LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 26 October 1972)

§ LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment to Clause 141 to which the Commons have disagreed. Their Reason for disagreeing was that, the Amendment places an unnecessary restriction on the powers of local authorities". This particular Amendment was part of a package prepared after the Government had accepted the principle of what is now contained in Clause 141, which was itself a Back-Benchers' new clause moved in Committee in another place. Clause 141, as we first saw it in this House, gave local authorities the power (a) by advertisement or otherwise to encourage people to visit their areas for recreation, conferences, trade fairs and exhibitions, and (b) to provide facilities for these purposes. The main Amendments, 2263 which have been agreed in another place, consolidate the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act 1931 and the Health Resorts and Watering Places Act 1936 with the new clause, and they greatly extend their scope.

Amendment No. 191 did however preserve one feature of the existing provisions—namely, the requirement that if a local authority wishes to attract tourists from abroad it should do so through an approved agent, who is in fact the British Tourist Authority. The B.T.A. has a general responsibility for encouraging foreign visitors and spends a considerable amount of public money on this purpose. Everybody agrees that it is excellent at its job and that it has excellent relations with local authorities. When we first considered this matter we did not think it right to interfere with that relationship.

I wish to make it clear that Amendment No. 191 took nothing away from local authorities which they enjoy at present. Where some local authorities advertise abroad they do so under local Act powers. Eleven local authorities have specific powers for this purpose, and many others rely on more general powers. The package which we proposed would by itself have enormously strengthened local authorities in this field, and Amendment No. 191 did not embody any new principle.

Three things have persuaded us to reconsider the matter and change our minds. The first was the strength of feeling demonstrated in another place by representatives of resort areas, and also of some industrial areas. Clearly, many places in this country are anxious to attract visitors from abroad and to promote themselves in their own way. The second reason why the other place rejected our Amendment is the existence of those same local Acts to which I referred a moment ago. Under the terms of the Bill they are to lapse in five or ten years' time unless preserved by order of the Secretary of State. But until they lapse—and it is far too early to say how the order-making power will be used—those local authorities which have the powers may continue to make use of them, and in this increasingly competitive field it seems wrong to give this right only to those authorities which happen to enjoy the local Act powers.

2264 The third and main reason I put forward for inviting your Lordships to accept the view of the other place and not to insist on our Amendment is that our original Amendment would preserve one of those restrictions and controls on local government which in general we wish to dismantle and remove, relying rather in the future on good sense and co-operation. I am glad to say that the Chairman of the British Tourist Authority has told me that he welcomes the new proposals embodied in the whole package constituted by this clause. He is confident that his Authority and the new local authorities will be able to co-operate effectively in the use of them without continuing this particular statutory provision. My Lords, I think that, after such a Session as we have just had, there is a certain fitness in concluding the passage of the Bill through this House by considering a clause dealing with better ways of promoting the enjoyment of leisure. I beg to move.

§ LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, it is a remarkable achievement on the part of this House to have passed 633 Amendments and to have had only one of them disagreed to by the other place. We must have done extraordinarily well in this House. Of course, we moved into the Bill some Amendments which were highly controversial, and I was delighted to see that the Commons accepted them, although I had some slight disagreement about some of them in the stages when we were considering the Bill in this House. So far as the Commons' decision on this Amendment is concerned, so far as I can see, despite the excellent explanation we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, it merely restores the position as it was when the Bill first came to us. I cannot see that we can possibly object, and I think we should certainly agree with the Commons' decision, and indeed with their Reason for it. My Lords, we bid this Bill good-bye. I am happy to see the last of it, and to see it become an Act.