| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Feb 2009 : Column 87WH—continued
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster makes the important point that London is an important attraction, but only one tenth of visitors to France and Germany go to Paris and Berlin, whereas half of our visitors come to London. We have to ask how we can not only continue to encourage people to come to London, but spread the wealth and tourism opportunities so that people visit other places across the
country. We can put only so many people in Oxford street before it is no longer a pleasant place to be, and we need to address that.
As we have heard, tourism in Britain is unique, and we cannot replace it. Oxford is Oxford, and Bournemouth is Bournemouth, and we cannot replicate them in the far east, because they are special to the UK. That is why we can be proud of what we offer.
Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ellwood: Of course I will; I do not wish to be discourteous.
Hugh Bayley: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If I understand him correctly, his criticism of the Government’s tourism policy is that it is fragmented and has too much duplication. As a Yorkshire MP interested in the promotion of Yorkshire, I think that it is a good thing that Yorkshire Forward has increased funding for the Yorkshire tourism sector from £4 million to £10 million. Is he suggesting that his approach would be to reduce funding for regional tourism promotion and to put it all into a central pot?
Mr. Ellwood: No, that is not what I am suggesting. The hon. Gentleman is trying to take me down a particular avenue, which would not be helpful at this stage. I am here not to divvy up the funds, but to say that we should have a co-ordinated strategy so that best practice in Yorkshire is shared with the south-west. Money in the south-west is spent at the headquarters, but it does not get to the tourist destinations, which is a scandal—it needs to change. Furthermore, Yorkshire might do some promotion, which might be mentioned in embassies around the world, but an hon. Member who was looking for their particular patch might not be able to see it because another part of Britain was being promoted. We need the co-ordination to deal with that, because it is not happening at the moment.
If the hon. Gentleman wants examples of where the Government are failing, let me give him some. I have mentioned funding. Devolution has caused complete chaos in our promotion of the UK. Transport has also been mentioned. I do not know how much influence the Minister has with the Department for Transport, but we must ensure that we have a co-ordinated system that allows us to link places of interest so that we can move tourists from one place to another.
The price of visas doubled overnight as a result of a Home Office directive. Again, how much consultation was there with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? Very little. According to the Tourism Alliance, the consequence is that we are losing £160 million a year because the UK is too expensive and tourists have chosen to go elsewhere. VisitBritain has requested that the Government to look into something called the Schengen plus visa. At the moment, people can pick up a Schengen visa for €60 and visit 15 countries, but if they want to visit Britain they have to pay another £60, so they immediately dismiss the UK in favour of the rest of Europe. Will the Minister please look at the issue and tell us how we might be included in the scheme, particularly if that would attract the far east markets?
Another example is the measures that the Department for Communities and Local Government introduced on fire regulations. Those measures have hit hotels and bed
and breakfasts, which now have responsibility for sorting out their fire regulations. Many decided that it was too much red tape and that they were going to close.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) mentioned local authorities, which have a huge responsibility for understanding what is happening in their areas. However, they are shutting their tourism offices and sacking their directors of tourism. Why? Because they can save £1 million by doing that and put the money into things such as wheelie bin collections, which allow them to meet targets and get financial rewards from the Government. Again, that is not a joined-up strategy. I see that the Minister agrees.
The Isle of Wight is one of the places where the local authority has decided to close its tourism offices and put services out to the private sector. It cannot be that a council washes its hands completely of anything to do with the tourism industry. A Conservative Government will link rates so that a proportion of them are kept locally. That will encourage local authorities to invest and take an interest in aspects of tourism. We will encourage all local authorities to adopt a tourism strategy so that they think about the issues involved, look ahead and talk to their neighbours.
I am embarrassed to say that Bournemouth borough council does not talk as much as it should to Poole, but anybody who visits the area is likely to go down to Sandbanks or to walk across to Christchurch to see the church there. There needs to be more co-ordination, which is where the leadership must come in, because the absence of leadership has meant that people are very much doing their own thing.
There is not time to go into the Olympics, other than to say that I posed a parliamentary question to the Minister to ask what money is being put in to take advantage of and harness the fantastic opportunity of the 2012 Olympics, when millions of people will be watching television pictures of Britain. Not one single penny is being put in. The Minister said:
“I have no plans to provide additional funding for tourism in respect of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 60W.]
Janet Anderson (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ellwood: I will not. The hon. Lady has just walked into the room.
Furthermore, we have not even touched on the fact that we have to deal with small businesses in the current economic climate. The VAT cut was simply a scandal; it has caused confusion for tourism operators, rather than helping them.
We touched earlier on the question of pubs. Duty was increased to compensate for the drop in VAT. VAT will go back up, but will duty on alcohol go down again? Absolutely not! That is one reason why pubs are being hit and are closing at the rate of 36 a week. I would like to see a reduction in corporation tax and a small-companies rate. I would also like to see a loan guarantee system that works, a six-month VAT holiday for small and medium-sized businesses, and a cut in national insurance. Such things would help the small businesses that make up our tourism industry.
There is much to be done, but it is not being done. We can certainly be proud of our tourism industry, but we should be less proud of what the Government have been doing to support it.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Barbara Follett): It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). I am glad to join him in highlighting the value that tourism brings to the national, regional and local economies. I am glad also to have had the opportunity of hearing from Members in all parts of the House about tourism in their areas. I particularly welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Having been in my position, he knows some of the constraints, but he was right to say that it is one of the best jobs in government.
I believe that tourism is one of the best industries in Britain. It is our fifth largest industry, and many Members mentioned its contribution to GDP, the number of jobs that it supports and its general importance to our regional and national economies. As the Minister for the East of England, I understand how crucial it is that we co-ordinate the regional development agencies, and that we copy the best and get rid of the worst, which, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) mentioned, we definitely have in some of our practices.
During the decade in which we have been in power, we have doubled central Government’s contribution to tourism. In 1997-98, under VisitBritain’s predecessor bodies, the Government’s contribution was £44.7 million; in 2007-08, it was £94.1 million, of which £50.6 million went to VisitBritain and £43.5 million to the RDAs. Why to the RDAs? As the hon. Members for Southport (Dr. Pugh), for Orpington (Mr. Horam), for Ryedale and others have said, we need to ensure that the RDAs and the regions themselves get their share of the tourist pot. The money that tourism brings into the country is vital. As many Members have said, it is one of the main ways in which we can work ourselves out of the recession. Like the hon. Member for Ryedale, I regret the slightly miserable attitude that we have at the moment.
Barbara Follett: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is a hair shirt attitude. We need to spend money to get ourselves out of the recession.
Overall, the public sector’s contribution to tourism is about £350 million a year, which is devolved to London and the various authorities in the regions. I am proud of the contribution that the Government make to tourism. I acknowledge that when times are good, tourism is easy to ignore. The industry gets on with the job, which it does extraordinarily well, and we are glad to reap the benefit. However, times are now immensely challenging for the industry and the country.
When I became a Minister in October last year, tourism was one of my top priorities. I have met the various trade organisations, which I am glad to say are represented here today; I have met the regional development agencies; and I am shortly to meet the RDAs’ heads of tourism. I wish to achieve more co-ordination, and to
get areas such as mine to follow the examples set by Yorkshire Forward and the north-west, which have particularly good tourism elements.
The latest data paint a bleak picture compared with that of 12 months ago. However, despite the weakness of the pound—and despite what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East said, the reduction in VAT has brought something of a retail revival to London and to Northern Ireland, where people are crossing the border in order to benefit from it—the number of visitors from the United States, the eurozone countries and the rest of the world is declining. That is why, on 8 January, at the beginning of what I knew would be a difficult year, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I held a tourism summit in Liverpool.
Why Liverpool? It was because Liverpool shows what can be done with good regeneration and with focused work on tourism. That focus was brought about by its being the European city of culture. Many of us did not easily put Liverpool and the title “European city of culture” together, but it has been a rip-roaring success, with the city attracting an extra 3.5 new visitors last year. It has vastly increased its tourism take, and more people are staying in its hotel beds. A record 1 million hotel beds were sold last year, and the average occupancy rate over the year reached an all-time high of 77 per cent.
Dr. Pugh: Will the Minister give way?
Barbara Follett: I shall not give way as I have only four minutes left to answer the debate; I am truly regretful.
That example shows the vital role of culture. For instance, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, Darwin’s landscape laboratory is in his constituency. It also shows the role of regeneration. I am glad that Southport is one
of the beneficiaries of the sea-change money provided by my Department: we put in a total of £45 million, of which Southport had £4 million.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to see whether we can extend the city of culture experience to other cities in Britain. We have commissioned a feasibility study on having a four-year UK city of culture. There will be money attached to it, and I hope that my hon. Friends will consider it when the time comes. We have also laid out plans for a UK decade of sport, which we will be promoting with VisitBritain. We are fortunate that a great many sporting events will be occurring in Britain over the next 10 years.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) quoted me correctly, and with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), sitting next to me, I reiterate that statement: not in this spending round. However, I tell my right hon. Friend that that does not mean that I have given up. He should listen carefully to the last part of that statement. My right hon. Friend—it is fortuitous that he is here at the moment—is being lobbied.
Hull, in Yorkshire, is hosting the clipper round the world yacht race this September, and this is an Ashes summer, so Headingley will also play its part. That is part of what we are doing to showcase Britain as a good destination.
The DCMS framework review was initiated by the Department, not VisitBritain. It was part of the attempt to get rid of some of the diversification mentioned by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East. We believed that such duplication was unnecessary, so we redirected money into other areas and to the regions. I am glad that the review proposed things that I am already doing, such as re-establishing the inter-ministerial group on tourism and setting up a tourism advisory council. I want to stay in touch with other Ministers, because tourism is delivered by about eight Ministries. We have to consider the product and the skills as well as marketing; without them, we could market for all we were worth but we would not get people to repeat their visits to Britain.
HMRC Office (Chorley)
11 am
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I thank you, personally, Mr. O’Hara—the great man that you are—for allowing this debate. You recognise an important subject when you see one, and there is none more important than Chorley tax office and its potential closure. Of course, I also thank the Minister for giving up his precious time; I do not want him to be known as the Minister of death and doom, but as the Minister of good news, and hopefully at the end of the debate we will hear some. I think that he will be embarrassed by what has happened in Chorley and other offices in the area.
I am disappointed that we even have to hold this debate about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office in Chorley and the mistakes that have been made—common sense says that its closure is not necessary and should be overturned immediately. The Minister may say, “Well, you would say that.” I would reply, “Common sense, prudence, and all the things that this Government claim to stand for, are the reasons why it should not close”. Prudence should be there for all of us. I hope, therefore, that the Treasury has readopted that prudence, common sense and justice. That is what we want for Chorley, and if he is up for that, Chorley will remain open. That is the question. I am sure that he will do his duty and do the best by the people of Chorley. We do not want a Government who are not working for the people of Chorley.
Mr. Greg Pope (Hyndburn) (Lab): My hon. Friend is making a strong case for the well-run tax office in Chorley, just as there was a case for the well-run tax office in Accrington. Originally, Chorley was scheduled to remain open, as was Accrington tax office. Has he heard any reasonable explanation, either from HMRC, the Minister or his predecessor, why Chorley or Accrington tax office should close?
Mr. Hoyle: There is absolutely no good reason for closure, but there is good reason for them to remain open—it would save money.
My hon. Friend has touched on the nub of the matter. Our offices cost less than those in St. Helens and Blackburn. I could name another one—Bolton—but let us stick with the first two. What is between Chorley and Accrington? Some would say Blackburn, but of course St. Helens is there, too. St. Helens and Blackburn were down for closure, because they are inefficient offices and cost too much to operate. The statistics, figures and answers that we received to questions tell us that they cost more to keep open. In fact, St. Helens is an embarrassment to the Treasury—so much so that health and safety officers have concerns about using it. It is not fit for purpose. It was quite rightly down for closure, and yet somehow it has been reopened.
What is the magical factor in all this? The Blackburn office, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is located on an industrial estate; it is a poor office in the wrong place, which is why it was down for closure. Accrington and Chorley were to remain open, because they are good offices with quality staff, offering quality services—Chorley is an award-winning office. It is a purpose-built tax
office built in 1990, not some rundown relic. Why do the Government want to close a second-to-none, purpose-built, award-winning tax office with the best staff and best quality advice? I shall tell the Chamber what the problem is—political corruption. We must be honest. This must be down to political corruption. I cannot think of anything else. It is very strange. What do St. Helens and Blackburn have in common? They have Cabinet Ministers as Members of Parliament. There can be no other reason, and in the end, therefore, the poor Back-Benchers pay the price. What is going on is a disgrace, and the Government should apologise to my hon. Friend and myself.
Mr. Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government, particularly through HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions, seem to be doing their best to make HMRC and DWP staff feel extremely uncomfortable. Is he aware that the staff in Preston have been given notice to clear out of their buildings, obviously to make way for the Tithebarn project, and have been given no indication of where they will be accommodated? Not only are their offices closing with no plans to reopen them and relocate the staff, but staff who will probably keep their jobs do not know where they will be in three years’ time.
Mr. Hoyle: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. Preston is a great modern city, and the tax office employs many people. As he says, we know that Preston is being redeveloped, that the tax office will close and that staff do not know where they will be transferred to or where the office will be. Preston is only up the road from Chorley and across from the office of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) in Accrington. Why do the Government not use some common sense and plan for the people of Preston, so that they can keep Accrington and Chorley open. It would not be far to travel from Preston. It would put an end to the uncertainty hanging over the people of Preston.
We can do things by working together, but we need common sense. The Government should take it on the chin, recognise that they have made a mistake and put right this wrong. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is big enough and strong enough and has the ability to say, “We have got this wrong. We will look into it, and put it right.”
Mr. Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): The hon. Gentleman, who has been waiting some time for this debate, is making an extremely strong case on behalf of Chorley tax office and others in the north-west, including Crewe, where the tax office has also been earmarked for closure. Does he agree that with the current deep recession it is the worst possible time to put such experienced people on the job scrapheap? The average work experience of staff in Crewe is 23.7 years. Furthermore, £21.5 billion of debt remains uncollected, and the debt management and banking business in Crewe is one of the most efficient at collecting such debt. Now would be the worst time possible to do away with that superb service.
Mr. Hoyle: Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for why Crewe tax office should remain open. I know that he will continue to press that case. That is on the record, and I am sure that the Minister has taken it on board.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |