| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State seems to demur on the funding figures. The figures that I have quoted came from the Library. If the right hon. Gentleman takes exception to them, he should take up the matter with the Library.
The Opposition have spent a great deal of time listening to people in tourism over the past year. We set up our own tourism policy forum--which the Secretary of State was gracious enough to acknowledge when we last debated these matters--under the chairmanship of Sir Ron Watson. It is actively seeking ideas as we take our policies forward in this important area. It is doing so from a basis of considerable understanding of the industry and long experience of it.
It does not take long to find out what the industry thinks it needs from Government. There are several recurrent themes--excessive regulation and taxation; the so-called fairness at work proposals; transport problems; planning problems; an archaic licensing system; training and recruitment; the strength of sterling; and funding.
The extra costs of administering the minimum wage, the working time directive, the part-time workers directive, the parental leave directive and the thousands of other new regulations introduced since May 1997 all add up to a massive imposition on the tourism industry, which is in the front line of the regulatory assault that the Government have unleashed on the country.
The major companies can take most of that in their stride. They do not necessarily want to, but they can. However, an awful lot of companies in the tourism sector are small companies, and the burden on them is greatest.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 4 November 1998, the right hon. Member
Mr. Ainsworth:
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. On a related issue, I was interested to note that, in a debate in another place a few days ago, Lord McIntosh, pressed by my noble Friend Lord Luke, admitted that the Government had got things wrong over the working time directive to a significant extent. He said that the Government could have done better. I hope that the Secretary of State will urge him not only to express regret, but to take effective action to ensure that the situation improves.
Seventy five per cent. of the tourism sector comprises small businesses, to which the tangle of red tape poses a real threat. The fixed on-costs of compliance in terms of extra clerical work, computer systems and so on are much the same, whether a business is turning over £50 million or £500,000 a year. Many of the businesses in tourism are very small indeed. Hugh Becker, the founder of Micro Millions, makes a compelling case for explicit recognition of the particular needs of the very small company.
It is estimated that about a quarter of a million jobs in tourism are in businesses employing fewer than 10 people. In rural communities in particular, such little businesses play a vital role in underpinning the local economy. There is nothing of practical value to those businesses in the Government's tourism strategy. More than most industries, tourism needs flexibility in the way that it works. Nowhere in the strategy do I see any commitment to reduce regulation.
In that regard, may I say how sorry I was at the dismissive way in which the Secretary of State treated the question from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). He will know that the British Activity Holiday Association has expressed well-founded concern about the impact of the minimum wage on those businesses. The association takes no issue with the principle of a minimum wage. Its concern is specific and relates to the £20 accommodation offset.
I raised the matter with the Tourism Minister in the House on 5 May and asked for her reassurance that she was taking effective action on behalf of those businesses to ensure that activity holiday centres would not close as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage. I received no reply. I offer the hon. Lady now another opportunity to provide reassurance to the House and to the British Activity Holiday Association that she is lobbying hard on its behalf.
Janet Anderson:
I had intended to deal with the matter in my winding-up speech, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to respond now. As he knows, the Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to look again at the accommodation offset, which is set at a limit of £19.95 a week, as it could cause serious problems for the industry if set at the wrong level or discontinued. The commission proposes that the matter
Mr. Ainsworth:
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In the light of what she said, I hope that the Secretary of State might think it proper to write a note of apology to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West--
Mr. Swayne:
In response to me yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), gave the latest position. He said:
Mr. Ainsworth:
The situation seems to be confused. I ask the Minister to write to me and to my hon. Friend, setting out the Government's present position and what they propose to do. There is considerable concern. I commend my hon. Friend for his work to secure the interests of activity holiday centres throughout the country and in his constituency.
Janet Anderson:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It might have saved us all time if he had listened more carefully to what the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said. He was simply stating the current position. As I said, and I repeat, the matter is being kept under review by the Low Pay Commission, which we have alerted to our concerns about the effect of the accommodation offset, if it were removed, on activity holiday centres.
Mr. Ainsworth:
We shall have to wait and see.
Mr. Bercow:
I must support my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Unlike the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State, I was present for Trade and Industry questions yesterday. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that the tone, as well as the content, of the reply from the Minister of State brooked no misunderstanding. He stated the current position and gave every indication to my hon. Friend that that position would not, and should not, change. It is time that we had an apology from the weakest Secretary of State in the Cabinet.
Mr. Ainsworth:
We shall have to return to the matter. What my hon. Friend tells us of questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday is typical of the arrogant and dismissive way in which the Government have treated our representations about the impact on businesses throughout the country of the imposition of the
Mr. Smith:
Am I right in thinking that we have just heard from the Conservative Front Bench a commitment to abolish the national minimum wage?
Mr. Ainsworth:
The right hon. Gentleman is extremely inventive.
On the topic of transport, I do not see any attempt to solve the growing difficulty of simply moving round this country. All but 37 of the 140 road improvement schemes that the Government inherited have been dropped. Difficulties with road transport are a major issue for tourist centres such as Eastbourne, Scarborough and the south-west. The Secretary of State talks enthusiastically about coastal resorts--they indeed have many problems, and much needs to be done to help them--but if people cannot get to them no amount of effort from any Government will make much difference.
