London Tourist Board

HL Deb 25 May 1993 vol 546 cc259-72

8.4 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the recently announced redundancies in the London Tourist Board are in the best interests of either London or tourism.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by quoting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, in a debate which he initiated recently on the structure of and support for the tourist board. He stated: The Government are mistaken if they think that, even with the proposed grant-in-aid reductions and what increasingly seems to be an emasculated ETB, regional boards will continue to function as now. I fear that they will not be able to do so. We are faced with the danger of the tourism structure in England unravelling, not through conscious intent but as a result of this misguided reduction in funding … without the ETB, who is there working to increase the market in most general terms for domestic holidays? Regional tourist boards"— one of which is the London Tourist Board— the resorts and the district councils will be competing against each other for market share in what could well be a static or declining market". When I first heard that the London Convention Bureau was chopped in half, with its head, John Burt, sacked, I could not believe it; nor could many others in this country and abroad. I wrote to Mr. Robert Key for clarification. In a letter dated 29th April he stated: As you know, the LTB is an independent, non-statutory body. Mr. Burt is one of several LTB staff members to be made redundant recently, as part of the streamlining process which the Board announced in March. His redundancy was not connected with the recent Government review of tourism and the reductions in funding to the English Tourist Board". I tell this Minister and others that either his ministerial colleague is naive in the extreme or that he has been grossly misled by those who advise him, or both.

When the LTB announced the redundancies, it stated: The cuts have been made as a result of the combination of a number of external factors. For some years LTB has been faced with unpredictable levels of funding. The situation has been exacerbated by the recession and by the Government's tough approach to the funding of the English Tourist Board which will have a knock on effect on us". Subsequently, the London Tourist Board and Convention Bureau has told me that, the history of cuts, the recession and the prospect of future cuts forced the Board to act as so many other British companies have acted". My first charge is that it is a cruel deception and a fraud to hide behind the well-known but false premise that the London Tourist Board is an independent, non-statutory body, implying that what it does is nothing to do with government actions and that its decisions, including the redundancies, have been taken without the impact of cuts in ETB support but wholly as a result of a free-standing review of activities and structures. Who is kidding who, my Lords? If the Minister believes that, he joins a select few, all Ministers and their advisers, who are driven by a wholly wrong assumption that London can be left to private capital and to free enterprise.

A member of the London Convention Bureau, Mr. Harry Baum, stated: That it was 'necessary' to sacrifice a person of John's outstanding calibre on the altar of financial probity is an index, as sad as it is scandalous, of the malaise afflicting Britain's largest industry … Clearly, Government has got its priorities wrong and—having sold off the family silver—by failing to invest in it, is mortgaging our future. But the Board that is, the London Tourist Board— is determined to preserve the LCB, which is recognised as a role model for convention bureaux worldwide, and to continue John's work, which has done so much to make it such". In the magazine Meetings and Incentive Travel, an editorial article stated: The news that John Burt, former head of the London Convention Bureau, has been axed together with three staff as part of a costcutting exercise by the London Tourist Board, should come as no surprise to political observers. This latest move—to cut the LCB staff in half and then make it part of the LTB's marketing department—is a symptom of the disease affecting the British Tourism industry. After all, it is only a few weeks since the resignation of Bill Davies, chairman of the British Tourist Authority, who bemoaned the lack of strategy and investment in marketing and infrastructure". The standing both of the convention bureau and of John Burt and his colleagues is known at home and abroad. I have here a letter to John Burt from America in which the writer states: It makes me wonder about how this industry is viewed from time to time in relation to dollars or pounds. From my observation of you and your involvement with this industry, somebody is making a terrible mistake and I hope they realise it before it's too late". Again, I have a letter from Australia: John Burt and London were synonymous, and not only does the London bureau and the UK owe you a debt of gratitude, but the global meetings industry through your contribution via bodies such as IACVB and ICCA, likewise should appreciate the great contribution you have made to the global meetings market". I could, of course, come a little nearer home. I could quote similar letters from the Cardiff International Arena, from the Greater Glasgow Tourist Board and from hotels etc. So the picture I paint is one of absolute bewilderment among those who are the real practitioners of conventions and tourism in the country—not the bureaucrats, nor those who take their orders from the bureaucrats, but the practitioners.

There is a great crisis across the whole range of bodies within the tourist industry. It seems that the privatisation of huge swathes of the functions currently carried out by many boards is the aim. However, I want the Minister to understand that many people just cannot agree with him that private is good and public is bad. If that is the theory which is practised by the ministry, surely it ought to be tempered.

There is a crying need for positive intervention. For example, why is support for tourism not made a statutory obligation instead of an optional extra? The British Resorts Association told me that in this time of recession and cutbacks the once popular seaside towns will face ruin unless the attitude of the Government changes. The uncertain financial base for the activities of the LTB has been affected not least by the demise of the GLC. Then, a larger more certain grant was made by London government to the London Tourist Board in the interests of our capital city. Now, the London Boroughs Grant Committee, with mounting competing claims, pays what it can afford—a smaller sum and an uncertain future. Surely the Minister recognises that the LTI3 needs security of funding from local government, not a squalid squabble over how much should be paid, competing with real needs for London at the time.

The events at the LTB are but symptomatic of the total lack of a tourism strategy on the part of the Government. We began with the Autumn Statement, which flagged up a switch from support for the BTA at home and for the ETB to private initiatives, plus Wales and Northern Ireland. The rationale for doing that has never been accepted and I invite the Minister and his advisers to tell us the elements and segments of the industry which feel that such a strategy is what we need.

William Davis was the chairman of the BTA and blue-eyed boy of the Government and Ministers but three years ago. We know what he said when he left the LTB earlier this year: The Government's attitude had made it impossible for me to continue. I have had three years of battling away, but it seems that the Government is making up tourism policy as it goes along". William Davis was eminently respectable for what he was, what he is and what I understand he is doing. Surely the Minister and his colleagues must at least pause at that thought. We also know what bodies like BITOA, the British Incoming Tour Operators' Association, have said about the way the Government are handling matters. I have a letter from BITOA which says: You will not be surprised to learn that BITOA viewed with dismay central Government's announcement that the English Tourist Board was to have its Grant in Aid reduced and that there were no plans to increase funding to the BTA to offset this loss". Then we have the English Tourist Board itself. It has drawn my attention not only to the reductions and redundancies that it has had to make, but the serious effect upon its activities.

Two major problems face the Government. One is unemployment and the other is the balance of payments deficit. Tourism can help to solve that nexus, not completely but it can help. Yet we see no strategy by the Government to concentrate on tourism as one of a handful of growth industries. I should be grateful if the Minister would address that.

Perhaps we should look at what other governments have done for their capital cities. The French Government not only exploits the infrastructure in Paris but also has done much in advertising in London and South-East England to get British people to go to France for their holidays. We see what the Greek Government have done. We are not talking of the odd pound or two or the odd million or two, we are talking of tens of millions of pounds. That is the size of the competition with which the London Tourist Board and other organisations have been faced.

Will the Minister tell us something about the ultimate fate of tourism in London? Six months ago, the Government announced that the LTB was to merge with the London Forum. Can the Minister flesh out who will do that, with what, and when and how? Perhaps we may look at the list of those who have been publicised as members of the London Forum; it is an impressive gathering of the great and the good who inhabit the quangos once so derided by the Government but now so loved by them. The ubiquitous chairman of the London Tourist Board, Sir Hugh Bidwell is the deputy chairman of the forum. He also serves with representatives of Grand Metropolitan, British Airways, Wembley, London Weekend Television, Charles Forte, Clifford Chance, Allied Entertainments, Regalian Properties, Coley Porter Bell, the Evening Standard, Coopers & Lybrand, Marks and Spencer, Pearce Signs, Richard Ellis, High-Point PLC, Saatchi and Saatchi—that is a surprise—S.G. Warburg and WWA Limited. Those names represent a gathering of entrepreneurial, successful men who have great empires to run. I want the Minister to tell me what are the structure and strategy by means of which those people, leading busy lives and making money successfully, will do what London needs in the realm of tourism.

