GENERAL SCHEMES OF ASSISTANCE FOR TOURIST PROJECTS (Hansard, 24 June 1969)

§ Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)
I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'and'.

§ Mr. Speaker
I suggest that with this Amendment we may consider the following Amendments: No. 30, in line 28, after 'Board', insert: 'and such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate'. No. 34, in page 4, line 11, leave out 'and'.
No. 35, in line 11, at end insert: 'and such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate'. No. 36, in line 18, at end insert: (7) Any such draft shall be accompanied by a statement indicating what persons and organisations have been consulted under the provisions of subsections (1) to (5), as the case may be, of this section. 1295 No. 104, in line 18, at end insert: (7) Before introducing any scheme the British Tourist Authority must advertise its intentions and ascertain the views of persons likely to be affected by the proposals.

§ Sir J. Gilmour
These Amendments fall into three groups. Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 seek to show that not only main boards but the rest shall consult with such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate. The second group, Amendments Nos. 34 and 35, seek to do the same when there is a variation of any scheme proposed by the British Travel Association. Amendment No. 36 seeks to add a separate subsection (7) which would make certain that when we are considering an Order laid before the House we have the information as to what measure of consultation there may have been.
A question which arises out of what the Minister of State said in reply to the last debate is whether we are seeking in this Amendment to put too much of a limit on the powers of the B.T.A. and the three national tourist boards. I have not so much in mind consultations with the sort of associations wholly within the tourist industry with which one believes the B.T.A. officials would always be in touch, but in the development of tourism there is no doubt that as our tourist potential gets bigger and we bring more people to this country the need for greater access to the countryside, access to water, playing areas and mountains will make a continuing pressure.
It is essential that there should be proper consultation with the Countryside Commissions, in Scotland with the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and with the new and enlarged county authorities of the future. The whole time we shall be encroaching on the countryside. Unfortunately, there will be a conflict of interest between the farming and the land-owning community with expansion of the tourist trade. There is need to ensure this measure of consultation and co-operation. It may be that a great deal of this can be done at the levels of the English, Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards, but tourism will grow only with the good will of the communities in which tourists live, move and have their being. I therefore hope that 1296 the Minister of State will see fit to accept this group of Amendments.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
Perhaps at this stage it may be right simply to comment on the points made by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments he expressed, which are in keeping with Amendments we have already made to the Bill providing for consultation. I should, however, point out that Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 as they stand are unnecessary since the authority will already have the power to consult as widely as it thinks appropriate. It will be able to do precisely what the hon. Member asks, and I think it will wish to do so.
In Committee at almost every stage we discussed at length the need for consultation. I made clear that we saw the authority as having powers for consulting very widely both on a regional basis and with the industry as a whole. We did not imagine that it would make a decision about a scheme or project, nor eventually make proposals about Orders in Council to provide for consideration under Part III of the Bill, without the widest consultation. This is the case, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that these Amendments are not necessary and not to press them.

§ Mr. Pardoe
My Amendment, No. 104, is on a rather different point. It is concerned with advertising intentions and with ensuring that the views of persons likely to be affected by these proposals shall be ascertained. That seems to be good planning, and I hope that the normal laws and regulations of good planning will apply to these schemes.
All sorts of schemes could be envisaged under this Clause. It refers to projects which in the opinion of the authority will provide or improve tourist facilities and amenities in Great Britain. I am not sure what connection the House may think there is between sewerage and tourism, but the provision of sewerage schemes can improve tourism in the West Country and allow development to take place there. It is absolutely essential that the British Tourist Authority or individual boards should advertise their intentions widely and ascertain the views of persons likely to be affected by their proposals. I hope that they will automatically consult the local authorities in 1297 the areas concerned, because obviously local authorities in holiday areas are absolutely bound up with tourist enterprises.
I am also extremely concerned about individuals who may be living near a development. Their property may be substantially affected in value, their view may be completely destroyed and the whole of the amenities of the area may be shattered. Schemes such as the provision of car parks or ski lifts can affect normal amenities and the environment. Individuals affected by such schemes ought to know well in advance that the schemes are planned so that they may lodge objections in the proper manner.

§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
In replying, the Minister of State missed the point of this Amendment. I wonder if he can address himself to a specific aspect which I shall put to him. Of course we realise that the authority has to consult those bodies listed in the Clause before producing a scheme. Those bodies are the three boards. We also realise that the authority will be given ability to consult other people. The Amendment seeks to lay an obligation on the authority to consult such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate. The reason for this is a fear—which was expressed by a number of hon. Members, including myself, in Committee—that while statutory bodies may have power to consult, they do not always do so. In relation to action resulting from the Aberfan Inquiry the Government were urged that before legislation was introduced they should consult certain people. However, they did not do so until the middle of the Committee stage on the relevant Bill.
7.30 p.m.
We believe that the Amendment would improve the Bill by providing that before general schemes of assistance to tourism were introduced the authority had to carry out consultations with bodies other than the national tourist boards. The authority may consult the Countryside Commission and interests connected with camping and seaside resorts. We believe that it would be wrong for the authority not to carry out that consultation.
As the Bill stands, it would be possible for the authority to introduce a 1298 scheme without having carried out consultation of the type spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife (Sir J. Gilmour). There is nothing political about this. The only argument which the Government can advance is that this would tie the hands of the authority. This is not our intention. The wording is general— such other persons and organisations as it considers appropriate". The power would rest entirely with the authority to decide whom it considered to be appropriate. We would make it mandatory on the authority to ensure that consultation took place with authorities other than the national tourist boards.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
I fully appreciated the considerations which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) had in mind. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) put his finger on the point by saying that the question of who should be consulted is left to the authority's discretion in the Amendments. Because this is true, the Amendments, though imposing a requirement to consult, do not amount to more than a power, because the authorities to be consulted are not specified.
As I said before, the Amendment as drafted, because it is restrictive in the way that the hon. Member for Honiton said was intended, so as to allow the maximum of discretion, would not impose a positive requirement. All the safeguards in the Bill, given in particular the need for approval by Parliament, are safeguards of the type which will ensure that consultation is adequate.
This is also the answer to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who may not have wholly grasped the circumstances in which a scheme would come forward. By the time the authority or any of the boards is in a position to introduce any scheme under the Clause, it will long have been public knowledge because of the consultations and the Order-making procedure which will have been followed. In all the circumstances, although I understand and endorse the continuing anxiety that there should be proper consultation, these Amendments would add nothing to the Bill.