§ Amendments made: No. 40, in page 5, line 1, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.
§ No. 41, in line 4, leave out 'Association' and insert 'Authority'.
§ No. 42, in line 14, leave out 'Travel Association' and insert 'Tourist Authority'.—[Mr. Buchan.]
§ No. 44, in page 5, line 18, leave out 'Association' and insert 'Authority'.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. PeytonI beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
I hope that the Government will not think me unduly tiresome if I refer to the Long Title, which is to
Provide for the establishment of a British Travel Association and Tourist Boards for England, Scotland and Wales with responsibility for promoting the development of tourism to and within Great Britain …".Subsection (4) confers on each tourist board powerto enter into and carry out agreements with the Minister of Overseas Development where-under the Board acts, at the expense of that Minister, as the instrument by means of which technical assistance is furnished by him …".This presumably means that each tourist board, which has been appointed in the light, and because, of its knowledge of conditions in England, Scotland 1320 and Wales, will then be deploying its knowledge of this country in every corner of the globe, except behind the Iron Curtain, where even the boards fear to go.This requires a bit of explanation. I am astonished that such a provision should creep into a Bill specifically designed to promote the interests and the cause of tourism in this country.
I am not in the least encouraged by the requirement that each tourist board, before it engages in these activities, requires the consent of what is called "the relevant Minister". I assume that the relevant Minister is the first cousin of a competent authority. Clause 1(6) defines "the relevant Minister" as
in relation to the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, the Board of Trade, in relation to the Scottish Tourist Board, the Secretary of State for Scotland and, in relation to the Wales Tourist Board, the Secretary of State for Wales".
§ Mr. David Griffiths (Rother Valley)The hon. Gentleman is wandering all over the shop.
§ Mr. PeytonDoes the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
§ Mr. GriffithsI was not talking.
§ Mr. PeytonI suppose it is legitimate to ask what the hon. Gentleman was doing. It sounded like a human utterance. Nevertheless, I shall let that go.
It seems a little odd that under the provisions of the Bill the Wales Tourist Board, with the consent of the relevant 1321 Minister, being the Secretary of State for Wales, can literally take a pin and put it in a map of the world and say, "Here is a good spot for us to go and build an hotel in with the encouragement of the Minister of Overseas Development who wishes to pay the bill."
One is justified in asking the Government exactly what qualifications they think the Wales Tourist Board, distinguished as it may be for its intimate knowledge—and I flatter it with this—of the affairs of tourism in Wales, can be credited with which could be remotely useful in the outer reaches of the Caribbean. What possible value would its knowledge of the Wales tourist industry to be launching out into a bold project in Madagascar or New Guinea? If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can deny that that is what the Bill does, I shall give way to him now and we can forget about the Amendment.
§ Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is an ancient tradition known as the Furry Dance? I am sure that taxpayers in my constituency would be most disturbed to think that they were contributing to a Furry Dance in the Fiji Islands. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this is intolerable.
§ Mr. PeytonI shall leave my hon. Friend to pursue the matter of the Furry Dance in Fiji. It leaves us with a nasty feeling that perhaps the relevant Ministers and the tourist boards between them, even with the advice of the Minister of Overseas Development, will not really be very well placed to decide whether such a project will be really worth while.
§ Mr. GowerWould it not also be possible to spend a lot of time, and for the members of the Scottish, English and Wales Tourist Boards to obtain false impressions which they would try to apply, wrongly, in Scotland, England and Wales?
§ Mr. PeytonIt is very much my fear that people who come under the influence of these boards may suffer in the course of their experience from some terible misapprehensions, but I do not wish to go into that now. I am concerned to obtain advice. It is unlucky for the hon. Gentleman, though I do not doubt that it is 1322 fairly well timed, that neither his hon. Friend the Minister of State nor his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is here to deal with this embarrassing situation. Neither is the Minister of Overseas Development here, who is the person who will sponsor these projects.
We do not want to comment on all the absences from the Government Front Bench; most of us would rejoice in them. But the House is entitled to seek advice on this Amendment from the Minister of Overseas Development and the President of the Board of Trade. But they have run away, and I do not blame them. If it is not an accident that this subsection has got into a Bill in which, according to its Long Title, it has no place, then they have been so embarrassed by this fearful, last moment realisation that they have left the poor Under-Secretary to deal with it as best as he can.
All of us on this side of the House are united in our sincere and deep sympathy towards the Under-Secretary. It must be very difficult for him to explain exactly how a Bill designed to promote the interests of tourism within this country could possibly be extended to embrace a provision so wide and drafted with such abandon as to include the possibility of hotel and tourist projects anywhere in the world, simply because the Minister of Overseas Development has some benign intentions towards some place.
I can leave my hon. Friends to deal with some of the more ghastly possibilities which could occur against the background of this provision when "relevant Ministers" and tourist boards go into action. It is either a case of crassly careless drafting, which I do not believe, or the Government are attempting, most improperly, to slip into a Bill a provision which has no place in it whatever.
§ Mr. BiffenMy hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has moved his Amendment with customary persuasiveness. I would remind the House of what the Overseas Aid Act 1966 purports to do. This lies at the heart of the subsection which we are seeking to delete. The Long Title suggests that the Act is:
An act to make provision as to the power of the Minister of Overseas Development to provide assistance to, or for the benefit of, overseas countries and territories".1323 The main mechanism whereby these facilities are to be provided is contained in subsection (1), referred to in that part of the Bill which we seek to delete. The Government are proposing to have as part of their continuing aid programme, one public agency operating through another, with Government-to-Government transfer of resources, which they call overseas aid. For this purpose they have chosen one of their latest bureaucracies, the tourist board. This extraordinary responsibility is being willed on these bureaucracies. Indeed, it offers members of the boards almost limitless scope for travel in respect of the objectives to which they turn their hand.9.0 p.m.
If it is the objective of the Government, through this legislation, to promote the tourist industries of the developing countries, I suggest that that can be left to free enterprise. I have recently been on holiday in Kenya and Tanzania, two countries which one might reasonably suppose would be beneficiaries of overseas aid and, therefore, would fall within the terms of the Bill. But both have growing and flourishing tourist industries and could reasonably aim to become the popular-priced Caribbean area for Western Europe.
There already exist private financial links from Europe with those areas. If the Government wish to facilitate the development of tourism in those parts of Africa, then by far the happiest way to set about it would be to set aside any capital restraints that they may impose on British companies and individuals seeking to apply their judgment, skill and investments in those countries.
My enjoyment of the holiday was only slightly affected by the immense bureaucracy which is being superimposed in those countries. I found it in the sense that holiday registers are more complex than in Britain. It would be doing a disservice to tourism in East Africa if we were to encourage its contacts with this country to be channelled through governmental rather than through free enterprise entrepreneurial agencies.
I have shown that the consequences of this legislation may be harmful to the developing tourist interests of East Africa. But suppose, for the sake of 1324 argument, that the Government are successful and that, for example, the Welsh Tourist Board possesses some peculiar facility which enables it to pass on to the tourist industries of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda the know-how which enables their speedy and successful emergence as mass suppliers of package holidays for United Kingdom workers. What will be the consequences for our tourist industry and balance of payments?
All the arguments that have been deployed in support of the Bill—in respect of either import saving or the attraction of overseas invisible earnings—will be reversed on the presumed success of the subsection. Indeed, the subsection is nonsense and is a contradiction to the main purposes of the Bill. If it seeks to offer assistance to the developing countries—I regret the absence of a representative of the Ministry of Overseas Development—then, instead of mobilising the healthy element of profit, it offers those countries the dead hand of bureaucracy.
§ Mr. GowerI think that the Government, on reflection, should feel that this subsection is the height of absurdity in the context of this Bill. If I do not put it more strongly, it seems to many of us that this is a most inappropriate instrument for giving any kind of assistance to emerging territories abroad.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) pointed out, the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate, develop and encourage the growth of the British tourist industry. There is nothing consistent with that purpose in that subsection. If the subsection were used to any great degree persons who otherwise would be engaged in developing tourism in England, Scotland and Wales would be spending time abroad which could be better devoted to the main purpose of the Bill. By objecting to this subsection we are not objecting to the objectives of the Overseas Aid Act, 1966. That is separate legislation. Means are laid down in that legislation for giving aid to territories overseas. The kind of means prescribed by that Measure do not at all resemble the means suggested in this subsection.
As a result of this subsection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) suggested, we would give some positive help to those territories. I can imagine a representative of the Wales 1325 Tourist Board advising someone in an African territory with a very heavy rainfall about his experience of the rather high rainfall in parts of Wales, or someone in the highlands of Eastern Africa advising people of his experience in some of the higher parts of Scotland. But it requires a slightly excited imagination to see how this could happen! I believe it was suggested at some stage in the discussions in Committee that our people going out to these territories would acquire knowledge which would enable them to carry out their duties with the English, the Wales or the Scottish Board. I find that hard to credit. If this subsection were employed at all it would mean that some of those working on those boards would willy-nilly be gallivanting overseas for no good purpose connected with the Bill. I do not suggest that that would be their intention; they would believe that they were doing a worth-while job overseas. That probably would be the instruction given to them. But in connection with the purposes of the Bill I do not think it would be at all worth while.
The very circumstances of our tourist industry are so different from the climatic conditions of most of the territories which benefit from the application of the Overseas Aid Act, 1966. How can one compare the conditions of tourism, say, in Uganda, Kenya, West Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, the Caribbean area or Fiji with conditions which obtain in most of England, Wales and Scotland? What similarity is there? Most of the territories which attract aid under the Act are in tropical or sub-tropical climates. Whether we like it or not, our country is in the temperate region of the world, has a high incidence of rain, and a disappointingly small amount of sunshine. The conditions are so dissimilar and the circumstances of the tourist industry so dissimilar.
We are catering for a native population which wants a certain kind of holiday at the seaside or inland, in an informal way on caravan sites, or motoring. We cater for visitors who come predominantly from rather sophisticated European countries or from North America. The territories which benefit under the 1966 Act are greatly different in character. They have new tourist industries. Their tourist industries have grown up with 1326 rather more specialised characteristics. Nothing in these islands can be compared with the tourist industry which operates in the Caribbean. On the north shore of Jamaica there is a luxurious tourist industry catering predominantly for North Americans and for a minority of the wealthier visitors from Europe. There is a very different tourist industry in the Bahamas and in Barbados. Kenya has a tourist industry which is connected with hunting.
What did the Government have in mind when this subsection was planned? This is an inappropriate instrument for giving any help to any of the territories which benefit under the 1966 Act. It is undesirable that in addition to that aid we should slip in some extra aid by some back-door method. We should be told what we are spending under the 1966 Act. If our expenditure under that Act is inadequate, Parliament can decide to increase it, but do not let us have some ill-defined uncertain amount of aid slipped in by this back-door method in a Bill which was not planned to have any connection with overseas aid.
This subsection is highly objectionable. It was not designed for the benefit of the British tourist industry. I do not believe that it was designed for the benefit of overseas countries. It should be deleted.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsThe subsection seems to be based on the assumption that people from overseas will enjoy living in hotels and dining in restaurants of the kind that Britain has and that because of the special knowledge that the three tourist boards have of Britain's tourist industry they will be able to lend assistance to others seeking to have tourist industries.
This is an extraordinary assumption. I thought that the Bill was founded upon the proposition that the British tourist industry is not good enough and needs to be improved. The subsection carries the suggestion that our tourist industry is so brimming over with expertise that the rest of the world cannot wait for experts in our tourist industry to go rushing off to show other countries how to run their tourist industries. This assumption contradicts the whole philosophy underlying the Bill, which is that our industry is not good enough.
1327 If I were to summarise the import of the Clause, I would have to say that its intention is to promote holidays abroad instead of holidays at home. The Clause is virtually saying, "Do not come to Blackpool. Go to the South of France, because your kind tourist board will provide overseas resorts with the technical expertise that will make it attractive for you to go there". My understanding of the purpose of the Bill is that it is to promote tourism in Britain, yet this proposal in brief means that the tourist boards will be assisting the development of tourism elsewhere.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. GowerMy hon. Friend has probably made an inadvertent error. I am sure that he will not want it to remain in his argument, which is otherwise so good. I do not think that the South of France would come into this; it is not one of the territories which benefit from the Overseas Aid Act.
§ Mr. GriffithsI am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I have the Act before me, and I am well aware that it is designed to assist those underdeveloped territories defined within it. The Short Title to that Act includes the Indus Basin Development Fund. The Act is subsumed into the subsection we seek to delete. Will the Minister tell us that the Indus Basin Development Fund shall not be one of the beneficiaries of the technical assistance prescribed in the subsection? The House is at least entitled to know, if technical assistance is to be provided, whether there are limits to the areas to which it shall go.
The parent Act extends over the whole wide world. It refers not only to the Indus Basin Development Fund but to overseas service pensions schemes. This is an interesting area where technical assistance will be provided. Not only will there be a lot of free overseas trips for members of the various boards to see where their expertise might be needed but if the Overseas Aid Act is seriously meant the possibility arises that those gentlemen will be going off to assist in overseas pensions arrangements. It is a very agreeable life that is contemplated for them, but I cannot imagine that it is a part of the Bill that the House wishes to see.
1328 There are a number of other specific disadvantages of the subsection, and it should be removed for them as well as for the others. First, it would provide technical help, what ever that means, to a number of places which have built-in advantages of climate and local conditions which this country does not enjoy. Our tourist industry is competing with many areas that have better weather. They have more sunshine and may have a much more agreeable climate altogether. I do not see why it should be any part of a scheme to promote tourism in Great Britain that we should actively assist those with built-in climatic advantages that we do not have, thereby enabling them to compete with the British tourist industry even more effectively than they do now. It must be wrong to provide assistance to those with climatic and other physical advantages which our trade does not enjoy.
Under the subsection, the help the tourist boards, shall have power to provide is described as "technical assistance". In my experience that is one of those phrases that mean everything one has forgotten or everything one has not been able to define in another way. It is one of the new bogus and cliché terms of our age. I hope that the Minister will tell us precisely what is the technical assistance that the tourist boards are supposed to provide. I have given some thought to this. The Scottish Tourist Board, for example, is no doubt very learned and knowledgeable on such particularly Scottish arts as tossing the caber. This is undoubtedly a tourist attraction, but are we to suppose that the board will promote the ancient sport of tossing the caber in the Cayman Islands? Is this the sort of technical expertise it is to provide?
Then again, no doubt the Wales Tourist Board—I wish it the best of luck—is extremely good at putting on local eisteddfods. Are we to have a series of miniature eisteddfods for the Zulus?
§ Mr. Arthur Probert (Aberdare)It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that I was present at an eisteddfod in Swaziland.
§ Mr. GriffithsI am delighted to hear that and obviously the board in that case is investing in success. No doubt there is every prospect of eisteddfods all over 1329 the world. But the question we have to answer is whether it should be part of the Bill that public money be provided for the purpose of eisteddfods in Swaziland. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to have technical expertise provided for launching an eisteddfod in Swaziland by the Wales Tourist Board rather than see that help provided to promote an eisteddfod in his own constituency?
§ Mr. ProbertWhat I am trying to do is to correct the hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) will resist the temptation to answer.
§ Mr. GriffithsIt is clear that one can tempt some hon. Members but not you, Mr. Speaker. I pass on. I was considering the kinds of technical assistance which could be provided and was illustrating that the special local knowledge acquired by tourist boards here is not always wholly relevant to the areas which may receive that benefit.
Then it occurred to me that, in addition to the technical expertise, there are all these interesting local customs. There is the whole question of the technical help which the B.T.A. might give for instance in the preparation of menus. In the hotel business, catering and menus are extremely important. I have been considering some of the possible menus. Bubble and squeak for the Seychelles; Yorkshire pudding. No doubt the mysteries of manufacturing that particular commodity would go down very well.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I tremble to think how many menus there are in the world. I trust that we shall have only a small selection.
§ Mr. GriffithsYou have stopped me at the hors-d'oeuvre, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should not develop the main course. However, I think that the point can be well taken that technical expertise, if it is to include the gastronomic aspects of the British tourist industry, is not the kind of thing which I thought this Bill was supposed to promote. I thought that the object of the exercise was to improve the gastronomy of our own tourist industry.
I think that it is faintly arrogant that we should suppose that we have a technical expertise in catering which the rest of the world, particularly under-developed 1330 countries, is lusting to get hold of. I do not think that it is any business of the Government to try to provide it. Where is this assistance to go? The Clause, which is based upon the Overseas Aid Act, 1966, opens up vast areas in every continent to which this technical expertise could be directed. The 1966 Act referred to Perim, the Kuria Muria Islands, Kamaran and a whole range of other territories. I see that the Minister of Overseas Development is not here—only the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who perhaps comes under technical assistance for overseas countries.
It is essential that the Minister should say which countries he envisages receiving the technical help this Clause would provide. I put three specific areas to him. There has recently been an operation in Anguilla. I should like him to say now whether he feels that the technical assistance envisaged here could be provided to Anguilla. He cannot answer that because the Minister of Overseas Development referred to here is not available to tell us where the technical assistance we are being asked to provide will be needed.
It is wholly wrong that the House should be asked to agree to a general power to provide technical expertise to the whole world without the Minister who is to provide it being here to tell us to whom it should go and why. I doubt very much whether the Under-Secretary is in a position to answer my question. The second area is East Africa. It was pointed out that there is every possibility of a large tourist industry developing upon the East African littoral, attracting many working men and women from this country travelling in the new jumbo jets. Does the Minister visualise that technical assistance shall be provided under this Clause for the developing industry? If this is so, can he say how that will help the British balance of payments?
Can he say whether that would not mean that more people would go abroad for holidays and fewer would take them here? Would not that contradict the whole purpose of the Bill? One overseas territory included in the Overseas Aid Act is Rhodesia. Will the Under-Secretary say whether this Clause would commit us to providing technical assistance for the development of a Rhodesian tourist industry? We are being asked 1331 to give a blank cheque to the Government and the tourist boards to provide a vast range of technical help, much of which is badly needed here and which cannot easily be spared elsewhere. We are being asked to do so without any Minister to tell us to which countries this technical aid may go, on what terms, for what purpose and in what way this will help, either other tourist industries or this country's balance of payments. The Minister ought to be able to answer these questions before we vote.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I would remind the House that we have a fair amount of business ahead of us yet.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Sir C. TaylorI have never been to an eisteddfod in Swaziland, and I am not sure that I have seen a jaguar or an armadillo, but I must correct my hon. Friend when he says that this Bill is to deal with bad hotels in this country. It is not at all. We have some of the best hotels of every category. We do not have bad hotels; we have very high taxation which other countries do not. The Government want to increase the number of hotel rooms. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. I raised it in Committee and got no joy. I will explain why, in Committee, I did not feel it necessary to divide on the deletion of subsection (4).
It is very strange that a Bill to promote tourism in this country should give to the Minister of Overseas Development the power of rendering technical assistance. If this technical assistance were given by the B.T.A. or any of the tourist boards it should be paid for, because the B.T.A. and all the tourist boards will be supported out of the taxpayers' money. We are not under any obligation to offer free those services to overseas competitors. The Minister may say that no money is involved other than the cost of the technical assistance, which would be very small. But I have no confidence in the Minister of Overseas Development. The Minister of Overseas Development, having been given the technical assistance of the B.T.A. and the tourist boards in this country, will immediately wish to give money to implement the technical assistance. This money will be going to our competitors.
1332 In Committee I mentioned a hotel in Malta. The Minister of Overseas Development did not give this hotel any money, but we all know that we have been supporting Malta, quite rightly, to a limited extent. The Government of Malta gave an American company £500,000 to build a hotel in Malta. I do not mention its name, for obvious reasons. But it imported all its furniture and equipment from the United States tax free. It has been given a tax-free holiday for 10 years.
Is that the sort of thing that we should encourage by the Bill? I do not believe it is. If we were a rich country, and if our balance of payments was all right and our gold reserves were fantastic, we should be willing and able to help developing countries overseas. But I am old-fashioned about this. I do not believe that the Government should go on their hands and knees to Zurich and borrow money from Zurich and the I.M.F.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We shall debate that matter tomorrow.
§ Sir C. TaylorBut this is a very important matter. We are proposing to give aid to overseas countries for the development of tourism. Yet the Government go to Zurich and the I.M.F. and borrow money which they then give away to developing countries. This money is not ours to give. I am not against helping developing countries if we can do so out of our own resources. I am not allowed to borrow money from the bank and give it away to people who are less well breeched than I am.
The only reason why I did not ask the Committee to divide on this Clause was the assurance of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He said:
Of course, we shall outline this more fully on Report if the right hon Member wants us to do so, but … there are similar provisions in the Gas and Electricity and the Transport Act, 1968, and there is also, I understand, a similar provision in the Post Office Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th April, 1969; c. 323–4.]Parliament slipped up on those occasions. I do not want it to slip up on this occasion. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)We have all been enjoying the knock-about. 1333 [Interruption.] A voice from behind me says that I should speak for myself. I have been enjoying the knock-about. It is totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion, but it passes an hour between 8.30 and 9.30. I notice that the Front Bench did not participate in the debate and that it was led from behind by the advance guard of progress, the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor).
I regret that the hon. Gentlemen appear neither to have read the Bill nor the proceedings in Committee. Most of the questions which they asked would have been answered by a simple reading of the Bill. The basic argument—apart from the eisteddfod in Switzerland and the cabers, of which I am very fond, being tossed in the Fiji Islands—was whether or not the provision should be in the Bill and whether we should give overseas aid at all. Behind the knock-about, the comedy, was the basic argument that we should not be giving assistance in any form overseas—
§ Sir C. TaylorNot borrowed money.
§ Several Hon. Membersrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind the House that we are on Report. Three hon. Gentlemen are seeking to intervene at once. This is a debate not a conversation.
§ Mr. BuchanWith my usual generosity I will give way to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsBoth the Minister and you, Mr. Speaker, are very gracious. I intervene simply to ask the Minister to accept that on the record in a whole series of Bills dealing with overseas aid my position has been absolutely clear. What I am doubting is the wisdom of this particular Clause offering technical assistance in this particular Bill.
§ Mr. BuchanThe hon. Gentleman is objecting to the provision being in this Bill. The argument on the concept involved in the Clause was discussed during the passage of the parent Bill. The Clause enables tourist boards to assist when asked to do so by the Minister of Overseas Development.
1334 We have been told that the costs will fall on tourist development. On the contrary Clause 5(4) states:
… at the expense of that Minister …That is to say, the Minister of Overseas Development. The cost is subsumed in that, and the arguments on cost therefore are totally irrelevant.The third point was whether or not expertise existed in the tourist industry in this country which could be of assistance overseas and we had fun in talking about experts in Welsh rainfall dealing with the hotter climes overseas. This contradicts the earlier argument in which hon. Member after hon. Member pleaded the expertise, knowledge and skill that had been acquired by the British Travel Association as a reason for retaining the name.
I accept all the praise that was given to the British Travel Association. The new body may not know much about pitching a tent in the under-developed desert areas, but may know a great deal about the creation of organisations which can be imparted.
A characteristic of modern scientific research and development work is the "rub-off" argument. Hon. Members must not sneer at this. Knowledge and experience can be gained, and, if it is accreted in the new organisation which we are setting up, the tourist boards should be enabled to give that expertise to the Ministry of Overseas Development when it is called for.
§ Mr. PeytonThe Minister is not answering the point.
§ Mr. BuchanThis is a matter of opinion. I had not given way. The hon. Member may get in later if he behaves himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] When I did the hon. Member the honour at the beginning of his speech of fetching out the appropriate notes in order to pay full heed to all that he had to say, he used the opportunity to make one or two remarks about the inattention of the Minister. Now that I have his attention, I hope that he will give me the opportunity to speak.
The hon. Member had one good point. He felt that this provision was out of touch with the Long Title of the Bill. He is quite right, if he assumes that it is the intention of the board to initiate that kind of development. But it is not. 1335 It is no part of the function of the board under the Bill to do anything to promote tourism other than in Great Britain. That is why it is necessary to write the provision in the form in which it appears, otherwise they would be unable to give assistance if it were needed. That is where the analogy with other bodies comes in.
When the hon. Member for Eastbourne withdrew a similar Amendment earlier, I said that I would comment further on one aspect. I dealt at great length with the argumen in Committee. The point was made that it was necessary to include these matters or they would not have been regarded as important.
The point made by the hon. Member for Yeovil was that the Long Title might have prevented this function from being carried out. I was told that on the basis of the Coal Board experience it was not necessary. We put in the same kind of enabling provision in the Gas and Electricity Acts, in the Civil Aviation Act, in the Transport Act, and it is also being included in the Post Office Bill. This does not mean to say that any of these bodies on its own initiative is launching out on independent schemes of overseas aid. It is subsumed within the same Vote. It is to enable these bodies to undertake such work.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) argued this matter at great length and I said that I would look into it. The hon. Member was right and I accepted his point, but I understand that it led to difficulties on the part of the Coal Board when it has tried to give such assistance. I will not go any further than to say that difficulties have existed and it is clear that the Clause is necessary if that kind of assistance is to be given.
There are two other points I wish to mention. It is not right to say that all we are doing here is to put our own tourist industry at a disadvantage when compared with rival tourist industries. No country in the modern world can exist by taking in only her own washing. I do not consider that Britain as a trading nation, and as a nation which for its population has more contacts with other countries than any other country in the world, can expect to develop if the potential market cannot be added to in the overseas areas.
1336 There is a selfish as well as a humanitarian argument. It does not help us if foreign countries continue to remain on the basis of requiring foreign aid. The sooner they can acquire foreign exchange and enter into the trading world, the better in the long run for Britain. Even on the argument of advantage to Britain, there is a good case for this kind of work. But we are not, on this provision discussing that matter. This is merely an enabling Clause so that the cost to the Ministry of Overseas Development in carrying out that kind of work will be subsumed in its Vote.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. NottWe are very grateful to the Minister for answering our points. However, I want to follow the one made about the Minister's presence as the sole representative of the Government. I understood that the Bill was promoted by the Board of Trade but that the hon. Gentleman represented the Scottish Office, though possibly he has great experience in the receipt of subsidies from the English taxpayer and, to that extent, is qualified to answer this debate. Even so, there should have been a Minister present representing the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. PardoeSince the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in Cornwall, he, too, is extremely experienced in and I hope grateful for the receipt of grants paid for by the English taxpayer.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind the House that the Report stage is more formal than Committee. Even if it were not, remarks must still be in order. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) will come to the Amendment.
§ Mr. NottObviously, I cannot reply to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on this point and I will let it pass, except for saying, if I may, that as a member of the Cornish nationalist movement, he should be fully—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We will get on with the debate.
§ Mr. NottAlthough I have reservations about the setting up of the Scottish, Welsh and English Tourist Boards, I am prepared to accept that they may be able to contribute some good to tourism. However, it would be taken extremely hard by taxpayers in the West Country if they realised that they were being asked to 1337 contribute to technical assistance in overseas countries.
The Minister has said that taxpayers will not be asked to do that through this Bill because it will be a charge upon the Vote of the Ministry of Overseas Development. But what happens if half the members of the tourist board whose function is to help with the development of tourism in the West Country take off for the Fiji Islands, Egypt or some underdeveloped country? If the Ministry of Overseas Development is to reimburse the Board of Trade or the tourist board for the expenditure thereby incurred, how is the time spent by the members of the tourist board in giving that technical assistance to be costed?
The Bill is supposed to be concerned with the development of tourism in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, the time and energy of the full-time administrative members of tourist boards should be devoted to that end. If technical assistance is to be given to overseas countries, how will it be costed?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said, we on this side of the House want to know precisely how much we are giving in overseas aid. When we debate overseas aid, we want to see exactly how much money is going to countries overseas from the British taxpayer. If Cornwall is to suggest the appointment of one or two people to the English Tourist Board, we want to know how much that board will be reimbursed for the time that its members spend on giving technical assistance to countries overseas.
I have the gravest doubts about the whole subsection. It is utterly inappropriate that, let us say, the administrative member of the English Tourist Board who happens to be aware of conditions in Cornwall and, as a result, may have some knowledge of humidity should be sent to the Kalahari Desert to advise on humidity conditions there.
I really believe that the Clause should not be in the Bill. It is irrelevant. The Minister, in his winding up speech, said
§ that many hon. Members on this side of the House had not read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage. He was wrong in that and had no grounds for saying it. I know that my hon. Friends have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of the Bill in great detail.
§
I would ask the Minister a question based on a comment he made in Committee:
We are not thrusting experts upon Granada."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 15th April 1969; c. 319.]
I wonder whether these experts wish to be thrust, because I must tell the Minister that if these gentlemen are appointed and their job is to advise on the development of tourism in the United Kingdom, I see no reason why they should be sent out on secondment to advise on tourism overseas.
§ Although many of my hon. Friends on previous occasions have commented upon our desire to help people, if I may quote but one example I really believe that it would be quite wrong if members could be seconded from a tourist board which is responsible for the development of tourism in the West Country to go out and help with the development of tourism in Gibraltar, to which the Ministry of Overseas Development is planning to give £600,000, mainly, no doubt, for the development of tourism in Gibraltar.
§ I am not necessarily against assistance to Gibraltar but if we are to give £600,000 for the development of tourism and other facilities in Gibraltar, that should come from the Ministry of Overseas Development and its Vote; and if any secondment for technical assistance is involved, then the taxpayers—who, in the end, are going to provide the money required for the Bill—should know precisely how this technical assistance is being costed, so that they can see exactly what is paid by Britain for overseas development and what is not.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 201.
1341| Division No. 289.] | AYES | [9.52 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Balniel, Lord | Berry, Hn. Anthony |
| Awdry, Daniel | Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Biffen, John |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Bell, Ronald | Black, Sir Cyril |
| Blaker, Peter | Hastings, Stephen | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Braine, Bernard | Higgins, Terence L. | Pym, Francis |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hill, J. E. B. | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) | Hordern, Peter | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Hunt, John | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Burden, F. A. | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Carlisle, Mark | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Chataway, Christopher | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Jopling, Michael | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Scott, Nicholas |
| Costain, A. P. | Kershaw, Anthony | Sharples, Richard |
| Crouch, David | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Crowder, F. P. | Lane, David | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| Cunningham, Sir Knox | Longden, Gilbert | Speed, Keith |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Stodart, Anthony |
| Dance, James | McMaster, Stanley | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Maginnis, John E. | Tapsell, Peter |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Marten, Neil | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Doughty, Charles | Maude, Angus | Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Mawby, Ray | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Eden, Sir John | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Temple, John M. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Tilney, John |
| Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. | ||
| Eyre, Reginald | Miscampbell, Norman | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Farr, John | Monro, Hector | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Fisher, Nigel | More, Jasper | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Walters, Dennis |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Wiggin, A. W. |
| Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Goodhew, Victor | Nott, John | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Gower, Raymond | Onslow, Cranley | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Grant, Anthony | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Gresham Cooke, R. | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) | Wright, Esmond |
| Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Peel, John | Younger, Hn. George |
| Gurden, Harold | Percival, Ian | |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Peyton, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Pink, R. Bonner | Mr. Bernard Weatherill and |
| Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) | Pounder, Rafton | Mr. Humphrey Atkins. |
| Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | ||
| NOES | ||
| Albu, Austen | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Gregory, Arnold |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) |
| Alldritt, Walter | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) |
| Anderson, Donald | Dempsey, James | Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. |
| Archer, Peter | Dewar, Donald | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Dickens, James | Hamling, William |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Dobson, Ray | Hannan, William |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Doig, Peter | Harper, Joseph |
| Barnett, Joel | Dunn, James A. | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Baxter, William | Dunnett, Jack | Hazell, Bert |
| Beaney, Alan | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Henig, Stanley |
| Binns, John | Eadie, Alex | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret |
| Bishop, E. S. | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Hooley, Frank |
| Blackburn, F. | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Hooson, Emlyn |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Ellis, John | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | English, Michael | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) |
| Booth, Albert | Ensor, David | Hoy, Rt. Hn. James |
| Boston, Terence | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Boyden, James | Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) | Hunter, Adam |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Hynd, John |
| Brooks, Edwin | Fernyhough, E. | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Finch, Harold | Janner, Sir Barnett |
| Buchan, Norman | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Ford, Ben | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Coleman, Donald | Forrester, John | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Fowler, Gerry | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) |
| Conlan, Bernard | Freeson, Reginald | Judd, Frank |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Galpern, Sir Myer | Kelley, Richard |
| Dalyell, Tam | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Kenyon, Clifford |
| Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) |
| Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) |
| Lawson, George | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Molloy, William | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Lee, John (Reading) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Rowlands, E. |
| Lomas, Kenneth | Morris, John (Aberavon) | Ryan, John |
| Loughlin, Charles | Murray, Albert | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) |
| Luard, Evan | Neal, Harold | Sheldon, Robert |
| Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Newens, Stan | Slater, Joseph |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip | Small, William |
| McCann, John | Norwood, Christopher | Spriggs, Leslie |
| MacDermot, Niall | Oakes, Gordon | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Macdonald, A. H. | O'Malley, Brian | Symonds, J. B. |
| Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) | Orbach, Maurice | Taverne, Dick |
| Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Oswald, Thomas | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George |
| Mackie, John | Owen, Will (Morpeth) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Maclennan, Robert | Padley, Walter | Varley, Eric G. |
| MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Paget, R. T. | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| McNamara, J. Kevin | Palmer, Arthur | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| MacPherson, Malcolm | Pardoe, John | Wallace, George |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Park, Trevor | Weitzman, David |
| Manuel, Archie | Parker, John (Dagenham) | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Mapp, Charles | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Marks, Kenneth | Pavitt, Laurence | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Marquand, David | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) | ||
| Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Mayhew, Christopher | Pentland, Norman | Winnick, David |
| Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Mendelson, John | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | |
| Mikardo, Ian | Probert, Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Millan, Bruce | Rankin, John | Mr. Charles Grey and |
| Miller, Dr. M. S. | Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy | Mr. Neil McBride. |
§ It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
§
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Development of Tourism Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Mellish.)
§ Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), further considered.