Can the Minister tell us whether he and his colleagues are satisfied that the London Forum and the new arrangements—and we shall be told what they are—are, at least in their minds, capable not only of doing what the LTB and the London Conventions Bureau have done, but of doing it even better. We need to do better than in the past. What plans does the Minister know of? How will they be carried out? Can he tell us the reaction of the industry, the boards, the businesses, hotels and restaurants who help to contribute the money? Can he tell us what consultation has taken place with them?

My understanding is that no consultation whatever has taken place with the members of the London Tourist Board. Decisions are made in the LTB and sometimes redundancies of senior personnel are decided on without the individuals directly above them knowing that they were taking place. The manner in which the redundancies were effected at the LTB was nothing short of scandalous. Employees with many years of unblemished service were told to clear their desks, with half an hour in which to do it. They were not criminals, not failures, just good public servants, unlucky enough to face the axe of a frightened management, unable or unwilling to tell the Minister that he was wrong. Nor did they treat their axed employees with compassion and understanding. Anyone who knows the nitty gritty of how it happened, not only why it happened, would cry with shame that public servants have been treated in that way.

The LTB was driven to making redundancies which can only be justified on the strict criteria of accountants Coopers & Lybrand, who questioned everything in the books but utterly failed to take into account affairs of the heart or of the head. I advise the Minister that this approach may keep the Treasury happy but may see London sliding down the league of world capitals as a city to be visited.

This is all about getting the people of the world wanting to come to Britain, and to London—a task fulfilled with superb skill and success by John Burt and his team at the London Convention Bureau, now up for grabs in a mish-mash of realigned responsibilities and, I suspect, in some cases no responsibility at all. I expect the Minister to put a gloss on the reality of Britain's failure to assemble a coherent strategy for tourism. It cries out for both leadership and insight. I still hope that the Minister can tell me tonight that I am utterly wrong. I tell him that I will recant and say that I was wrong, and with him enjoy seeing London swamped with tourists this summer.

8.21 p.m.

Lord Mountevans

My Lords, at the outset, as. I always have to do, I declare an interest in this context. Having done that, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for giving us another opportunity to debate tourism. This debate is our second in four months. It may not have escaped your Lordships' notice that it was recently admitted in another place that they only discuss this topic once every five years.

The noble Lord has made much of the redundancies in the London Convention Bureau. While not going into the personalities in the depths that he did, I agree with him that redundancies are always distressing. In this case, I find them doubly distressing because, as the noble Lord said, the London Convention Bureau is a key player in world conference markets. London is a premier league destination in world conference markets. We must not forget that conference and incentive travel visitors are a particularly high-rated traffic. They make an exceptionally large contribution to employment creation.

Perhaps I may broaden the debate a little by looking more at the London Tourist Board. I remind noble Lords that foreign visitors have perceptions of Britain, and that those perceptions are largely perceptions of London. Let me give some examples. I think of Big Ben. I think of Tower Bridge and St. Paul's. There is the double-decker bus. A London double-decker bus means something abroad. I have to say that a Glasgow double-decker rates with a milk float in Paris. We have the London bobby—he is a "London bobby"; he is never the "British bobby". We have the military ceremonial; we have the Changing of the Guard. We have Piccadilly Circus. And en passant, whether the Department of National Heritage was or was not involved in the restoration of Eros, which I read about today, I urge noble Lords to go to Piccadilly Circus as soon as possible. With Eros back, it is the first time I can remember when there has been no scaffolding anywhere in Piccadilly—which is one of our major tourist cliches.

All those clichés are unique marketing assets which Paris, New York and Amsterdam, or anywhere else one cares to think of, envy hugely. They are unique assets in terms of selling into customer perception rather than trying to change those perceptions. They are unique in terms of attracting the first-time visitor, who, if he is satisfied and enjoys his first visit to London, comes back and then helps us to achieve the very desirable objective of visiting other parts of Britain. I believe that selling into people's perceptions is particularly important when, as I think we are all agreed, funds are limited.

LTB's funds are limited. Although government funds which flow through ETB have not been cut this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, reminded us, the ETB's budget for 1994–95 and subsequent years is extremely vulnerable. The LTB has had the additional problem of raising funds from local authorities. The noble Lord touched on that point. The commercial sector has also proved more difficult as a source of finance.

The LTB's funds will become more limited if ETB's grant is cut and thus the flow-through funds which go via thai body are reduced. That is an anxiety for tonight. But when one thinks of it in those terms, it becomes a very much bigger anxiety for the future.

What can we do? First, I should like to echo the urging by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that Her Majesty's Government reconsider ETB's grant, in particular for 1994–95 and 1995–96. Again I pick up a point made by the noble Lord: we must finally by one means or another grasp the nettle of local authority funding for the London Tourist Board. That has often previously been referred to. The London Boroughs Grant Committee is not, never was and never will be, the right vehicle for that particular source of finance. I can see a particular problem for some of the members of the London Boroughs Grant Committee.

It sees few visitors, but, alas, perhaps also overlooks just how much visitors elsewhere in London contribute to local employment patterns.

We must recognise (if it were ever in doubt) London's status as the crown jewel of our tourism product and resolve the confusion between the London Tourist Board, the London Forum and London First.

We must remember—for London it is quite often easy to overlook—the fact that a revision of the assisted areas map is in train at the moment. It is not for me to speculate on the outcome, let alone what views the European Commission might eventually take when it is asked to bless the revised assisted areas map. But I feel that London may very well become, partially or wholly, an assisted area, not least because of its unemployment problems.

We must remember the Government's directive to ETB, that funds allocated to regional tourist boards should be targeted towards areas of economic need and tourism potential. That to a certain extent wraps up most of what I have said and a considerable amount of what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said. London is increasingly an area of economic need. I am certain that we all appreciate London's tourism potential. Economic need and tourism potential sit well together there. Hence, I re-emphasise the importance of grant flowing via ETB to the regions. I re-emphasise the importance of adequate grant-in-aid for ETB, and especially the importance of the London Tourist Board getting its share of that grant-in-aid.

Last week, in a Written Answer my right honourable friend the Prime Minister laid down the Government's policy objectives for London, which were immaculately and tersely put: to maintain and enhance London's position as a thriving national capital and a leading world city". I do not believe that any of us can argue with that particular policy. But I feel—and I am sure that other noble Lords will join me in stressing—that the London Tourist Board has a role to play in the achievement thereof.

8.28 p.m.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the House for the fact that I was not in my place when he asked his Question. I also need to declare an interest in that I am the vicepresident of the London Tourist Board and chairman of the policy committee of the London Convention Bureau. But I speak for myself, not for the board. In fact, I do not believe that the board would like this debate. When all is said and done, the board has members and the members need to be satisfied that the board can carry out the obligations that it has undertaken.

The board has had to restructure. We have had two debates on the funding of the London Tourist Board. The Government have continued to adopt a cavalier attitude to the matter. The London Tourist Board cannot adopt a cavalier attitude. Like all businesses, its expenditure cannot exceed its income. Its income having been severely reduced, and with the threat of further reduction, it has been forced into the action that it has taken.

