Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
80-99)
RT HON
BEN BRADSHAW
MP AND MR
JONATHAN STEPHENS
20 OCTOBER 2009
Q80 Mr Ainsworth: Desperate for the
commercial sector. Nobody seems to know what it is worth. They
seem to think it might be worth something. You have been pressurised,
I suggest, into making a change without actually having looked
at any new evidence.
Mr Bradshaw: I have not been pressurised
at all actually. I was not lobbied on it by anybody. I think the
general assumption was that the government had made up its mind
and was not going to change its mind. I simply looked at the evidence,
looked at the papers and came to a different view. As far as I
was concerned it seemed odd to me that we should not be doing
something that every other country is doing that has equal concern
for the protection of children and the integrity of its public
service broadcasting that was putting our own programme makers
at competitive disadvantage. That was not a position I would have
found very difficult to defend in front of your Committee.
Q81 Mr Sanders: Turning to tourism,
with falling tourist numbers and the economic downturn, should
funding for tourism be re-examined?
Mr Bradshaw: I am not sure on
what basis you say falling tourist numbers because there have
been some rather encouraging figures recently that show that there
has not only been a small but not insignificant rise in visitors
to our biggest attractions this year. There was a piece in the
FT about that today. Domestic tourism spend rose 3% in
June as against the June before and, although the numbers are
slightly down, the foreign visitor spend in the three months to
August was 2% up on the same period before. There is growing evidence
that the so-called "staycations" have really helped
our tourism sector surf the wave of the downturn and get through
this very difficult period, a combination of significantly fewer
Brits going abroad, more continental visitors coming here and
spending more thanks to the exchange rate. It is not the doom
and gloom that you suggest thankfully.
Q82 Mr Sanders: The actual number
of overseas visitors to the UK in the year to July 2009 fell by
9%; that is a significant reduction of overseas visitors. The
total visitor spending—that is overseas and the staycationers—was
down 2% over the same period. That is a slightly different picture.
The figure that this Committee has been interested in is the VisitBritain
budget cuts which is that part of tourism promotion which is aimed
at getting people from overseas to visit here because the people
from overseas generally spend more money than domestic tourists.
That is why I asked the question: should the funding for VisitBritain
be re-examined?
Mr Bradshaw: We have trebled central
government funding for tourism since 1997 as I am sure you are
aware, and the figures you were just referring to were the annual
figures; the figures I was using were for the three most important
months of the year in the summer and although you are right to
say there were overall fewer foreign visitors to the UK because
of the global downturn they actually spent more and the exchange
rate means that even with fewer visitors we get more bang for
their buck. I do not think the picture is nearly as gloomy as
you describe. Yes, there is always an argument for spending more
on marketing and VisitBritain did this year spend an extra £6.5
million on both overseas and domestic marketing to attract people
both to visit here and to persuade more people to have what have
become known as staycations. As I say, there is increasing evidence
as we get the data in—it is still early days for the full
summer data—that this has had a significant impact and certainly
without it I suggest the figures that I have just given to you
may have looked a lot worse. Given the fact that we have just
gone through the biggest economic shock the world has suffered
since the 1930s I think the fact that our tourism sector has been
holding up so well is absolutely fantastic and a great tribute
to its quality and its improved offer. Of course it is partly
helped by all the investment that this government has put in,
including your constituency; there has been a massive investment
to improve the infrastructure and the tourist offer. Our museums,
for example, are the eighth biggest tourist attraction in the
United Kingdom which we fund and one of the reasons they are attractive
of course is because they are free.
Q83 Mr Sanders: What is your view
on the "five key asks" of the tourism industry? Are
you considering any further measures to boost tourism?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes indeed. One of
the other things that we have done which you may or may not have
noticed is that, as a sign of our commitment to the tourist industry
(do not forget I represent a constituency from the same part of
the world as you, which is heavily reliant on tourism so I am
acutely aware of the importance of the tourist industry to our
economy) is that we re-established the inter-ministerial group
on tourism. They are looking specifically at the "five key
asks" of the industry itself to see what more can be done
to help address the concerns and the requests the industry have
made.
Q84 Mr Sanders: One of those five
is about improving access to and reducing the costs of visas.
Since the government signed up to those five asks it has increased
the cost of visas which is having an impact on certain student
visas that are expensive as well as people who wish to come here
just to visit.
Mr Bradshaw: That is one of the
issues we are discussing as part of that inter-ministerial group.
I think we will all be aware of individual cases of teething problems
with the new visa and point system as well. We are regularly lobbying
on behalf of all of our bodies not just the tourism sector but
the arts and culture sector who have also encountered some difficulties
sometimes in getting people in at short notice for theatre or
musical performances. We are confident that these initial problems
are being ironed out and will be ironed out but we are happy to
make any representations that you think would be appropriate on
that.
Q85 Mr Sanders: I think it is issues
like that which have led to the British chambers of commerce and
big companies like Travelodge, etc, to argue that tourism ought
to move from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)
and into the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS).
If that became a firm proposal how would you defend keeping tourism
within DCMS?
Mr Bradshaw: Most of the tourism
industry does not agree with moving it to DBIS, as you know, and
my personal view is that it makes absolute sense to keep tourism
in the department that is responsible for most of what we would
call the tourism offer. I have already mentioned museums but you
could include art galleries, you could include investment in projects
like Sea Change, the multi-million pound investment in improving
Torquay and the facilities at Torquay. There was a wonderful exhibition
I visited, Mr Sanders, in your constituency, the Gormley Exhibition,
which has led to a doubling or a trebling of visitors to that
particular attraction. We have the wonderful heritage sights,
for example Stonehenge, and all of these things are within our
Department and I think if you were to transfer tourism to DBIS
it would just get swallowed up and smothered in this huge department,
a department which is bigger than it has ever been, and it would
get lost amongst more pressing industrial and economic sectors.
I think having a department that has a dedicated tourism minister—which
we have and which DBIS, I suggest, would not have—and a
department that has increased its priorities in terms of our strategic
objectives in the last few months is a sign that we are prepared
to back on tourism's behalf. I do not think that job would be
done more effectively by a much bigger department that has bigger
fish to fry.
Q86 Philip Davies: Moving on to gambling,
can I ask you why you think the gambling industry should pay so
much each year towards tackling gambling addiction when, as far
as I am aware, for example, the supermarket industry does not
have to pay a levy on tackling obesity even though they sell cream
cakes?
Mr Bradshaw: The gambling industry
does not have to; it is a voluntary levy as far as I am aware.
Q87 Philip Davies: You said they
have to pay £5 million a year or else you would force them
to, which is hardly voluntary, is it?
Mr Bradshaw: I define that as
voluntary.
Q88 Philip Davies: You would define
that as voluntary?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q89 Philip Davies: You pay £5
million or we will make you pay £5 million; that is voluntary
is it? It is a novel form of voluntary.
Mr Bradshaw: You can call it what
you like but I welcome the fact that the gambling industry has
recognised its responsibilities to make a contribution to a fund
to tackle problem gambling. I think that is a responsible approach
and it is the role of government sometimes when you are trying
to improve matters, who would rather work on a voluntary basis
than by legislation or regulation. I would have thought that was
a good Conservative principle actually.
Q90 Philip Davies: Given that the
government benefits from sales of the National Lottery—which
is gambling, and it is gambling that is allowed at the age of
16, and it is a form of addictive gambling because it is scratchcards—how
much does the government pay towards this gambling addiction?
Mr Bradshaw: I am sure that in
our NHS and other areas there are people who spend their time
and public money addressing this issue, but if you are saying
that there should be no responsibility on the gambling industry
itself to make a voluntary contribution then I do not agree with
that.
Mr Stephens: I think the point
here is to support evidence and research into responsible gambling
and responsible gambling is one of the key concerns that the National
Lottery Commission is charged with in the licence arrangements
it makes for the Lottery and remains a key government objective
that that is operated in a way that is consistent with responsibility
in gambling.