There is no doubt that the doubling of air passenger duty has been detrimental to the interests of tourism and it would be helpful to know exactly how robust the Government intend to be about the present European Commission moves to double it again on internal flights. It would be plainly ludicrous for up to two thirds of the cost of a cheap flight to Scotland to be tax, but, with £17 in every £20 spent by motorists at the fuel pump being taken in tax, almost anything is possible.
On 31 May, an article in The Daily Telegraph entitled
If the tourism industry is to fulfil the central role in the economic and social environment of the next century, it must be allowed to expand and the significance of tourism needs to be better recognised in the planning system. I am not referring only to mega-projects such as terminal 5 or new large-scale visitor attractions. I have a constituency case in which a local man has gone to hell and back simply in an attempt to convert a Victorian house into a guest house.
The sustainable tourism section of the strategy is long on aspiration but short on proposals. I shall not dwell on the complex issue of licensing laws, partly because they
are so complex that I have difficulty in understanding them myself, but it strikes me as a good example of government that is not joined-up when the Department can publish a tourism strategy that does not even mention the laws governing how and when a tourist can buy a drink or a meal. However, I am pleased that, after 210 years, the Home Office has finally got round to reviewing the Sunday Observance Act 1780, which prevents dancing on Sundays. We will support that review if the consultation exercise produces a recommendation that is brought to the House in due course.
The strategy strikes a more positive note on training and recruitment. Here again, however, it remains to be seen whether aspiration can be converted into reality. I applaud the work that the industry is doing to improve its image as an employer and to raise the all-important standard of service, and only this week I was able to attend a gathering to celebrate the hospitality industry's first national careers festival. I pay tribute to the work being done on that by Springboard, the British Hospitality Association, the British Incoming Tour Operators Association and others.
Much remains to be done, however, and I know that there are those who think that there is unhelpful duplication and confusion in the way that the national vocational qualification system operates. Real joined-up government is needed to sort that out. I also understand that, despite what the Secretary of State said earlier, the take-up of the 40,000 places that have been offered by the industry under the new deal has so far been pretty dismal.
The quality of service that people receive from the tourism industry is improving, but it is still subject to some severe lapses. Mercifully, I was able to take only a glance at one episode of a television programme called "Tourist Troubles", but what I saw revealed rudeness, arrogance and ignorance from some people in the industry that left me aghast.
British tourism is operating in an intensely competitive world market and the level of sterling in any one year is probably the biggest single influence on it. The balance of trade deficit in tourism is worsening--it was minus £3.9 billion in 1996, minus £4.7 billion in 1997 and minus £6.6 billion in 1998, which substantially reflects not only mistakes made in the Chancellor's initial Budgets, but, latterly, problems in the far east and the30 per cent. appreciation of sterling against leading European currencies.
To those who suggest that that justifies early entry into the euro, I suggest that the worst reason for joining would be to seek the benefits of devaluation. Given anything like the present disparity between sterling and euroland, we would simply be locking in long-term uncompetitiveness. However, there is no discussion of those issues in the Government's tourism strategy.
Finally, there is the issue of funding. To those who take an interest in history, and I know that Labour Members take a keen interest, I say that I am fully aware that I am on a slightly sticky wicket, but not as sticky a wicket as the New Zealand cricket team had to play on a couple of days ago. There are those who argue that a £53 billion industry should be able to do its own marketing--the industry spends £150 million a year on that--but I accept that destination marketing can be done properly only by central Government. Destination marketing is about selling the whole idea and the whole product, and the
Government are ultimately responsible for that. It is still far too early even for early pledges, but I am aware of the BTA's excellent work around the world and of its assertion that every £1 it spends yields a return of £27, of which £4 goes straight to the Treasury. One does not have to be an economic mastermind to work out that that is a magnificent return.
"Following the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, there is no offset allowed for the provision of board when calculating whether the national minimum wage has been paid. There is a limited offset of up to £19.95 a week allowed against the national minimum wage to recognise the benefit of the provision of accommodation."
That is it. There will be no further concessions. The Minister of State's retort to me yesterday was:
"The hon. Gentleman's attitude of 'let them eat cake' is out of date."--[Official Report, 17 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 548-49.]
That is one better than the folly of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
"Britain to fight EU flight tax demand"
said:
"The prospect of doubling domestic air passenger duty . . . which would raise £60 million for the Treasury, has alarmed the travel industry . . .
That is encouraging, but unfortunately, a letter from Customs and Excise--a copy of which I have--to an industry representative who had inquired about this matter, following the article, says:
However a spokesman for Customs and Excise said Britain was prepared to go all the way to the European Court to contest the commission's interpretation."
"Customs and Excise has yet to determine its final position in respect to the European Commission challenge to the domestic return leg exemption and there is, therefore, no basis to the content of the article."
Which of those statements is true? Will the Minister say in her winding-up speech exactly how robust the Government intend to be?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |