| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Feb 2009 : Column 81WH—continued
What do we need from the Government? First, we need renewed recognition of the sector’s value, and the opportunity that it creates for jobs, training, education and economic growth. Secondly, we must recognise that the sector is under threat. The Minister’s facial expressions show that she responds positively to the points that I have made. The hospitality industry across the board is under real threat from the recession, as is everyone else, but we must understand that it is no good having a
beggar-my-neighbour approach and making an already difficult situation worse, because it is one of the sectors that can help to bring us out of recession. I have no doubt about that. We need more cohesion in policy-setting across Departments. Transport has been mentioned, and I would add the role of local government, and a greater understanding that the sector needs to work in partnership with local and regional government to deliver better facilities.
I take this opportunity to make a particular point about the necessity for a greater understanding of the impact of taxation. I do not expect the Minister to reply to this now, but she will be aware that many four operators make VAT payments under the tour operators’ margin scheme. However, thanks to the usual ham-fisted intervention of the European Commission, TOMS will change. The Treasury has sensibly postponed the change to January 2010, but when it comes in it will have a huge impact on the sector because, understandably, when businesses use hotels, transport and conference venues for meetings and events, they expect to get their VAT back, but they will do so only if they do not use agents or the organising sector. That needs attention.
I entirely support what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said about London’s need for a convention centre. I have made many speeches about that.
I turn my attention to what we need from the sector, and what it should do. It must recognise that even in these difficult times, the importance of investment remains critical. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) talked about the wonderful places that people may go to in Italy and France when they have been to Rome or Paris, but when they go to such places, they find extremely high standards. The American market will not tolerate low standards. Americans want five-star hotels and the sort of luxury that hotels in Las Vegas and Florida provide. We must ensure that money is available to the sector for such investment, but it must continue to invest in training and facilities. The Minister may speak about the importance of training people to proper standards. I am a member of the Sector Skills Council for Active Leisure and Learning, which is aware of the opportunities for training and upskilling of workers. That is critical, and we must encourage young people to consider the sector as a real career opportunity. Far too many of them think it is the last possible career, but that attitude does not prevail in other parts of the world.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for City of York on securing this debate. We must be positive and constructive, but the sector is under severe threat as a result of the attitude that people involved in hospitality and events are having a good time when others are being made redundant. That attitude only increases the number of people losing their jobs. We must reverse that, and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister says. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of debating the matter with her. I also look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) has to say, because he has the job of shadow tourism Minister, which I enjoyed for several years. It is one of the best Opposition jobs, and I hope that he will have the opportunity of doing it in Government.
10.26 am
Richard Younger-Ross (Teignbridge) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing this debate. He made some excellent points, and I agree with what he said about the pub industry and the airport strategy, which should be broader. He promoted City of York, as one would expect. Hon. Members also promoted Oxford, the City of London, outer London and the grandeur of Southport, which I know well. My mother was born there, and I spent many summers there as a child visiting relatives, but although it is said that there is sea there, I never saw it.
It would be improper not to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), for whom I am standing in, because he would probably never forgive me if I did not give Bath a plug. It is, of course, a world heritage site, and a splendid city. Having mentioned that, it would be my own ruin if I did not mention glorious Devon, where I come from. Teignmouth, the small town that I live in, is a small part of my constituency and is famed for Keats and the computer designer, Babbage, and for being the home of Hornblower and Admiral Pellew. Very few hon. Members here will know that, and that is part of our problem in promoting tourism in the UK. We have opportunities, but we do not exploit them. I shall come to the reasons for needing extra investment.
The tourism industry has a turnover of £86 billion. It is the sixth largest industry in Britain, and approximately four times the size of farming. It employs 1.4 million people throughout the country, which equates to 4.3 per cent. of the work force. The overall industry, with the jobs that rely on it, represented a massive 8.2 per cent. of GDP in 2007. However, despite the tourism sector’s invaluable contribution, both present and past, the Government’s commitment to investment and support has been disappointing and has lacked consistency. The portfolio for tourism has been moved from one Department to another, and there have been eight Tourism Ministers in the past 10 years. I hope that the present Minister will remain in post for a long time.
In 2007, spending by domestic residents amounted to £67.6 billion, whereas spending by international visitors was £18.7 billion. Domestic tourism is responsible for nearly four-fifths of our national visitor economy, and we must not forget that when we promote our tourism industry. Many sectors of society benefit from tourism, apart from people who work directly in the industry, ranging from hoteliers to tour guides, and the benefits extend to our cultural and heritage sites inside and outside the capital city. We have superb cultural assets, some of the world’s best museums and galleries, and world famous heritage sites with spectacular and diverse landscapes, all of which create a sense of fulfilment and educational enrichment for visitors.