Q91 Philip Davies: You talk about
responsibility in gambling. The Gambling Commission has just recently
done a survey of bookmakers to see how many people under 18 have
been gambling, yet the government allows people to gamble on the
National Lottery at the age of 16. Can you, Secretary of State,
tell me why it is so much better for a 16 year old to buy £5
worth of scratchcards than it is to put £5 on the Grand National
each year?
Mr Bradshaw: I think there is
a difference in the nature of the gambling between going into
a betting shop and buying a scratchcard from the newsagents; it
is a different type of gambling. I think it is a sensible decision.
Q92 Philip Davies: You do not think
that the age for gambling should be 18 irrespective of what form
of gambling it is? If not, why not? Why is it so good to gamble
at 16 on the National Lottery but not gamble on anything else?
Mr Bradshaw: We can have an argument
about ages and majority. People can get married and die for their
country aged 16 so why should they not go and buy a scratchcard?
Q93 Philip Davies: Will the Department
consider making a contribution to this Responsibility in Gambling
Trust (RIGT) that it thinks is so important given that it encourages
people to buy National Lottery tickets?
Mr Bradshaw: As the Permanent
Secretary has already said, we have a National Lottery Commission
which regulates these matters which can intervene if it wants
to. The Responsible Gambling Strategy Board has made a number
of recommendations to the NHS, to GPs, on a helpline and on research
which we, along with other government departments, would examine.
If you are saying that we should spend even more of our very limited
resources on it, no I would not say that that was a priority when
the industry itself has stepped up to the plate and I commend
them for doing so.
Q94 Philip Davies: Can I tell you
what is going to happen and caution you against allowing this
to happen? The Responsibility in Gambling Trust or the GREaT Foundation
(fund raising for Gambling Reseach, Education and Treatment of
problem gambling) or whichever organisation you want to give it
to to deal with these things, they will spend £5 million
and it will not make a blind bit of difference to the levels of
problem gambling and what will happen is that these organisations—which
tend to be self-serving and empire building in nature—will
say the reason it has not made any difference is because we do
not have enough money and we will need even more money next year.
When they ask for their £10 million and that does not generate
any difference either they will ask for £20 million. Can
you guarantee that you will not allow this sort of salami slicer
effect to take shape without any firm evidence to suggest that
any extra money would actually make some difference?
Mr Bradshaw: I would certainly
resist any demands for further money from government or from the
private sector which is unjustified and not supported by any evidence.
Q95 Philip Davies: Can you tell me
your view about how the Gambling Commission has performed to date
with particular relation to the fees that they charge?
Mr Bradshaw: I do not have a view.
Q96 Philip Davies: Can I suggest
that you have one?
Mr Bradshaw: I will ask some questions
about them and if I feel I need to proffer a view on this along
with so many other things I will happily give you one, but it
is not something that anybody has asked me to express a view on
yet but I will happily go away and come up with a view if I really
feel I need to have one.
Q97 Philip Davies: Given that it
is an industry that you are responsible for and many people in
the industry are particularly displeased with the performance
of the Gambling Commission so far in the sense that many people
feel the Commission knows very little about gambling, and given
that the fees that they charge people in the sector keep going
up to unsustainable levels, can I suggest that it is something
you should be looking into and holding them into account for,
and perhaps you might write to the Committee with your views about
it after you have done that?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, and you might
like to invite the Commission before you if you feel so unhappy
about its performance.
Q98 Philip Davies: I think we may
well be doing an inquiry into gambling at some point in the future.
Can you tell us where the government is in terms of replacing
the horse racing levy?
Mr Bradshaw: Our position is that
if the book makers and governing body cannot resolve it then we
may have to intervene. My colleague, Gerry Sutcliffe, is meeting
the new Levy Board Chair, Paul Lee, to discuss this shortly.
Q99 Philip Davies: With respect,
that has been the government's position for about 12 years and
yet no progress really appears to have been made. Is there any
possibility of any progress being made as opposed to just having
the same position year after year after year?
Mr Bradshaw: I would certainly
hope we can resolve it, but if we cannot then, as I have made
clear, we are prepared to intervene.
| 
