| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.27 am
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Beckenham): The delights of Beckenham are manifold, but they are not a prime tourist attraction, despite Crystal palace park, which used to include Crystal palace, the home not of football on this occasion, but one of the predecessors of the dome. Tramlink will open soon, which will take the burghers of Beckenham directly to Croydon. We also have Eurostar, which helps to bring tourists both into and out of London passing by our back gardens. I wish that Eurostar were a bit more tourist conscious and that its marketing was more clever and flexible in terms of increasing the number of people who travel on that very good service and through that marvellous tunnel, of which I am proud and which I frequently use, particularly as I suffer from travel sickness.
The other joy and delight of Beckenham that brings in, or used to bring in, visitors, friends and relatives of my constituents is our green and open spaces. Since a Lib-Lab pact took over in local government and since central Government cut grants to Bromley borough, however, the parks and grass are no longer being cut; graffiti is not being cleaned up; and the streets are covered in litter. That is a strong recommendation for the Lib-Lab pact to resign, as well as the Government.
The dome is close to Bromley and Beckenham. We have watched with admiration, particularly those who have access to the closed circuit television screens, the dome being built. When one was bored and there was no crime on the streets of Bromley--something that happens fairly regularly--it was tempting to watch the construction of the dome, and fascinating it was too.
The knock-on effect is what concerns my constituents in Beckenham--the potential difficulties of arriving at the dome using any form of transport, and the extra clutter of parking on the streets that will inevitably affect the borough of Bromley and, I suspect, other nearby boroughs, although I would not wish to speak on their behalf.
The completion of the Jubilee line will, I hope, help those who live in constituencies north of the Thames, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to say that one of the major contracting engineers on the project is based in Beckenham, and the people there reassure me that the Jubilee line will be open in time for people to use it to travel to the dome.
Those of us who live south of the Thames, however, will still have problems getting there. I would be grateful for any reassurance that Ministers can give not only that there will be transport facilities for people south of the river to get to the dome, but that the streets of Beckenham and Bromley will not be further littered with cars left by people taking other means of transport to it.
My other connection with the dome is personal. I have an uncle in the United States, who lives in Greenwich, Connecticut. He was one of the pioneers of satellite and cable television, and he is in the process of trying to link up Greenwich borough and Greenwich, Connecticut for the millennium eve. He is having difficulty in encouraging the powers that be in Greenwich, London to participate in the event, so I hope that we can move that idea gently forward. It will be good public relations and good for tourism, and will build closer links between those two areas.
Most of the tourists who come to the United Kingdom go primarily to London, Oxford and Edinburgh. It is difficult to attract them beyond those three destinations. We all work in London, and some of us live there, and we all know about the sheer pressure of tourism in London, especially in the central areas.
I have listened and tried to evaluate the thinking behind the move towards regionalisation of the tourist boards. I do not have a problem with their being strengthened; there is a real need for that, but I do have a problem with the idea of the English tourist board being downgraded.
As one of our biggest problems is the difficulty of getting the bulk of tourists out of those three primary destinations, why do we not give the regional tourist boards the opportunity to advertise and market directly in other countries? Other countries allow that to happen. In some places it has evolved naturally through the market.
In France, which I know quite well, Maison de la France does most of the public relations and advertising within the UK for France as a destination--and extremely successful it is. Millions of us go to France every year. In France the regions, or rather the departements, can, if they wish, do their own marketing and advertising. I am aware of the efforts made by the Tarn and Picardy in particular, as those are both areas that I visit fairly regularly. Their marketing in the United Kingdom is not done under the auspices of Maison de la France. That allows those departements to reach out and attract tourists in different ways from those used by the bigger organisation, using different media, public relations and advertising.
I do not understand why we cannot give our regional tourist boards the same flexibility to market and advertise. It will not stop most of the tourists who come here for the
first time wanting to go to the three major destinations, but it may mitigate some of the effects, build up the opportunities for our regions and enable them to attract more tourists.
I do not want the regional development agencies to take that job on as their direct responsibility. That would be a bad idea--indeed, I do not think that the RDAs are a good idea anyway--but the regional tourist boards should have that flexibility.
I do not want to repeat the arguments put by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). I commend his ideas thoroughly, and he put them in an entertaining and interesting way that made a major impact. I congratulate him on making that particular point. Indeed, it was ironic that the petition presented this morning by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was on a similar deregulatory theme, and I applaud and support his efforts, too.
It is sad that the present Government have not continued with the Conservative Government's proposal to increase the number of casino licences available throughout the United Kingdom. It is not only the British people who want the opportunity to go into casinos; casinos are also a tourist attraction. In the United Kingdom, with its well-developed form of regulation and its understanding of the high standards required of people who operate casinos, we could easily offer a high-quality casino product.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town):
Does the hon. Lady agree that docklands would be an appropriate area for a licence? The exhibition and conference centre now being constructed will be the biggest in the United Kingdom when it is finished. That, plus the number of hotels in the area, means that the clientele will be there to generate more income for that part of the leisure industry, which is important to us.
Mrs. Lait:
I would have no problem in suggesting to the Government that I would have gone further than the Conservative Government's proposal. If there is a desire and a proven business plan for a casino in any area, then people of high standing and quality, who can manage the facility, should be allowed to do so. There is no need to consider casinos on a geographical basis, as happens now. I am relaxed about saying that the market should decide.
That is how I would approach the licensing laws, too. If people do not want to use a pub at midnight it will not open at that time. Let us try to match the provision to the demand. We can then build the licensing system round that, rather than allowing the licensing system to drive the provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) mentioned activity sports, and there was some discussion about them. I have long championed chess, and helped to get it moved from the Department of Education and Science, as it used to be called, to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with the object of getting it recognised as a sport.
I am well aware, because of my previous incarnation representing Hastings and Rye, that chess is an international tourist attraction, and the United Kingdom is recognised as one of the countries that produces
high-quality chess players. At the moment, chess does not have access to the funding that would allow it to offer the high-quality facilities to match the quality of the playing and the players that we produce in this country.
I urge the Minister to take away my suggestion and those of many others, that the Department take a serious look at chess as a sport. I know about the argument that chess is a mind sport, not a physical activity, and the Sports Council is unhappy about that, and feels that it does not therefore have a locus in providing aid. However, there must be some ingenuity within the Department that would allow chess to be recognised as a sport and properly funded, so that, among its many other attributes, we could use it as a way of attracting more tourists.
There have been many references to the need to help the seaside resorts become more attractive to tourists. I have long believed that seaside resorts need to think more imaginatively because of the change in the pattern of British family holidays. Over the past 20 years, many have done so and are now offering a year-round product. However, as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said, getting to them is a nightmare.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |