, the people who live in London and the people who come to London often and know it well, believe that there will be utter chaos. I hope that we shall hear a little more about that.

There are famous images in many parts of the country. People come here and say, "I have always seen or heard about this or that." Nothing highlights that point more than the London red bus. People who have never been here before, who have come from distant parts of the world, say the moment that they arrive, "Ah ! There's a London bus." We all know that London's red buses are famous as tourist attractions in other parts of the world. All of that will be done away with.

Often--this goes back to an earlier point--one Department does not know what another is hoping to do. Those of us who take part in transport debates put those points to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Minister for Transport in London. He said, "We are not sure about that. We hope that, once deregulation comes about, the new operators will be willing to preserve the London red bus."

Mr. Tony Banks : My hon. Friend is on to a crucial and interesting point. He knows that companies spend vast amounts of money creating a corporate image, and that changing one is a big decision. The red bus is one of those things that people recognise as being part of London. There will not be red buses if deregulation comes in. Already, different coloured buses are appearing on the streets. My hon. Friend might like to mention the black cab. New York is characterised by its yellow cabs. More and more of London's black cabs are disappearing as they are covered in advertisements. Again, London is losing an international mark of recognition that has long been so important to it.

House acknowledge the significance of the London red bus. It will be interesting to hear the comments of Conservative Members who represent London constituencies [Interruption.] I did not hear the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), but if he wants me to give way, I shall willingly do so.

Mr. Hendry : The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to hear the comments of Conservative Members--but the way he is going on, we shall not have a chance to speak.

Column 621

Mr. Cox : I made only one intervention, but the hon. Gentleman made several early in the debate. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament for any length of time know that if one jumps up and down like a yo-yo, one cannot complain if one is not called to speak. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament long enough to know our procedures. If he chooses to intervene on his Minister to score local press points, he should not expect an automatic right to be called later. The hon. Gentleman should give some thought to his general performance in such debates.

In such a debate, hon. Members raise various points of particular interest to them, and rightly so. That is what the House is about. Although the constituency that I represent does not have a large tourism industry, as do the constituencies of certain other hon. Members, other aspects of it are of crucial importance to my own. I have tried to highlight some of them. What is to happen to the travelcard and to the availability of concise information about the traffic systems that will operate after deregulation?

As to the future of the London red bus, hon. Members in all parts of the House know that, with hindsight, the Government would have introduced strict and tough regulations for those who took over industries that were privatised in the past. Any Government have the right, especially in the privatisation of state assets, to tell those who are to take over, "We are prepared to consider your bids, but we will impose conditions that you will be required to observe." The President of the Board of Trade might argue, "That would kill off the incentive. Potential bidders would not be interested in taking on the operation on those terms." We know that that is not the case. Operators have made so much money from past privatisations that they would willingly have taken them on even if certain conditions had been attached.

I hope that the Minister will have a chat with the Secretary of State for Transport and with the hon. Member for Epping Forest and tell them that the red bus has a fundamental role to play in the image of London and for the people who visit it. The Government must ensure that those who seek to run a deregulated bus service in London undertake that the red bus will continue to be part of London's traffic scene. If that opportunity is lost, it will have gone for ever, and enormous annoyance will be caused to Londoners and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West is even better qualified than I to talk of Londoners' reaction to the denial of their right to express their views about the development of county hall.

I hope that the Minister will impress on his colleagues the need to ensure that the London red bus will continue to run on London's streets, whichever organisations or individuals manage London's transport after deregulation.

12.55 pm

Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East) : I am pleased that we are debating tourism for the second time in five months. I especially welcome the emphasis on deregulation, which allows me to express some concern on behalf of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). My hon.

Column 622

Friend has asked to be associated with my comments ; a heavy programme of constituency engagements prevents him from being present.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his return to his old job, which has not been mentioned so far. [Hon Members :-- "Yes, it has."] I shall mention it now in any case. My hon. Friend carried out the same duties with considerable flair and dynamism more than 10 years ago, and today's robust speech demonstrated that he has not changed a bit. However, he may not welcome my reminding him of a parliamentary answer that he gave me on July 1982 in response to anxieties that I had expressed, along with other hon. Members representing coastal resorts. He said then that grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 should no longer be tied to assisted areas, but should henceforth be distributed throughout the whole of England according to tourism need.

That far-sighted policy undoubtedly helped many seaside resorts, including my own, to resist the decline of the traditional British seaside holiday. As other hon. Members have pointed out, it enabled hotels and guest houses to upgrade their facilities, and helped resorts to improve their attractions and extend their seasons to withstand the competition from better, cheaper and hotter continental rivals. In Bournemouth, for example, more than 50 investment generating projects worth over £8 million were launched with section 4 grants worth one tenth of that figure.

I know that my hon. Friend is well aware of the widespread and continuing disappointment felt by the tourist industry about the abandoning of the section 4 scheme four year ago. The plug was pulled at exactly the wrong time--at the beginning of a recession that has hit the south coast, in particular, harder than any of its predecessors.

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh) : Unfortunately, I cannot stay until the end of the debate. Following my hon. Friend's reference to the south coast, I take this opportunity to inform my hon. Friend the Minister of an exciting new project in my constituency. A heritage centre is being constructed to celebrate the area's railway and aviation history. I know that those two subjects are dear to my hon. Friend's heart ; perhaps he will find time to visit my constituency during the next six months, and to consider how his Department could help further the project.

Mr. Atkinson : That interesting intervention reminds me of the problems that we are experiencing in trying to restore Bournemouth's central station to reflect its Victorian heritage. We are seeking grants from the Department of the Environment and elsewhere. I wish my hon. Friend well with his constituency's railway project. The forthcoming National Lottery Etc. Bill will enable such projects to apply for funds. Without modest Government encouragement and pump-priming help of that kind, a growing number of hotels and guest houses have turned to other methods outside tourism to survive. Many have become rest or retirement homes for the elderly. That shift represents a permanent loss of beds for visitors which must mean, in due course, a permanent loss of visitors.

Now there is a new concern, which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) referred to earlier and

Column 623

which was articulated so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) in his Adjournment debate on 26 February and on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and myself have been making representations to the Minister.

I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the fact this morning that smaller hotels and guest houses are now becoming bed-and- breakfast hotels for social security claimants. It is becoming big business, to the extent that companies are advertising in inner cities for claimants to come and live and claim on the south coast. Instead of attracting holidaymakers, with money to spend that sustains local economies on which many thousands of jobs are based, we are attracting only those with little money to spend. The effect of that trend, if unchecked, will be to turn decline into decay. I was encouraged to hear, as was Bournemouth borough council, that my hon. Friend the Minister is making representations to the Department of the Environment for the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 to be amended to allow local authorities to exercise a degree of control over the decline. As the now reconfirmed champion of the English tourist industry, will the Minister reconsider including England in the scope of section 4 grants for all the good reasons that justified his initiative in July 1982? The increase in competition arising from the single European market this year and the opening of the channel tunnel next year add to the case for including England in that scope.

Despite all the difficulties that have faced our seaside resorts, I share my hon. Friend the Minister's optimism for the future. Holidaymakers from this country and abroad will still get great value for money from our small, owner-run hotels, certainly in Bournemouth. Our local authorities should ensure that visitors obtain value for money from local visitor attractions and facilities. A tourist can be ripped off only once ; they will never come back again. A can of Coke that costs 60p on Bournemouth beach can only be described as a rip off.

I welcome the Government's new determination to eliminate all unnecessary regulations and frustrations by enterprise initiatives in tourism, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) reminded us. We have been in this situation before with the 1985 White Paper, "Lifting the Burden" which did much to help hotels and other businesses. We have relaxed the liquor licensing laws, abolished the wages councils and introduced the seaside resorts campaigns all in response to the demands of industry.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this opportunity to review the gaming laws to bring them into line with those on the continent. While it is small in comparison with many other countries, the British casino industry generates some £2 billion worth of business a year, much of which, of course, goes to the Exchequer in taxes. Yet section 12 of the Gaming Act 1968 imposes a 48-hour rule that prevents members of other clubs from enjoying the facilities of clubs in areas that they may be visiting for a limited period. No such restrictions apply to members of social, drinking, Conservative or Labour clubs who visit clubs in other areas, providing that they show their affiliation card and abide by the local club rules. I ask the Minister to look into the restriction of opportunities in the gaming industry.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the working of the six-bed qualification for business rates for

Column 624

bed-and-breakfast establishments that replaced the 100-day rule and I ask him to suggest a simpler calculation based on the number of weeks in the year that businesses open for trade. That was the old system under the old commercial rates ; it worked well and better than the present system.

Now that the principle of subsidiarity has been firmly established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I hope that, as other hon. Members have said, we shall see an end to the many unnecessary Community-imposed regulations on tourism. For example, it is nonsense to require trading standards officers to investigate those who advertise Dorset cream teas to ensure that they do not serve them with pump-action UHT cream.

Unfortunately, one of the proposals in the "Lifting the Burden" White Paper, which could have been of enormous assistance to small buisnesses and not simply to the tourism industry, has not been achieved yet. That proposal was to negotiate increased flexibility in the European Community to raise the VAT threshold above the rate of inflation.

Lifting the requirement for businesses to register for VAT to an annual turnover of £100,000 a year would relieve tens of thousands of small businesses in the tourism industry and elsewhere of the considerable burden of administering VAT without any loss of revenue to the Exchequer because of the departmental savings that would be made in administration costs.

I hope that the White Paper proposals published recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, on the future of funding of the police, will see an end to the burden on conference towns and their police authorities in respect of bearing the entire costs of policing and providing security for party conferences. The Lancashire police authority will face a bill of more than £2 million this year as a result of the Conservative party conference in Blackpool in October. Dorset will face a similar bill next year. There will be considerable extra expense for the Blackpool local authority this year and for Bournemouth local authority next year as a result of that policing. It is totally unreasonable for local council taxpayers to bear the cost of protecting our national leaders in that way. I hope that the forthcoming changes in funding the police will reflect that situation.

1.6 pm

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich) : This debate is timely and appropriate and it is right that every hon. Member who has spoken stressed the importance of tourism to Britain and to the national economy. It is certainly not a Mickey Mouse industry. I was slightly perturbed by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) that Disneyland was a model for tourism. That was not a very well-advised comment to make from an economic point of view bearing in mind the current situation of Euro Disney. I for one do not relish the idea of this country being festooned with more synthetic plastic theme parks when we have quite enough genuine and decent tourist attractions to bring people to this country and for them to enjoy. As a country, we have a considerable range of tourist attractions. We have wonderful landscape, beautiful cities and towns and many historic sites. We also have great art collections. We have a huge variety of elements which will

Column 625

bring people to this country and will cause people in Britain to visit other parts of the country. We should focus on those assets and make the most of them.

Some emphasis has been placed on the number of tourists coming to Britain. I believe that there is a danger of complacency. Some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), referred to the record number of overseas visitors. If we take into account internal visits, the total number of visitors has still not returned to the levels achieved in the late 1980s. We have begun to come out of the worst dip that occurred in the early 1990s as a result of the recession and there is an encouraging upward trend in overseas visitors. However, far fewer people from within the United Kingdom are taking holidays here. Many of them can no longer afford to do so because they have lost their jobs or their incomes have dropped during the recession. We still have a long way to go to pull our industry back to the levels that were achieved some years ago.

Figures show that there were 16.3 million visitors to London last year and that figure is expected to rise this year to perhaps 17.3 million. That will take us back to the level that we saw in 1990, but it still leaves London with approximately 1.5 million fewer visitors than there were in 1989, when there were 18.9 million visitors. That puts the issue in perspective. We have a long way to go to increase tourism and to put Britain once again in a leading role in the international tourist industry.

Tourism is an increasingly competitive industry. We should be very worried about the relative decline of Britain in relation to other European countries and certainly in relation to America throughout the 1980s. The figures that were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) highlighted the fact that the growth of tourism in the 1980s lagged behind that of America, France and Spain. We cannot afford to allow our position to be further eroded by losses to other European countries which will increasingly be attractive magnets to tourists from all over the world. Even the Minister conceded that we have been falling down the international league and that that trend has to be reversed. Action is needed to reverse that trend, not just to encourage more international visitors to Britain but to encourage more British people to take their holidays in the United Kingdom.

It is an illusion that deregulation is the key to changing our competitive position, improving the strength of our tourism and encouraging more tourist visits to Britain. However much Conservative Members talk about deregulation and tell funny stories about anomalies--there are many anomalies ; I am the first to agree that--deregulation will not solve the problem of Britain's position in the international tourist league. The removal of a few regulations and the easing of the financial position for some elements of our tourist business might be welcome, but it will not attract the huge increase in the number of overseas tourists and United Kingdom tourists that we need if we are to be able to strengthen our tourist industry.

Opposition Members rightly argue for a sensible balance. Of course, we do not want foolish and inappropriate regulations. We certainly do not want regulations that inhibit the promotion of tourism. We have

Column 626

heard of many examples, including a ban on motorway signs pointing out important tourist attractions and the restrictions on advertising for hotels at the entrance to towns. There are obvious restrictions, the effect of which is to inhibit the benefit of information for the tourist industry. We need to consider those matters very seriously. We also need to distinguish unnecessary and harmful regulations from those that are vital to the health and safety of the community and which help to promote good standards, which in turn will encourage more tourists to visit this country. I am glad to hear the recognition that fire regulations are vital and that we must be careful before abandoning regulations that protect individuals who stay or work in hotels from the risk of death or serious injury as a result of an unnecessary fire or a fire that is not properly contained for lack of controls and protections. We do not have--no pun is intended--to put people's lives at risk by calling for a bonfire of regulations. We still suffer too many deaths and injuries from fires in small hotels, boarding houses and houses in multiple occupation. Often the borderline is uncertain, as hon. Members have said. We need to be absolutely sure that tourists and other people, including the staff who work in hotels and boarding houses, are properly protected by suitable fire regulations. However, it is not just a matter of fire ; we need also to think about other safety angles. The Minister paid attention to an incident that caused considerable inconvenience to a hotel because of controls over its air conditioning unit.

There can be nothing more disastrous to the reputation of this country than any further outbreaks of legionnaire's disease attributable to malfunctioning or insanitary air conditioning units causing death or serious injury. That would have disastrous consequences for our ability to attract other people to Britain. Therefore, we must be careful before we abandon public health and fire controls. They are important to ensure the safety of the public and give assurances to tourists, as well as people in Britain, that we will maintain the highest safety and hygiene standards. The maintenance of standards is an important issue. There is a problem for Britain in international tourism in that there is a growing perception that we are, in some respects, a country which is overpriced--we do not always offer good value for money. Hotel pricing, certainly in London, is an issue which has been highlighted by many of my hon. Friends in this debate--and rightly so. A comparison that one must inevitably make with hotel prices in comparable European countries, such as France and Germany, shows that the price levels in Britain are in a different league. That is a serious risk if people are talking about whether to come to Britain and spend a slightly longer time here or to visit another European country. They look at the prices and see that it is simply not feasible for them to afford such a price for hotel accommodation.

Another issue that endangers our reputation as a country is the incidence of touting for tickets for sporting events, theatres and other events. This is a serious issue. We joke about the ticket tout at Wimbledon every summer and measures are suggested to deal with the problem. However, we all know that the problem of touting in tourism is extensive. It leads to extensive rip-offs. People who are ripped off will not come back. It may be that the overpriced can of Coke on Bournemouth beach is enough to deter people from going back to Bournemouth. Certainly, a ticket at an absurd price for Wimbledon, a

Column 627

sporting event or a theatre in London could be the deciding factor in discouraging an overseas visitor from coming back to this country. We need to examine seriously the whole issue of touting.

Mr. Pendry : Before my hon. Friend leaves that point,. perhaps he will reflect on one of the worst potential problems--the opening of Buckingham palace. Because the tickets were sold in advance, they are now selling on the black market at something like 10 times the face value of the ticket. That matter should be addressed by the Government. I hope that they will take note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Raynsford : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that appropriate intervention. It highlights a specific problem which will certainly cause immense damage if it is seen that the British monarchy is the subject of a rip-off by touts who are using the opportunity of a visit to Buckingham palace to make unjustified extortionate gains at the expense of tourists.

The London tourist board has drawn attention to touting as a serious problem in a briefing document issued by the London tourist board before today's debate. I quote :

"The growth of touting for theatre tickets and those for other events, hotel rooms and most recently taxis"--

incidentally, it does not mention Buckingham palace, but I am glad that my hon. Friend highlighted that--

"is not simply undesirable, it also damages London's reputation for fairness, honesty and value for money.

In the case of theatre and event tickets the practice is open to abuse for, frequently, the face value of tickets is not disclosed to the purchaser. The sale of such tickets does not benefit the venue or the arts activity as the difference in value is pocketed by the tout."

The London tourist board then makes some proposals for dealing with the problem, including the licensing of ticket agencies and the need to make it a legal requirement to inform the customer at the moment of purchase of the face value of the ticket. In that way, a customer will be able to make an informed choice and will be aware whether he is being ripped off. It also suggests that the touting of tickets outside major events should be unlawful ; Wimbledon is an obvious example.

Touting is damaging our reputation as a tourist centre and may therefore make it difficult for us to attract tourists. The London tourist board believes that more regulation is necessary to tackle that problem. I have not had a chance to consider the implications of the proposals with those in the tourist industry and I am not advocating that such regulation is, necessarily, the right solution. It is clear, however, that if we do not take steps to enforce proper standards and to stop the gross exploitation of tourists and others by touts, our reputation will be damaged. That cannot be in the best interests of our tourist industry. A balance must be struck. We need regulations to prevent abuse and to protect public safety, but they must be sensible and they must encourage initiative. They should not damage the tourist industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) was right to stress that transport is critical to tourism in London. While people cannot travel around London comfortably, with reasonable confidence that they will get to their destination on time and that they will benefit from a service that is reliable and frequent, the London tourist industry, will inevitably be harmed.

Column 628

I represent Greenwich, which is one of London's main tourist attractions, and I am only too well aware of the damage caused to it by inadequate transport links with the rest of London. Network SouthEast is a joke. The recent reduction in services on a Sunday, from two trains an hour, which was already inadequate, to one, will have a deplorable impact on an area which needs to attract more tourists to its considerable number of exhibitions and historic buildings and sites.

It is of fundamental importance that the quality of the existing rail services must be improved to assist Greenwich. We also need new rail services. We are still waiting for the promised Jubilee line extension. I wish that I could have received a pound for every time that Ministers have relaunched that project. Those of us who attended the debates on it would now be extremely rich, because that extension has been promised many times. When it is built, it will be the first tube link to Greenwich and it is long overdue.

The riverbus service has been clinging on by its fingernails for the past couple of years and the prospect of bankruptcy has hovered over it too many times. A reliable and regular river transport service will be an important feature in making London a more attractive environment for tourists in the 21st century.

What is needed for all transport is not deregulation but investment. The supposed competition that will flow from the privatisation of the railway services will not improve the rail service to Greenwich. That can be done only by investment in long-overdue new rolling stock and more reliable, regular services. The riverbus service must also receive more investment to prevent its closure which would be a disaster for those who rely on it and would also damage London's overall transport network.

We need not deregulation, but investment in improved transport services. We must also ensure that our transport policies improve the environment for Londoners and tourists. One of the biggest problems that we face in Greenwich is the excessive volume of traffic that passes through an area that was never designed to cope with it. Greenwich and its residents are now under serious threat because of that traffic and the pollution that it causes.

We are urgently seeking a ban on heavy goods vehicles through our historic town centre and I hope that it will be in place before too long. If the Minister is keen to promote transport policies that will enable tourism to flourish in London, I hope that he will say a few words to his colleagues in the Department of Transport about the importance of measures that will make major tourist attractions like Greenwich a more pleasant environment for people to visit. Such policies will also avoid the risk of tourists suffering the risk of injury or death at the hands of 40-tonne lorries coming through the centre of an historic town which was never designed for that volume of heavy traffic. That measure could begin the process. We need more positive transport policies to improve the quality and appearance of tourist sites in London such as Greenwich.

One hon. Member suggested that local authorities were not always helpful in promoting tourism. The local authority in my constituency has been exceptionally keen to encourage and promote tourism and is doing its best to ensure that Greenwich becomes an even more important tourist attraction than it already is. However, it is hampered in one respect. It is a technical point, but I hope that the Minister will speak to his colleagues in the

Column 629

Department of the Environment about it. It concerns the standard spending assessment provision for local government finance relating to tourism. Local authorities incur expenditure to promote tourism and cope with the consequences. This includes additional street cleansing, parks maintenance, traffic management and tourist information, which all cost money and should be provided for. However, the current formula is based entirely on the number of people who stay overnight in hotels, rather than on the number of day visitors. That is desperately unfair to the many tourist areas that attract large numbers of day visitors but do not have a large network of hotels and thus have a small number of overnight stays.

In Greenwich, we estimate that in 1991--the last year for which figures are available, because they were based on a survey rather than on regular monitoring, which reduces paperwork--the number of overnight stays represented just 7 per cent. of total tourist visits to the area. Those who know Greenwich will know that, because it is frequently visited by tourists who take a boat down the river or come by other means of transport to see the fine sights and tourist attractions, it is severely penalised by the SSA formula. Ironically, areas of London with a larger hotel network get the advantage of much more substantial expenditure in the form of hotel bills and the cost of meals, which are the most expensive items in tourists' total outgoings. Based on the 1991 survey of tourists coming to Greenwich, we estimate that tourists spend on average £9.59 a day, which is a small sum compared to the huge amounts spent by tourists staying in central London.

Authorities for which the SSA does not adequately reflect the need to cope with a considerable number of tourists, and which have the added disadvantage of not getting the financial benefit of tourists staying in the area, rightly feel aggrieved. I hope that the Department of the Environment, which is currently conducting a review of standard spending assessments, will reconsider the formula so that it reflects more accurately the pattern and cost of tourism, not just the number of overnight stays. I hope that the Minister will put in a good word with the Department

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde highlighted another issue relating to regulation in his opening speech from the Front Bench. It is an issue in which I have a constituency interest and it involved the collapse of the SFV Holidays travel company, and the problems encountered by people who booked holidays with it in the absence of bonding arrangements.

From the evidence that I have received, it appears that the DTI played a crucial role in giving guidance to SFV that, in the circumstances, the company did not have to comply with the bonding regulation. If that is true, the DTI has done no service to the many people who booked holidays with that company and lost substantial sums of money. One of my constituents lost more than £2,000 and his holiday as a result of booking with SFV. He rightly feels extremely aggrieved that the company, apparently on advice of the DTI, had no bonding arrangements in place to cover the eventuality.

Next Section

Home Page