In a global economy dominated by multinational business, tourism is one of the few industries that can easily accommodate start-up businesses, allowing people to step on that first vital rung on the ladder to entrepreneurial success. However, British tourism can thrive only if the Government are prepared to invest more money in the industry, and VisitBritain, the body responsible for marketing Britain abroad as a tourist destination, has seen its funding drastically cut by more
than £15 million for the period 2003 to 2010—I understand that that is at 2007-08 prices. That body needs greater investment, not less.
Britain’s share of the global market has declined from 7 per cent. of international tourist arrivals in 1990 to less than 4 per cent. in the past few years, and from 4.5 per cent. of international tourist receipts in 1990 to less than 3.5 per cent. last year. In the past 10 years, the UK’s tourism growth has continually underperformed against the global average, with the UK’s tourism deficit spiralling from £5 billion to £20 billion per annum and the UK’s share of global tourism falling by almost 20 per cent. and revenue falling by more than 25 per cent.
A world tourism and travel study has forecast that in the next 10 years, the UK tourism industry will be one of the worst performing in the world. The study predicts that out of 174 countries, the UK will experience the 10th worst level of tourism revenue growth. However, Britain is in a position whereby it can attract many more visitors if it adopts sound marketing strategies publicising our many attractions—whether in York, Oxford, Southport, Devon or the City of London—and emphasising that British tourism offers good value. One outcome of the credit crunch is the weakness of the pound, which makes Britain affordable to overseas visitors. That presents us with an opportunity to demonstrate to the world’s travellers that Britain is no longer an expensive destination and to reverse the trend that has seen Britain experience a 27 per cent. decrease in the number of north American visitors from 2007 to 2008.
VisitBritain can help to achieve that, but it needs sufficient funds to be able to exploit the opportunity. It is the main voice for promoting British tourism, and I urge the Government to reverse the funding cut to VisitBritain so that it can grasp the opportunity and in turn mitigate some of the worst effects of the recession.
The Olympic games will present London with a unique opportunity to market the city around the world as a tourist destination. So far, the games are estimated to be costing £9.3 billion. What are the Government doing to ensure that the full potential from hosting the games is realised with respect to promoting the tourism industry?
Christopher Rodrigues, the chair of VisitBritain, has already spoken of his concern regarding the lack of funding for the tourism legacy:
“We were guided by Government not to focus on the case for additional funding, but rather on identifying ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the industry...We have respected that guidance, though we must point out that the plan for achieving the tourism legacy benefits of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games remains largely unfunded.”
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2012 tourism strategy, “Winning: a Tourism Strategy for 2012 and Beyond”, published in 2007, is as yet unfunded. It must be fully implemented and adequately funded as a priority. The strategy claimed that the Olympics could generate an estimated £2.1 billion in additional tourism benefits for the UK over the period from 2007 to 2017 and stated:
“We must use the 2012 Games as an opportunity to upgrade facilities and give tourists a first-class experience.”
The strategy seemed to suggest that the Government would put extra money towards marketing Britain as a tourist destination in the run-up to the games. That now appears extremely unlikely. Even when the former Secretary
of State for Culture, Media and Sport—the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—announced the 18 per cent. reduction in funding for VisitBritain as part of the 2007 comprehensive spending review, he held the door open on the Olympics with this announcement:
“I recognise VisitBritain’s key role in delivering the 2012 tourism legacy and will review available resources for VisitBritain to work with the private sector as we get closer to the 2012 Games.”
That door seemed to be firmly slammed shut by this Minister when she told the House:
“I have no plans to provide additional funding for tourism in respect of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in this comprehensive spending round.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 60W.]
That was reported in the Tourism Alliance January newsletter.
There is also cause for concern about the lack of preparation regarding applications for tickets, which I understand will go on the market in spring 2011. Little thought appears to have been given to how we promote Britain for when the tickets are on sale. There is little point in our having a big promotion in 2011. The promotion has to take place in 2010, so that when people are buying tickets, they buy the whole package and they do not just think that they will come to London, do the easy options and then go back again, or go to Weymouth and then go back again. If they are in Weymouth, how about going to Dorset? If they are in another part of the country, how about going to York, Oxford or some of the other places?
Dr. Pugh: One obstacle that people face and one reason why they might not think about doing that is that when they investigate the difficulties of getting across the country as opposed to down to London by train, they find them insurmountable.
Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend makes his point and it is on the record. There are other issues, though. We need announcements on infrastructure and promotion. Stonehenge is essential. There must be progress in that respect. If we want more people to go to Stonehenge, we have to give them a first-class facility when they get there, but we are not doing that at the moment. If we keep delaying, it just will not happen.
It is time that the Government recognised the importance to Britain of tourism—in deeds, not just words—and appreciated how much Britain relies on tourism to support the economy. It beggars belief that at a time when the Government are spending billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on boosting public expenditure to take the country out of recession, they turn their back on tourism—one of the industries with the greatest opportunity for growth. We might also consider, for example, promotion of lighter evenings. There are a number of things that the Government can do; they are not all cash-orientated. I urge the Minister, however, to revisit the decision to cut funding to VisitBritain—a vital organ in ensuring the success of our tourism industry.
10.37 am
Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con):
I begin, like other hon. Members, by congratulating the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing
this important debate. I am pleased that we are having it. We do not debate the issues of tourism enough in the House, considering the importance of the impact that Parliament has on our tourism industry. I requested from the Leader of the House an annual debate on tourism in the main Chamber, but I was denied. The Conservative party has now agreed to that proposal—should we win the general election—so I hope that we can regularly bring together Members of the House who have an interest in tourism.
I am slightly concerned that a number of Labour Members have suddenly brought up the issue of tourism in the last month or so. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I hope that that is not a Labour spin plot, possibly with the paws of Lord Mandelson on it, to take advantage somehow of what is likely to be an increase in domestic tourism simply because of the economic downturn. We are where we are today not because of Government, but in spite of Government. As we have just heard, this Government have made ruthless cuts to the tourism budget and carved up responsibility for tourism to the nine regions across the country. Our success as the sixth most popular country in the world for tourists has been achieved in spite of the legislation created here, not because of it, and that must change.
Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. O’Hara. Is it entirely appropriate for an hon. Member, even one speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, to refer to a Minister of the Crown as having paws? There is an inevitable suggestion in that comment that the Minister is animal, not human.
Mr. Edward O’Hara (in the Chair): I do not think that I take that seriously as a point of order.
Stephen Pound: Paws for thought.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Yes, paws for thought.
Mr. Ellwood: The sense of humour of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) certainly brings an air of jollity to the situation, but unfortunately there is a serious aspect to what is being said and there is concern.
We have a confusing, overlapping and conflicting tourism structure. We have had 10 years of jobs for the boys because there has been no leadership in Parliament. The regional development agencies and other bodies that are, from the Government’s perspective, responsible for tourism have been able to introduce their own initiatives, which are not necessarily in tune, do not necessarily follow the same agenda and certainly do not spend money wisely. Under a Conservative Government, however, that will be no more—things will certainly change.
Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ellwood: I will not give way at this stage, because I have other things to titillate the hon. Gentleman with, and I am sure that he will wish to react to them.
When I visit areas such as Yorkshire, the south-west, the north-west and the north-east, I find that there are nine different ways of promoting tourism in Britain; some are good and some are very bad, but nobody is
joining everything together. VisitBritain has come out with a very critical report on what is happening. Finally, VisitEngland is being created, so we have one voice that can bring all these ideas together. We can ensure that there is better understanding of how to market Great Britain not only to the wider world, but to the domestic audience.
Unfortunately, we have come full circle in the 10 years since 1997—we have reinvented the wheel. If hon. Members are not aware of that, they should read VisitBritain’s report, which was issued about a month ago.
Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ellwood: Not at the moment, because time is against me, and it is the Minister who needs to respond on these issues, not the hon. Gentleman. However, I will give way in a little while, because this is his debate.
Let me cite a couple of examples. In Boston, Massachusetts, we had six different offices representing RDAs promoting different corners of the UK, which is just madness. We have an overlapping, inconsistent approach to getting people to come to the UK and decide where they want to go. I am glad to hear that that has now stopped and that some of those offices have been closed.
Closer to home, another example came to my attention last week. Stonehenge is our premier outdoor attraction, but anyone who has visited it recently will be aware of the mess and misery at the visitors’ centre.
What are we doing to harness to the opportunity of the Olympics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) so eloquently described? We are building a temporary site just for the duration of the Olympics at a cost of £20 million. That is after a £15 million feasibility study—a paper exercise—to work out what to do. So, £20 million is being spent on something that will simply be torn down after the Olympics. That is not a good strategy or a good approach to co-ordinating jobs. Where is the leadership from the Government to ensure that the agencies responsible for putting things together create something permanent so that we can celebrate our premier outdoor attraction?
I will not reiterate hon. Members’ praise for the tourism industry, although I agree with them. However, those in the industry look to us not just to praise them, but for support. They know that they are doing well, but they know, too, that they could do better if they had better support from us. It is we who have to provide that support.
It has been reiterated that the industry is worth £90 billion a year. It is also responsible for one in four new jobs created in the UK. In global terms, 30 million visitors come to the UK every year.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |