| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Fabricant: Cool Britannia has everything to do with tourism policy. The Secretary of State used the phrase "cool Britannia" to try to attract visitors to the United Kingdom, but failed. I listened with great interest to his opening speech. He said--it will be recorded in Hansard--that people come to the United Kingdom not because of modern buildings, modern art or modern music, which is what cool Britannia was all about, but because of our heritage, our tradition, our theatre and our other attractions that could in no way be described as cool Britannia. That is why cool Britannia is not being promoted by the British Tourist Authority. The Department's marketing has been wholly ineffective in that regard, and has now had to be reversed. This has been one of the Department's weaknesses. When the Secretary of State visited China to discuss relations with that country and tourism there, he did not once raise the subject of the human rights problem that deters many people from visiting it. That reflects his own weakness.
Much has been said about the millennium dome. I congratulate the Government on achieving its sponsorship targets. I, along with many others, thought that they would not be able to do that, but I was wrong. I am not sure whether the year of the millennium experience will be a success; only time will tell. I certainly will not make any predictions now in regard to whether the 12 million visitors target will be achieved.
What I find very exciting and interesting is the fact that the dome is built to last for at least 80 years. The Government are asking companies to suggest what they could do with it after the millennium experience has closed. There could be a major impact on tourism in London. I used to work for the broadcast electronic industry. Every year, the industry holds a big exhibition somewhere in Europe: it is known as the international broadcasting convention. It cannot be held in London, because there is not enough space, at least not in a nice, prestigious area. I mean space for the exhibition itself, not hotel accommodation. The convention has therefore gone to Amsterdam, and it is not the only one not to be held in London.
A possible use for the dome after 2000 is as a major convention centre. Alternatively, as was suggested earlier, it could serve as a venue for the world cup if Wembley stadium cannot be used. It is certainly large enough.
Tourism is an important element of Britain's economy, and we should not be ashamed of it. It is the largest foreign currency earner in the United States, and also in the United Kingdom. There is nothing wrong with that--and it reflects badly on the Department that the most important area for which it is responsible is not included in its title. Culture, the media and sport are included but
tourism is not, which suggests that promoting tourism in the United Kingdom may be a low priority in the Department.
As I said earlier, England--for which the Department is responsible--loses out badly in terms of grant aid for tourism. Whereas £8.25 per person is spent on tourism in Northern Ireland and £3.76 is spent on it in Scotland, a mere 20p is spent in England on promoting tourism abroad. That has to be wrong. We cannot take it for granted that people will come here simply because of our heritage. Other countries, particularly Australia and Germany, are promoting themselves heavily abroad, and the United Kingdom must do the same.
There has been some talk about the minimum wage. One of the great advantages of being in opposition--there are few advantages, but here is one--and of being a Back Bencher is that I can speak for myself. I am not opposed in principle to a minimum wage, but when the Prime Minister announced that a minimum wage would be introduced, he said, "What is wrong with it? They have it in the United States of America." He is right, but there is a crucial difference: in the United States, tourism and other industries--which I will not bother to list, although, for some strange reason, broadcasters employed in radio are included--are exempt from the national minimum wage.
I am not suggesting that people should work in sweat shops, but we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and, indeed, from Labour Members about how the minimum wage has impacted on people's lives. In some ways, it is very good, but we hear of some people going abroad, for example, to Marbella or Greece, because it is cheaper. One of the reasons is that pressures on small businesses in the UK are driving costs up; they are certainly not driving them down or keeping them stable.
Miss Geraldine Smith:
I am aware of a case of someone working in an amusement arcade and being paid £1.50 per hour. Do you think that that is right and proper?
Miss Smith:
Do you think that the minimum wage should be--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Once I am on my feet, the hon. Member must sit down. She is referring to someone in the second person. That means that she is addressing the Chair. I think that she meant to refer to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
Mr. Fabricant:
Obviously, I do not know the circumstances, but supposing it was a student working in the arcade and doing it as a holiday job. Supposing the £3.60--
Mr. Fabricant:
Let me finish. Supposing the £3.60 an hour rate means that that person will not be employed. When I was a student, I would rather have worked in an amusement arcade--in fact, for a short while, I worked on Brighton palace pier doing the turnstiles--for less than
Not having made a prediction about the future of the dome, I will make one about the minimum wage. The £3.60 an hour rate will be kept for a number of years. I do not think that it will go up with inflation. The Government will allow it to wither and to die.
There is a problem. In the United States, the minimum wage, which is about $5.50, varies from region to region. The £3.60 an hour rate may not be much in London, but it is a hell of a lot in Northern Ireland. That, too, is a big mistake.
Mr. Swayne:
Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the British Activity Holiday Association submission to the Low Pay Commission was not a request to pay less than £3.60 an hour? It asked merely for a more realistic recognition of the value of full board and lodging. It asked that it should be accounted for at £35 a week, rather than less than £20 a week.
Mr. Fabricant:
My hon. Friend makes his point well now, as he did in his speech. It is interesting to know that in the United States, too, similar provisions exist for that very purpose. The Government have not thought things through. They are good at coming up with marketing ideas but not at thinking the consequences through. By marketing ideas, I do not mean the marketing of Britain abroad--as I have said, "Cool Britannia" has not succeeded--but the Government marketing themselves to the British population. Their marketing was certainly effective in 1997, but it has not been so recently. We have all heard about the European elections, so I shall not bore the House with them now. It is, however, interesting to see how the tourist initiative in Lichfield is changing because both the city and the district are now Conservative controlled again, since the recent local elections.
The Labour Government have a lot to answer for. They have doubled air passenger duty--Members on both sides of the House have mentioned that--and increased fuel prices so that they are now the highest in Europe. Many people come to the United Kingdom for fly-drive holidays. In the United States petrol costs about $1.10 a gallon. The American gallon is only seven eighths of the imperial gallon, but even so, petrol there--or should I say gas?--costs only a third or a quarter as much as British petrol. In this country, it is expensive both to hire a car and to put petrol in it, and that will begin to deter tourists.
A dangerous trend is shown in the number of people who come here for the first time but do not visit again for a long time, simply because the costs in the United Kingdom are so high.
Dr. Whitehead:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that air passenger duty, so far as I recall, was implemented by the previous Government and set to come into force after the general election? The fuel price escalator, too, was a policy of the previous Government, so the hon. Gentleman is being a little careless when he tries to blame all that on the present Government.
Mr. Fabricant:
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Conservative Government introduced those things,
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |