Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Eighth Report




94. There has been a long-running debate on the most appropriate "home" for tourism within government. As the UK's fifth largest industry, some argue it should belong with other industries in the Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform (formerly DTI), rather than DCMS.[165] It was put to us that this is not a particularly helpful debate, and any further organisational upheaval would distract from the immediate challenges facing the industry.[166] As English Heritage stated, "the important point is that tourism is taken into account in a whole wide range of government strategies".[167]

95. On this last point, the Committee heard evidence suggesting that tourism is not adequately represented across government. In our predecessor Committee's report on tourism in 2003, a recommendation was made that tourism should receive a "proper commitment from the Government commensurate with its economic importance to the country".[168] However, five years on, the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions reports that "DCMS appears to carry less weight within government than some of the other departments and therefore seems unable to spearhead joined up thinking across government".[169] UKinbound made reference to a particular event which it felt epitomised this situation:

    "For us one of the worst times was in February 2005, when the Home Office and UKvisas announced that visa prices were being increased by about 85% overnight. There had been no prior consultation with the tourism industry or even communication of their intentions to the tourism industry. We only found out about it through press releases, so we thought we would turn to DCMS and find out what was going on, only to learn that they had found out about it through the same press releases. If DCMS does not understand what is happening with UK visa prices, which is a matter fundamental to tourism, then we wonder what else is going on".[170]

96. There are other more general concerns regarding the performance of DCMS in relation to tourism. The RDAs referred to a "policy gap at national level" and claimed that when strategic decisions are taken, they are "reactive rather than proactive".[171] The British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions said that there is "a lack of support and direction from DCMS".[172] The Tourism Alliance has recently launched a "Take Tourism Seriously" campaign in response to what it refers to as DCMS's "poor understanding and commitment to tourism".

97. The Rt Hon Magaret Hodge MP, the seventh Minister with responsibility for tourism since 1997, defended DCMS's performance on tourism, insisting "we punch well above our weight".[173] She gave the following examples:

  • DCMS's role in COBRA[174] in response to emergencies such as foot and mouth and flooding;
  • Regulatory reform developed by DCMS for SMEs;
  • DCMS's successful opposition to the "bed tax" proposed in the Lyons inquiry into local government.[175]

98. We are satisfied that DCMS is the correct government "home" for tourism and advise against any further organisational change. However, this does not mean we are satisfied with DCMS's performance on tourism. We are concerned by the lack of confidence the industry appears to have in DCMS. We are also discouraged that responsibility for tourism has been so frequently transferred between Departmental Ministers creating an impression that it is seen as an afterthought which has to fit in with their other responsibilities. This impression is strengthened by the fact that the Minister with responsibility for tourism no longer has this recognised in their official title and we recommend that this is reinstated in the title of the responsible Minister. That said, there are some isolated signs that the Department is beginning to represent the industry better across government. We would like to see more consistent evidence that tourism is becoming a mainstream issue in government. We would also like to see DCMS provide a stronger strategic lead to the industry, and we hope that the new national tourism strategy represents a willingness to do so.


99. In 2003 the tourism industry underwent a significant restructuring, with the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) taking on responsibility for regional tourism development. At the same time, the English Tourism Council[176] was stripped of its strategic role for English tourism and was subsumed by VisitBritain, which was given a purely marketing remit.[177] A small tourism team was left within DCMS, but, as the British Resorts and Destinations Association states, "without any dedicated national strategic coordination capacity to call upon and little or no spare internal capacity".[178]

100. The result, as many of our witnesses pointed out, has been a void in strategic tourism policy. The RDAs themselves state that responsibility remains with DCMS to provide national guidance for the industry, a role they claim it is not fulfilling: "National policy is inevitably broad in its sweep, is often composed of generalities, and runs the danger of being no more than a set of good intentions".[179] Destination Performance UK, an organisation of 140 local authority tourism services and Destination Management Organisations, told the Committee:

    "Since devolution, the tourism structure within England has lacked cohesion. At a national level there has been a lack of leadership and co-ordination, not least as VisitBritain was given a solely marketing mandate and there is no specific requirement for RDAs to work with the national body. Further, the disparity of funding dedicated to tourism by various RDAs who are themselves financed by the DTI [now DBERR] not the DCMS, the existence of regional tourist boards in some parts of the country but not others and the inconsistent introduction of Destination Management Organisations and Partnerships has led to confusion and fragmentation".[180]

101. We heard further evidence that not all RDAs give the same level of consideration or allocation of funding to tourism. The Tourism Society told us that there is often "high promotion and development expenditure in areas where there is relatively little tourism, and very little in areas where the main tourism products and volumes of tourists are present." This means that while some areas may have benefited from the restructuring, others have not. Oxford City Council claimed that its RDA, the South East England Development Agency, "does not take an interest in tourism to any great degree".[181] The map below indicates the expenditure on tourism by the RDAs (and VisitWales and VisitScotland) in 2006-07.

Source: VisitBritain written submission.

The variation in expenditure on tourism by each of the RDAs, in relation to the number of people in the region employed in tourism, is shown below:

RDA expenditure on tourism (£ million)
Tourism employment (thousands)
Expenditure per head of tourism workforce (£)
South East
South West
East Midlands
West Midlands
East of England
Yorkshire and Humber
North West
North East

Source: RDAs and ONS. Figures quoted are for 2006.

102. The RDAs accept that the structural changes made to the industry in 2003 have "understandably taken time to bed in". However, they argue that "we are now beginning to see improvements to both the quality and depth of the support structure for tourism in the regions, and the resource allocated for this".[182] Partners For England, developed jointly by VisitEngland and South West RDA, has recently been established as a forum for sharing best practice between the RDAs and the wider industry.

103. The restructuring of the tourism industry in 2003 devolved responsibility for tourism to the RDAs. While this has given the regions a greater say in how they develop the industry, it has also resulted in tourism nationwide becoming fragmented, with widespread variation between regions as to the significance attached to it. There is a lack of overall strategic direction, which only DCMS can provide. Meanwhile, we encourage the RDAs to work together through initiatives such as Partners for England to share best practice and ensure a more coordinated approach to tourism development in England.

Quality of serviced accommodation

104. According to a recent review, there are 716,000 bedrooms in serviced accommodation in the UK at present.[183] "Serviced Accommodation" was defined as: hotels; guesthouses; B&Bs; farmhouses; restaurants, inns, pubs and private members clubs with accommodation; lodges and motor hotels; youth hostels. This figure represents steady growth for the sector; there were fewer than 500,000 bedrooms in 1974.[184] While the provision of serviced accommodation has increased, the Government remains concerned about its quality. DCMS reports that "although many UK hotels and guest houses are world-class, too many are poor".[185] The Minister warned that there is "a long, long way to go" to improve the quality of accommodation to the level she feels is necessary.[186]

105. Quality grading of accommodation is a long established practice in the UK tourism industry. Typically ranging from one to five stars, quality grading is designed to provide customers with a degree of assurance regarding what they can expect. The National Quality Accreditation/Assurance Schemes (NQAS), run by the AA and the national tourist boards, are a voluntary system of quality assurance in the accommodation sector. NQAS assessments are carried out VisitBritain, VisitScotland, Visit Wales or the AA.[187] Since 2006, each of these bodies has undertaken the assessments based on a common criteria. For self-catering accommodation, common standards were introduced in 2005.[188]

106. DCMS's Olympic tourism strategy, Winning, states that "too few hotels and guest houses are accredited as being of good quality".[189] The Government has set challenging targets for an increase in the proportion of accredited accommodation, as outlined in the table below.

Sources: Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, page 58; Ev 111; Ev 201.

107. DCMS recently rejected the possibility of making participation in NQAS compulsory, although VisitWales told us that it was still considering this option.[190] DCMS states that "voluntary NQASs represent the best way to ensure consistent product improvement".[191] However, the NQASs are not the only schemes in operation. For instance, Helpful Holidays, a letting agency in the Southwest, operates its own grading scheme, which it claims its customers consider to be independent and reliable.[192]

108. There were certain aspects of the NQAS schemes that were criticised in our inquiry. Caradon District Council reports that high quality, "alternative" accommodation types such as heritage railway carriages and teepees cannot be inspected according to the narrow NQAS inspection scheme. As such, neither of these can be marketed through VisitCornwall marketing activities and, because they are not part of NQAS, they can neither take part in the Green Tourism Business Scheme (see Chapter 6: Environmental Sustainability) or appear on VisitBritain websites[193]. Helpful Holidays argues that "much of the industry believes the main purpose of NQAS is as a revenue stream [for VisitBritain]".[194]

109. Nevertheless, the target for DCMS and VisitBritain remains an increase in participation in NQAS. It hopes that measures such as stronger customer feedback and a commitment to use only NQAS providers for Government travel will raise standards.[195] Specific action in London, where just 34% of the capital's accommodation providers participate in NQAS, includes a commitment by the London Development Agency to subsidise NQAS joining fees.[196] No such subsidies exist outside London. Indeed, on the Committee's visit to the Southwest, we heard how the cost of the scheme may be prohibitive for smaller providers. A local tourism association told us that the £60-70 NQAS joining fee, plus an annual inspection charge of £140, put off a number of prospective members, particularly when it provided no guarantee of an increase in bookings.[197] DCMS opposes subsidies, either directly from public funds, or through the manipulation of NQAS fee levels to ensure that larger hotels subsidise small players. It states that "cross-subsidies would be unfair to early participants, not least if increased fees at the higher end encouraged some businesses to leave the schemes".[198]

110. Raising the quality of accommodation is essential to improving the industry, and the NQAS is an important tool in this regard. We support the Government's efforts to increase the number of accredited accommodation providers within a single recognised scheme, but agree that the scheme should remain voluntary. However, we recommend that the scheme be made more flexible so as not to disadvantage smaller or unorthodox accommodation providers. We recommend that the costs for smaller providers are reduced in order to take account of their lower turnover, perhaps to be balanced by increased fees charged to the larger hotels.

Skills and service

111. The tourism industry employs between 1.4 million and 2.1 million people in the UK (depending on what is recognised as falling with the scope of the sector).[199] The level of service provided by these staff, and the welcome they provide to visitors, is arguably just as important as the quality of the destination and its marketing. In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, there is an expectation of high-quality service. If this is not provided, tourists will simply go elsewhere.

112. The Anholt Nation Brands Index consistently ranks the UK as the number one nation brand.[200] However, its ranking specifically on visitor perceptions of "welcome" is less impressive: the UK came 17th out of 38 countries in the December 2006 poll.[201] DCMS accepts that the country's image in respect of customer service is "not good".[202] The quality of welcome at the UK's airports, particularly Heathrow, was cited by witnesses as one such example of poor service. The Tourism Alliance stated that the quality of service at Heathrow "is not a good welcome to the UK".[203] UKinbound expressed its dissatisfaction in stronger terms: "Heathrow as it is today is a national disgrace and Gatwick is, frankly, not much better".[204] Since these comments were made, the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow has opened, but flight delays, cancellations and lost baggage in its opening week further damaged the airport's reputation.[205] VisitBritain's US representatives told the Committee during our visit to California that the Terminal 5 launch had received considerable negative TV coverage on the American news channel, CNN.

113. Although it is largely outside the remit of this inquiry and this Committee, we believe that the current reputation and passenger experience of Heathrow acts as a significant disincentive to many of those considering visiting the UK. We believe it is essential that this be addressed.

114. Tourism is an industry that is reliant on repeat business, particularly in areas outside the traditional tourist "hotspots". The RDAs assert that local businesses are getting repeat visitors[206] and, as such, the quality of service must be acceptable. Nevertheless, People 1st, the Sector Skills Council for the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism industry, believes there is a problem. It states that the UK needs to shake off its image of poor customer service.[207] In a recent survey it found that 63% of employers believe their staff's customer service skills are not sufficient to meet their needs. It believes the welcome the UK gives visitors in 2012 for the London Games could be "pivotal in helping change long-held perceptions and ensure that the UK becomes globally renowned for its gold standard customer service".[208] However, the issue of skills is wider than simply that of customer service. In its National Skills Strategy,[209] People 1st outlines deficiencies in two other key skill areas:

  • Management: 54% of managers in the industry do not possess the minimum level of qualification required for their position;
  • Craft skills: for example, 40% of "chefs" do not possess a qualification at level 2, the minimum level required to prepare and cook a meal from scratch.

115. On the first of these issues, the RDAs are concerned that the general business skills for running, for instance, a bed & breakfast, are often lacking and the business fails as a result.[210] In relation to craft skills, the Committee has heard supporting evidence for the need for more and better trained chefs. They are a commodity in demand, particularly in the pub sector where, despite a decline in beer sales, sales of food are growing.[211] A further skill area where the demand is not being met is that of tourist guiding; the Institute of Tourist Guiding and the Guild of Registered Tourist Guides report that there are no longer enough qualified tourist guides.[212] Retention of staff is also a major problem in the tourism industry. A high labour turnover of 30% costs the sector an estimated £886 million a year.[213]


116. Different figures have been quoted for the amount of public sector spending on skills development in the industry. Annually, it appears that between £500 million and £600 million is spent by learning and skills councils, the RDAs and other government agencies on skills in tourism in the UK.[214] In addition, in 2006, employers invested an additional £144 million.[215]

117. The Committee is aware of a range of strategies, initiatives and qualifications that have been introduced in a bid to tackle the skills issue. The National Skills Strategy developed by People 1st aims to "develop a professional workforce with high self esteem".[216] The London Skills and Employment Board recently launched a London-specific version.[217] People 1st has also developed "UKSP" (formerly the UK Skills Passport), a central online resource for skills and employment information on the industry.[218] The UKSP is designed to help the industry identify where it can obtain funding.[219] VisitBritain and People 1st are implementing "Steps to Success", a voluntary "skills-needs" analysis for establishments that participate in quality assurance schemes.[220] There is a "Welcome to Britain Task Force" that brings together a range of public and private sector agencies with a view to improving the UK's welcome to overseas visitors.[221] The RDAs have a similar initiative—the "Welcome Host" scheme—which has a particular emphasis on preparations for London 2012.[222] Southwest RDA also referred to a future scheme—ProjectDawn—which, amongst other things, will seek to improve the business skills of the small enterprises in the industry.[223]

118. There have also been recent developments on the qualifications offered within the industry. In January 2008, the budget airline Flybe was one of three companies (the others being McDonalds and Network Rail ) to be granted the ability by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to award nationally accredited qualifications to employees. Large private sector organisations also have their own in-house training schemes. For instance, Travelodge recently launched a 12-week management and development programme.[224]


119. Despite this range of schemes, uptake is very low, particularly amongst smaller businesses, which account for 45% of the industry's workforce.[225] In a survey of 5000 businesses by People 1st in 2006, 98.5% of small businesses reported that they had never accessed any funding on skills.[226] Moreover, 80% of all employers in the tourism sector do not know how to access the support. The survey appears to support the evidence heard in this inquiry: The British Hospitality Association told us that, for the estimated 70% of small businesses that are not members of a trade association, "it is almost impossible to know where to go to get sensible advice on anything".[227] The British Beer and Pub Association suggested that the proliferation of bodies offering advice was un-coordinated and confusing even to some trade associations.[228]

120. We are encouraged by the level of funding and attention that is being offered to address the skills deficiencies that are constraining the industry. However, it is disappointing that so few small businesses in the tourism sector actually access the funding available to them for developing staff skills. While this is to some degree a failing of the businesses themselves, the Government and its agencies must place greater emphasis on coordinating and promoting these opportunities.


121. Tourism is often perceived to be a predominantly low-wage industry. The British Hospitality Association accepted that the pay structure resembled a "very flat pyramid".[229] However, it countered this by stressing the opportunities within the industry for rapid promotion, and the increasing competitiveness of mid-ranking salaries. In fact, People 1st reports that 20% of jobs in the industry are now management positions.[230] Nevertheless, it remains the case that 15% of the workforce earn the adult minimum wage (currently £5.52), while a further 14% actually earn less than £5.52.[231] People 1st explained that this was due to the preponderance of workplace training schemes, the high number of workers below the age of 18, and accommodation being offset against salary.[232] A representative of the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) told the Committee during its visit to Torbay that accommodation offset has become more common in recent years in line with an influx of migrant workers. The British Hospitality Association gave assurances that the rules in relation to accommodation offset are now very clear and are "reasonably strictly enforced".[233]

122. According to estimates by the British Hospitality Association, around 60% of the workforce in the hospitality sector nationwide are from overseas.[234] In London this figure rises to around 80%.[235] The migrant workers are predominantly from Central Europe, although there are also significant numbers of French, Spanish and Italians working in the industry.[236] The TGWU informed the Committee that some of the new migrant workers do not understand their right to representation by a Trade Union. The TGWU reports that, as a result, some workers are being exploited and racially discriminated against.

123. There are initiatives in place to attract local people into the industry. For instance, the British Hospitality Association, in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions, is aiming to give 15,000 16-20-year-olds in East London 28 days work experience in the sector.[237] Nevertheless, the British Hospitality Association and People 1st expressed strong reservations that the qualifications and motivation of the local population compares unfavourably with that of the migrants.[238] Bob Cotton, the Chief Executive of the British Hospitality Association, told the Committee: "if you are an employer with a very keen person from Poland who is bright, smiling, wants to work, turns up every day and will work 45 or 50 hours a week set against a [local] person who turns up one day, does not turn up the next day, is not really interested, it is a no brainer".[239]

124. While we recognise the value of migrant workers to the industry, a reliance on this stream of labour may not be sustainable in the long term. We would like to see the Government and its agencies place greater emphasis upon initiatives to attract the locally unemployed to the industry. At the same time, local authorities and/or RDAs, in partnership with the trade unions, should ensure that migrant workers are given every opportunity to understand their rights.

The cost of holidaying in UK

125. The current strength of the pound means that the UK is more expensive than the majority of other countries with respect to many holiday costs, such as accommodation and eating out.[240] However, the taxes and charges payable by inbound visitors to the UK also represent a significant cost. For visitors that require a visa to come to the UK, it is estimated that a holiday in the UK costs an average of £207 per person in visa, taxes and other government charges, significantly more than in other countries:

The average cost in taxes and charges of a holiday in the UK and elsewhere

Source: Ev 56

126. Similarly, a recent study by the Council for Travel and Transport found that the amount of tax and fees paid by European visitors to the UK is now 65% higher than the average level of tax and fees they would pay to visit competitor destinations such as France, Spain, Italy, USA and Australia.[241] The Tourism Alliance asserts that the tax burden on visitors has now reached a level where it is adversely affecting the UK travel industry's ability to compete in the international market.[242] Our inquiry concentrated on one major component of the tax burden, namely the cost of UK visas.


127. Visitors from 109 countries require a visa to visit the UK, including those from the fastest growing source markets of India, China and Russia.[243] The cost of a single, double or multiple entry visa to enter the UK, valid for sixth months, currently stands at £65.[244] This represents the cheapest available visa option for visitors. The cost of a UK visa has increased markedly in recent years; it rose by 85% in February 2005,[245] and a £15 out-sourcing charge was applied in 2006.[246] Meanwhile, UKinbound reports that competitor destinations are lowering the cost of visas and increasing the ease of applying for visas from many destinations.[247] A Schengen area visa, which permits access to 21 European countries, costs visitors (such as those from China and South Korea) €60. However, if they also choose to visit the UK, they still must pay the £65 for a UK visa.

128. Clearly, in comparison to a Schengen area visa, a UK visa does not represent value for money for prospective visitors. UKinbound told the Committee that the relatively high cost of a UK visa is due to a Treasury stipulation that UKvisas, which administers the system, must recover the full cost of their operations from the visa fees they charge.[248] The increase in the cost of a UK visa in recent years is explained by an increase in the costs incurred by UKvisas in administering and enforcing the system.[249]

129. The Tourism Alliance argues that tourism is a particularly price sensitive industry.[250] It presented evidence of a downturn in inbound tourism expenditure that may be attributed to the rise in the cost of a UK visa implemented in February 2005. In 2005, expenditure in the UK from visa markets was 11.1% lower than in 2004, while expenditure from non-visa markets increased by 9.2%:

Visitor expenditure in the UK
2004 (£ million)
2005 (£ million)
% change
Saudi Arabia
Visa Requiring Countries
Total World

Source: Ev 56-57

130. Such losses in visitor expenditure were not experienced by the UK's key competitors. For example, spending by Chinese visitors to Australia increased by 9.1% in 2005 and to Germany by 18.6%.[251]

131. The Tourism Alliance told us that the level of visa prices is "a major deterrent" to prospective visitors.[252] It also stated that "there is some evidence that tour operators bringing groups will bring groups to Europe and miss out the UK, due to the additional [visa] cost".[253] Eurostar agreed that UK visa prices have a negative effect on encouraging tourism into the UK, especially from emerging markets such as China and South Korea.[254] The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions argued that there is a greater financial benefit for the UK from the expenditure of inbound tourists, in comparison to the benefit of UKvisas' revenue-neutral funding model.[255] The Tourism Alliance made a similar point:

    "If you take the example of the people from India, each person from India actually spends a thousand pounds once they get into the UK. If we are charging them £63 for a visa and £40 air passenger duty we gain £100 but lose £1000 if we deter them".[256]

132. Visit London argues that the policies of UKvisas and the tourism marketing bodies in the UK are not complementary:

    "If the marketing and PR efforts of VisitBritain, Visit London and others work, then the resultant increase in the number of visa applications to come to the UK will lead to an increase in administrative costs[…]for UKvisas. Due to its revenue-neutral funding model, UKvisas will then cover this increase by raising charges [which will subsequently] deter future visitors".[257]

133. UKinbound calls upon the Government to end the Treasury stipulation of full cost recovery in order to offer a more reasonably priced visa to prospective tourists.[258] The Tourism Alliance suggests the introduction of two new visa types:

  • "A competitively priced 'add-on' UK visa for Schengen visa holders";
  • "A cheaper short-term single entry visa".[259]

134. However, the cost of assessing the risk of permitting entry to a foreign national to the UK is broadly the same irrespective of whether that person is coming for 30 days or six months.[260] Therefore, it is apparent that the costs of administering a competitively-priced short term visa designed for tourists would violate UKvisas' current policy of cost recovery. As such, the Minister of State at DCMS observed that "there are some clearly difficult negotiations that we are engaged in [with the Home Office]".[261] Nevertheless, she assured the Committee that visas "has been one of the key issues on which I have focused my attention".[262]

135. Besides cost, there are practical difficulties involved with obtaining a visa to visit the UK. For instance, visa applications must be completed in English. Southwest Tourism suggested to the Committee that, "if we were going to China we would find it quite difficult to fill out a form in Mandarin".[263] There has also been suggestions that the UK is sometimes disadvantaged by its introduction of a biometric visa system. The UK is some way ahead of the rest of the world (the USA excluded) in introducing a biometric visa system, creating practical difficulties for prospective visitors from countries without such systems. For instance, visitors to the UK from Russia often have to travel long distances within their own country in order to record the biometric information necessary to obtain a UK visa.[264]

136. The high cost of obtaining a visa to visit the UK is one constraint on inbound tourism. The cost of a UK visa is not competitive with that of our European neighbours and this acts as a disincentive for those requiring a visa to enter the UK to visit. It is not the only cause of the recent drop-off in inbound tourism revenues, but it is almost certainly a contributory factor. We are deeply concerned that the consequences for tourism appear not to have been considered by the Home Office when the new visa charges were drawn up. We strongly recommend reforms to the current system to address this disincentive and we are therefore encouraged to hear that there are now ongoing discussions between DCMS and the Home Office. We support the plans for a "Schengen add-on visa", which would make visits to the UK for those already holding a Schengen visa a more affordable proposition. We also support moves to introduce a cheaper, short term, single entry visa. However, these modifications are unlikely to be possible under UKvisas' revenue-neutral model. This system is putting off potential visitors who are likely to boost the UK economy to a far greater degree than the value of a visa. We recommend that the Government undertakes a cost-benefit study into the effects of reduced visa charges under certain circumstances, with a view to reforming the present system.

137. We recommend that the Government also reviews the practicalities associated with obtaining a UK visa. Modifications to the present system, such as permitting the completion of visa forms in certain other languages, could make obtaining a visa a simpler process for prospective visitors without compromising the UK's national security.

138. During our investigation, we received no evidence on the potential impact of the current entry clearance regime on the availability of visas both generally and in respect of visitors to the 2012 Games. The recent European Champions League final in Moscow, however, does highlight the dilemmas faced by government when confronted with a rush of applications for a popular event, even when potential "over-staying" was not an issue. The Government will clearly have to give considerable thought to this issue in the approach to the 2012 Games.


139. DCMS has responsibility for national tourism statistics, overseeing three main surveys:

140. In addition, data on tourism is collected at regional and local levels, and also by trade associations and the private sector. However, it is often only the big private sector firms that can afford to conduct their own research, and they do so typically for their own marketing and planning purposes. The numerous smaller players are often unable to justify the cost of collecting their own statistics. It is for this reason, coupled with the need to make informed strategic decisions on the future of the industry, that public sector statistical sources are necessary.[266]


141. The Committee received a considerable amount of evidence criticising the current provision of tourism statistics. The British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions argued that government statistics are "not sufficient given the size and economic contribution of the tourism industry".[267] Local authorities were similarly critical of the situation. For instance, East Riding of Yorkshire Council argued that the statistics are simply not sufficiently accurate for policy making and expenditure decisions. Pembrokeshire County Council stated that the existing methods for assessing the volume and value of the industry at a local level are inadequate and expensive.[268] A further criticism centred around the ineffective transferral of statistics between tourism businesses and local and regional government, in part due to commercial confidentiality, but also due to poor coordination.[269]

142. The Committee also heard evidence from two independent experts in this field, Professor Victor Middleton[270] and Professor John Fletcher.[271] They felt that "the current statistics may provide some robust estimates at the national level when considered in an aggregate sense". However, they argue that the statistics are "woefully poor when considered at regional level and may be wildly inaccurate at sub-regional and local level", as the dataset reduces in size. Moreover, if the statistics at national level are disaggregated by type of visitor, period of visit or time of visit, "the statistical errors attached to the values increase significantly".[272]

143. The lack of confidence in the tourism surveys shows itself in interesting ways. Rather than rely on the tourism data, the Chief Executive of Southwest Tourism prefers to consult with the laundries that serve the hotels: "if those guys tell me [business] is 2% up or 2% down, I believe the guys washing the sheets more than I do government statistics".[273] As Southwest Tourism readily admits, this is a sad reflection on the state of affairs.[274]

144. However, London and Scotland are exceptions to this situation. London now generates its own tourism statistics, in addition to those provided at a national level. The London Development Agency has invested heavily over the past three years in its tourism statistics and now has four London-only research projects.[275] One of these, the Local Area Tourism Impact (LATI) model, is able to measure the volume and value of tourism at a borough level. Visit London told us how this was being welcomed by boroughs as a means to develop strategy and allocate resources effectively.[276] We encourage the other regions to follow London's lead, and draw on the experience of the London Development Agency in improving the provision of tourism statistics.

145. There are real economic benefits to be realised from better quality statistics. There is a widely held view that the inadequacy of the data leads to a lack of recognition of tourism in the wider economic development arena:

  • Oxford City Council told us that "without effective data capture it is difficult to justify local authorities' investment in tourism";[277]
  • The RDAs told us that a lack of credible data renders difficult the efficient allocation of resources;[278]
  • The RDAs also argued that the industry has suffered in its discussions with the Treasury over funding because it does not have a robust statistical base with which to present a convincing case.[279]

146. Aside from funding considerations, an improvement to the current provision of statistics would also help the industry to base its plans on a more up to date and informed view. While few doubt the potential of the tourism industry in the UK, it is difficult for this potential to be realised without a reliable understanding of which sectors and regions attract the most economic benefits.[280] The Minister accepted that an adequate statistical base is "really important" for the industry.[281]


147. In June 2004, DCMS and the Office for National Statistics commissioned a Review of Tourism Statistics. This is commonly referred to as the Allnutt Review after the author, Denis Allnutt. The Allnutt Review came about as part of a Tourism Statistics Improvement Initiative which followed a growing acceptance by the Government of the need to improve the quality of data.[282] As the Allnutt Review outlines, deficiencies in tourism statistics had been apparent for many years, despite earlier recommendations for improvements.[283] The Review opens with a damning summary of the situation:

    "Due to the sheer diversity of tourism services and the unique challenge of measuring a consumer defined industry, we have come to believe that there is no other sector in the UK economy as significant as tourism in which the key strategic and management decisions are so hampered by a lack of adequate data. Existing sources are no longer fit for purpose and the potential economic, social and environmental contributions of the tourism sector will only be realised if priority is allocated to better measurement".[284]

148. The Allnutt Review made fourteen major recommendations, relating both to specific improvements to individual surveys, and more general improvements to the overall provision of statistics. It also recommended the establishment and resourcing of a Tourism Statistics Unit. It is clear that the findings of the Allnutt Review are widely supported throughout the tourism industry.[285] The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions told us that "everybody in the industry basically signed up to [the Allnutt Review][…]we do not need to reinvent the wheel here; what is needed is contained in that report".[286]

149. The Allnutt Review suggests that additional resources in the region of £8 million per annum (at 2004 prices) would be needed to implement the recommendations. While it is unclear how much extra DCMS has provided since 2004,[287] it does claim to have "prioritised the recommendations in light of available funding".[288] This included the re-tendering of the contract for the UK Tourism Survey, which DCMS claims is now much improved. Tourism Satellite Accounting, a globally recognised method for calculating the value of the industry at national and regional levels, was also adopted. However, DCMS has been widely criticised for failing to implement adequately many of the recommendations of the Review.[289]

150. Professor Victor Middleton and Professor John Fletcher stated that no priority has been given to better measurement of the tourism sector since the publication of the Allnutt Review.[290] They also qualified the improvements that DCMS did cite. They told us that Tourism Satellite Accounts (TSAs) are "being constructed from either poor quality data or by 'borrowing' data from other economies". As such, the high level of accuracy associated with the term TSA is, they claim, "totally misleading".[291] They argued that the improvements to the UK Tourism Survey merely represented progress from a very low base, as there was a period when the "whole system collapsed" prior to the Allnutt Review.[292] They added that methodological changes to this survey and the Day Visit survey have now inadvertently rendered effective comparisons with previous years impossible.[293] In summary, Professor Victor Middleton told us that not one of the 14 recommendations in the Allnutt Review has been fully implemented.[294]


151. The evidence before the Committee suggested that there was limited expectation from the industry that the Allnutt recommendations would be fully implemented. When the Minister gave evidence in February 2008 she told us she would like to make more rapid progress.[295] However, it was also clear from her comments that the amount DCMS has budgeted is somewhat less than the £8 million price tag quoted in the Allnutt Review.[296] This figure has seemingly been rejected as politically unrealistic. Yet we were told that if the expenditure per head of population in London on tourism statistics were to be grossed up to the whole of England, this is approximately the figure that would be reached.[297]

152. Although the Allnutt Review was published four years ago, the industry still believes that its proper implementation would go some way to solving the statistics problem. Professor Middleton told us that the recommendations are "a very good place to start", although there is now the need for a greater emphasis on local statistics.[298] It is pleasing therefore that recent planned developments are linked to the Allnutt Review. In response to the Allnutt recommendation to develop a Tourism Statistics Unit, we understand that plans for a new 'Tourism Intelligence Unit' (TIU) are now being drawn up. The plans are being developed by the recently formed English Tourism Intelligence Partnership (ETIP), which is co-funded by the RDAs and VisitBritain.[299] The TIU, which will sit within the Office for National Statistics, will review the Allnutt recommendations and prepare "costed proposals for future development and implementation".[300]

153. The provisional work plan for the TIU includes:

  • Possible future inclusion of the UK Tourism Survey and the Leisure Day Visits Survey within the ONS' new Integrated Household Survey;
  • The development and publication of a better statistical picture of the supply side of tourism data;
  • Scoping and costing of future development of Tourism Satellite Accounts;
  • A review of the recommendation to improve methods for producing local tourism statistics;
  • The development of a series of guidance notes that will outline the basis and quality of all key tourism statistics.[301]

154. These plans are a welcome development. However, they remain only provisional plans and it remains to be seen what concrete progress is actually made in the coming months and years. Professors Victor Middleton and John Fletcher recently told us that "initial progress is impressive", but they cautioned that this in itself does not yet represent the implementation of the Allnutt Review recommendations.[302]

155. The current deficiencies in the provision of statistics are a major constraint on the potential growth of the tourism industry. The findings of the Allnutt Review, which outlined many of these deficiencies, drew wide support from the industry. Yet it is clear that its recommendations have thus far been implemented only in a very limited and piecemeal fashion. There has therefore been very little benefit to the industry as a result. However, the Committee is encouraged by the plans to develop a Tourism Intelligence Unit. We support the proposal for the Unit to review the Allnutt recommendations, with a view to their development and implementation. While this is a positive step, the Unit must receive adequate funding so that the limitations of tourism statistics, that have been recognised for so long, can finally be addressed. We note that no definite commitments have been made beyond setting up the Unit. It is of vital importance to the industry that this should not be merely another false dawn.

Environmental sustainability

156. Environmental sustainability is an issue of growing importance in the industry. Tourism, by its very nature, is often dependent on maintaining the environment in order to be able to continue to attract visitors. It is therefore no surprise that there are a number of environmental success stories in the industry. For example, in 2004-05, six local authorities—Birmingham City Council, the Broads Authority, Greenwich Council, New Forest District Council, South Hams District Council, and Tynedale District Council—were awarded Beacon Council status for best practice in promoting sustainable tourism.[303] Indeed, New Forest District Council, a pioneer of sustainable tourism, was recently named the overall winner in the worldwide Responsible Tourism Awards.[304]

157. Nevertheless, there are a number of features of the industry that are inherently poor from an environmental viewpoint. For instance, the level of waste recycling in the industry has been criticised in our inquiry. The British Resorts and Destinations Association testifies to a limited level of waste recycling from hotels.[305] We discuss the environmental performance of the accommodation sector in more detail in the following section of this report on the Green Tourism Business Scheme.

158. Transport is one of the other main environmental considerations for the industry. The mode of transport to and from a destination is often by car or plane. Indeed, 86% of UK staying visitors arrive at their destination by car.[306] The Welsh Assembly recognises that this practice is difficult to alter, and instead aims to encourage those visitors to explore Wales by bike or public transport once they have arrived.[307] The Greater London Authority has a similar approach. London is very dependent on inbound air traffic to deliver its 13.4 million international visitors. The GLA is keen to promote greener travel options once these visitors have arrived in the capital.[308] In accordance with this principle, every February the London Blue Badge Tourist Guides organise and lead a 'Walking Weekend'.[309]

159. However, for rural tourism businesses, it is often the case that the only viable means of access is by car. Country houses, parks, castles and abbeys of the sort run by English Heritage and the National Trust are often difficult to access without a car. However, there are exceptions. In places such as Hadrian's Wall Country, where there is a concentrated group of tourist attractions, it is financially viable for a bus service to operate.[310] Similarly, the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site in Derbyshire benefits from a railway line along its entire length.[311] Natural England, the-non departmental public body established in 2006 to replace English Nature and some functions of the Countryside Agency and the Rural Development Service, seeks to ensure that tourism can develop in a manner that protects and enhances the natural environment.[312] The three main aims of Natural England's project to reduce the transport impact of nature-based tourism are:

  • to develop and encourage the take-up of more sustainable travel options;
  • to provide more information on the natural environment for transport users, in order to increase their understanding, enjoyment and appreciation of the natural environment;
  • to raise awareness of the impact of people's travel patterns and behaviour.[313]

160. We recognise that it is not always possible to provide sustainable travel options to tourist attractions, particularly when the attractions are remote or do not attract large numbers of visitors. However, where opportunities do exist, we encourage the public and private sectors to work in partnership to reduce the reliance on the car and the pressure this places upon the local environment.

161. Despite these challenges, green issues are clearly becoming more important in the sector. The Association of Leading Visitor Attractions told us about a new code of conduct for attractions which exhorts them to act in a sustainable way.[314] Southwest Tourism recently published its top ten actions for "going green".[315] The National Caravan Council promotes an Environmental Code for caravan holiday parks,[316] while the Museums Association has been undertaking a major review of the environmental sustainability of museums.[317]

162. These measures are being taken in response to growing pressure from the public. A Green Holiday Survey conducted by Travelodge found that 87% of consumers felt tourism companies and hotels have a responsibility to operate in a way that protects the environment.[318] The survey also found that the British public is willing to sacrifice an annual total of 14 million trips abroad by flying less in order to do their bit to combat climate change. If such a finding proves to be true, it would not only have environmental benefits but would also provide a much needed boost to the domestic tourism market. The Scottish Chamber of Commerce and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce argue that it makes practical sense for tourism businesses to act in a sustainable manner. Some overseas tour operators, especially those from Germany, insist on using environmentally friendly hotels.[319]

163. We are encouraged by the growing profile of environmental issues in the tourism sector. However, while significant progress has been made in recent years, there is clearly still scope for the industry to become more environmentally sustainable. The public is beginning to demand a better performance from tourism businesses on "green" issues, and we encourage the industry to respond to this demand. This will not only bring environmental benefits but will place businesses at a competitive advantage to those failing to meet the public's environmental expectations.


164. During the inquiry, we heard about several "green" initiatives within the tourism sector. A number of submissions made reference to the David Bellamy Conservation Award Scheme, for holiday parks with policies showing active concern for the environment.[320] At a local level, we heard about CoaST (Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Project), which seeks to help the tourism industry in Cornwall become more sustainable.[321] However, the most prominent of the environmental initiatives is the Green Tourism Business Scheme (GTBS). The GTBS is an accreditation system set up in 1998 that assesses participating businesses against a set of environmental criteria. The scheme started in Scotland and is now becoming widespread in the rest of the UK.[322] VisitScotland informed us that the GTBS is the most successful scheme of its kind in Europe.[323]

165. The GTBS is only open to businesses and operators that belong to a National Quality Assurance Scheme (NQAS). This has been criticised in our inquiry. South Hams District Council and Caradon District Council argue that the system should work the other way; Quality Assurance should not be granted unless green issues are adequately addressed.[324] It has even been suggested that some NQAS criteria are actually at odds with recognised best practice in environmental sustainability. As Caradon District Council told us, "this just perpetuates the outdated notion that high quality is linked to high consumption".[325] The British Resorts And Destinations Association calls for the National Quality Assurance Schemes to place much greater emphasis on environmental practice.[326] Similarly, Tourism South East wants to see the integration of GTBS principles into the NQAS—at the very least ensuring compatibility.[327]

166. As discussed in Chapter 6: Quality of serviced accommodation, the Government has recently made a commitment to use only NQAS providers for Government travel. However, due to the misalignment between NQAS and GTBS, this measure does not necessarily ensure that Government contracts go to environmentally friendly accommodation providers. Southwest Tourism told us that if "green" accreditation was a pre-requisite for winning a Government contract, this would "give the biggest boost to the accreditation of businesses…and all the positive things that come with that".[328] Of course, if NQAS were to be adjusted to incorporate environmental principles, it follows that the environment would then automatically be a consideration for every Government accommodation contract.

167. There is little doubt that the Green Tourism Business Scheme has helped promote and reward environmental sustainability in the tourism sector. However, we are convinced that some modest changes would lead to both a greater uptake and a greater effectiveness. Significant benefits can be realised from ensuring a closer alignment between the National Quality Assurance Schemes and the Green Tourism Business Scheme. Environmental sustainability should be included within the NQAS. The Government must also take a lead in rewarding those accommodation providers that operate in a sustainable manner. We recommend that sound environmental practice should be a pre-requisite for the acquisition of accommodation contracts for the Government and its sponsored bodies.


168. The Committee heard evidence from a number of bodies that presented the case for the introduction of "Double British Summer Time". This is a proposal to advance time in England and Wales by one hour throughout the year. As such, winter would be one hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time and summer two hours ahead. This would increase daylight by one hour in the evenings and decrease it by the same amount in the morning. It would also bring time in England and Wales in line with that of the Central European Time Zone. A private Members Bill covering this proposal was introduced and debated during the 2006-07 Parliamentary session, but the question on Second Reading was never put.[329] A similar Bill introduced in the 2007-08 Session was debated on 7 March 2008 but has yet to receive a Second Reading.

169. The Tourism Alliance, the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, and the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions all argued that Double British Summer Time would lead to environmental benefits. These claims are supported by research published by Cambridge University in October 2007.[330] The research found that a reduction in peak evening electricity demand, brought about by lighter evenings, would result in a 2% reduction in average daily wintertime electricity consumption. It is estimated that, as a consequence of this reduction in consumption, the UK's carbon emissions would be reduced by 1.2 million tonnes per annum.

170. The tourism industry also outlined two other major benefits of the proposal:

  • An estimated 104 fewer deaths and 450 fewer serious injuries caused by road accidents, with a £200 million cost saving for the National Health Service.[331] The then Roads Minister, the Rt Hon. Dr Stephen Ladyman MP, endorsed these figures in 2006.[332]
  • Lighter evenings are expected to boost overall spending in the UK leisure sector by £2 billion.[333]

171. However, we are aware that there is some opposition to the proposal. For instance, VisitScotland told the Committee that it would be unlikely to give the proposal its support.[334] Putting the clocks forward in England and Wales would create a one hour time difference with Scotland, which VisitScotland claimed would cause problems for other industries. It argued that the finance sector in Scotland would not want to be in a different time zone to London.[335] Nevertheless, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) is supportive of the proposal.[336]

172. The Committee recognises that the introduction of Double British Summer Time does not have universal support. However, there is a growing body of convincing evidence demonstrating the benefits of the proposal, not least in terms of energy savings, road safety and increased tourism revenue. On the other hand, there are objections that different time zones within the UK would not be feasible nor desirable. We call on the Government therefore to consult widely on this matter to see if a consensus could be reached.

165   Fourth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2002-03, The structure and strategy for supporting tourism, HC 65-I, page 24 Back

166   QQ 25-26 Back

167   Q 27 Back

168   Fourth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Session 2002-03, The structure and strategy for supporting tourism, HC 65-I, page 24 Back

169   Ev 2 Back

170   Q 374 Back

171   Ev 72 Back

172   Ev 1 Back

173   Q 477 Back

174   The UK's emergency response team for national crises. COBRA is an acronym for "Cabinet Office Briefing Room A" Back

175   Q 477 Back

176   The then tourist board for England Back

177   Ev 26 Back

178   Ev 26 Back

179   Ev 72 Back

180   Ev 250 Back

181   Q 71 Back

182   Ev 75 Back

183   Quantification of serviced accommodation supply in the United Kingdom and consideration of issues. A report prepared for Travelodge by Melvin Gold Consulting Ltd, October 2007 Back

184   HCDEC, Hotel Prospects to 1985. As quoted in report by Melvin Gold Consulting Ltd Back

185   Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, page 56 Back

186   Q 480 Back

187   Ev 172 Back

188   Ev 172 Back

189   Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, page 58 Back

190   Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, page 58; Q 273 Back

191   Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, page 58 Back

192   Q 590 Back

193   Ev 37 Back

194   Ev 238 Back

195   Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, pages 59-60 Back

196   Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, page 60 Back

197   Ev 235; Ev 259 Back

198   Winning: a tourism strategy for 2012 and beyond, September 2007, page 58 Back

199   Ev 196 Back

200   The Anholt Nation Brand Index ( polls a worldwide panel of over 25,000 consumers on their perceptions of the cultural, political, commercial and human assets, investment potential, and tourist appeal of 38 developed and developing countries Back

201   Quoted in Ev 199-200 Back

202   Ev 200 Back

203   Q 106 Back

204   Q 364 Back

205   Widely reported in the media, e.g. Back

206   Ev 72 Back

207   People 1st press release, 4 September 2007 Back

208   People 1st press release, 4 September 2007 Back

209   Raising the bar: National skills strategy for the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector in England, March 2007 Back

210   Q 175 Back

211   Q 315 Back

212   Ev 261; Ev 297 Back

213   Raising the bar: National skills strategy for the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector in England, March 2007 Back

214   Q 338; Q 506 Back

215   Raising the bar: National skills strategy for the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector in England, March 2007 Back

216   Raising the bar: National skills strategy for the hospitality, leisure, travel and tourism sector in England, March 2007 Back

217   Q 340; The London approach: improving skills and employment outcomes for Londoners, March 2008 Back

218 Back

219   Q 338 Back

220   Ev 172 Back

221   Q 431 Back

222   Q 145 Back

223   Q 209 Back

224   Q 412 Back

225   Q 338 Back

226   Q 338; Q 506 Back

227   Q 333 Back

228   Q 331 Back

229   Q 341 Back

230   Q 341 Back

231   Q 341 Back

232   Q 341 Back

233   Q 344 Back

234   Q 345 Back

235   Q 345 Back

236   Q 345 Back

237   Q 354 Back

238   Q 353; Q 354 Back

239   Q 354 Back

240   Ev 56; Q 219 Back

241   Ev 56 Back

242   Ev 56 Back

243   Ev 56 Back

244 Back

245   Q 374 Back

246   Ev 56 Back

247   UKinbound submission to DCMS's Welcome>Legacy consultation Back

248   Q 369 Back

249   Q 369 Back

250   Ev 56 Back

251   Ev 56-57 Back

252   Q 132 Back

253   Q 132 Back

254   Written evidence from Eurostar [not printed] Back

255   Q 3 Back

256   Q 157 Back

257   Ev 92 Back

258   Q 369 Back

259   Ev 57 Back

260   Q 369 Back

261   Q 479 Back

262   Q 478 Back

263   Q 553 Back

264   Q 106 Back

265   Ev 207 Back

266   Q 429 Back

267   Ev 3 Back

268   Ev 383 Back

269   Q 614 Back

270   Former member of the DCMS Steering Group for the Allnutt Review of Tourism Statistics Back

271   Head of the International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research, Bournemouth University Back

272   Ev 157 Back

273   Q 562 Back

274   Q 562 Back

275   Ev 161; Q 257 Back

276   Q 257 Back

277   Ev 34 Back

278   Ev 73 Back

279   Q 215 Back

280   Q 420 Back

281   Q 519 Back

282   Review of Tourism Statistics, June 2004 Back

283   Review of Tourism Statistics, June 2004 Back

284   Review of Tourism Statistics, June 2004 Back

285   Q 44; Q 162; Ev 274 Back

286   Q 44 Back

287   Q 517 Back

288   Ev 207 Back

289   Ev 34; Ev 57; Q 180; Ev 251  Back

290   Ev 157 Back

291   Ev 157 Back

292   Q 426 Back

293   Ev 162 Back

294   Q 424 Back

295   Q 515 Back

296   Q 517 Back

297   Ev 161 Back

298   QQ 424-425 Back

299   Q 512 Back

300   Written Answer 1 April 2008, col. 802W Back

301   Written Answer 1 April 2008, col. 802W Back

302   Ev 162 Back

303   Ev 208; Written evidence from English National Parks Authority [not printed] Back

304 Back

305   Ev 32 Back

306   UK Tourism Survey, 2006 Back

307   Ev 105 Back

308   Ev 95 Back

309   Ev 264 Back

310   Q 56 Back

311   Ev 324 Back

312 Back

313   Ev 372 Back

314   Q 57 Back

315   Q 216 Back

316   Written evidence from The National Caravan Council [not printed] Back

317   Ev 310 Back

318   Green Holiday Survey, commissioned by Travelodge, quoted in Ev 149 Back

319   Ev 346 Back

320   E.g. Ev 208 Back

321   Ev 236 Back

322   Ev 208; Ev 346 Back

323   Q 279. The GTBS has 1400 members Back

324   Ev 39; Ev 223 Back

325   Ev 39 Back

326   Ev 32 Back

327   Ev 293 Back

328   Q 553 Back

329   HC Deb, 26 January 2007, col. 1674 Back

330   Daylight saving in GB; Is there evidence in favour of clock time on GMT?, University of Cambridge, 19 October 2007 Back

331   Transport Research Lab, 1998, quoted in Daylight saving in GB; Is there evidence in favour of clock time on GMT? Back

332   Stg Co Deb, Standing Committee A, 20 April 2006, Road Safety Bill, col. 288 Back

333   Ev 3 Back

334   Q 278 Back

335   Q 282 Back

336   Daylight saving in GB; Is there evidence in favour of clock time on GMT?, University of Cambridge, 19 October 2007 Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 10 July 2008