The question I want to ask the Minister is this: why do the Government adopt such a cavalier attitude to one of their most important industries? The tourism industry is a valuable contributor to Britain's balance of payments. It is particularly important in London. Tourism earned an estimated £4,000 million for London in 1991. That represents 4 to 5 per cent of London's GDP. It is London's third most important economic activity after financial services and the public sector. Some 200,000 Londoners—7 per cent of the working population—are employed in tourism. What is more, it is estimated that tourism will create an extra 50,000 London jobs by the end of the century. Tourist spending supports further jobs in manufacturing and construction.

London is the most important gateway for visitors coming to the United Kingdom, with some 80 per cent of visitors arriving in the capital, and just over half of them stay in London. Some 80 per cent of tourist spending in London is in foreign exchange. The tourist industry makes a vital contribution to the success of London as a commercial and financial centre, providing hotels, conferences and exhibition facilities for the business community. Business travellers account for 25 per cent of visitors and 33 per cent of spending. So the Government's often declared interest in business should make them concerned about the role that London plays in the tourist industry if only because of the contribution that those visitors make to business.

Tourism encourages investment. In 1991 between July and December some £400 million was invested in tourism projects under construction. Projects completed accounted for a further £180 million. Many construction jobs depend on that activity.

The LTB's objectives are enshrined in the Tourism Strategy for London, guided by the Joint London Tourism Forum. Those objectives are to target markets which bring maximum economic benefit and to encourage seasonal and geographical spread. What is the Government's strategy for tourism? It is necessary for us to know. The Government must have a strategy for such an important industry.

It is not only London that is having its funding cut. The English Tourist Board, whose funding was £15.2 million in 1992–93, is set to have that funding reduced to £13.9 million in 1993–94, further reduced to £10.8 million in 1994–95 and still further reduced to £9 million in 1995–96. We are told that the grants which the English Tourist Board makes to the regions will be ring-fenced. But the English Tourist Board's present grants to the regions amount to £7 million. So if they are ring-fenced, in 1995–96 the English Tourist Board will have only £2 million. It is quite obvious that ring-fencing is not possible. The Government need to begin to think a little more than they appear to be doing.

We are talking about London. The London Tourist Board receives some of its funding from the English Tourist Board. If the English Tourist Board's funding is reduced, as I just said, the London Tourist Board's funding will be reduced even further. 1 cannot believe that the Government can be so nonchalant about an industry that is so important to the country. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to remove some of my depression.

8.37 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity this evening to talk about the valuable work of the London Tourist Board and the initiatives that the Government are taking to ensure that London continues to be a worldclass capital city recognised internationally as a centre for business, culture and tourism.

We are not nonchalant about the tourist industry. Indeed, I have direct experience of the work of the London Tourist Board. Last October, during a visit to New York, I had the privilege of launching the board's ambitious three-year US marketing campaign. That campaign is an excellent example of collaboration on a large scale between the private and public sectors. The London Tourist Board is in the lead, backed by five major sponsors: American Express, British Airways, Forte, the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. In all, there are about 40 private and public sector sponsors contributing over £2 million to the first phase of the campaign.

An imaginative feature of the campaign is that the marketing is being supported by a programme of training for some 3,000 tourist industry employees. It is too early to draw definite conclusions about the effect that the campaign is having, but current estimates are that it could generate over 50,000 additional visits to the capital, producing revenue of some £65 million. Given that some hoteliers report increases of over 20 per cent in bookings from the USA in the first quarter of 1993, all the indications are that the London Tourist Board campaign is ideally timed to tap into a healthy and growing market.

As we were reminded by my noble friend Lord Mountevans, who has great experience in tourism and the BTA, and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, who also has great experience in the London Tourist Board, over 80 per cent of overseas visitors to this country arrive in London and just over half stay in London. For the past four years London has attracted annually over 17 million overnight visitors as well as some 68 million day visitors. Tourism supports 200,000 jobs-7 per cent of London's employment.

Her Majesty's decision to open Buckingham Palace to the public during July and August has undoubtedly greatly increased London's appeal as a tourist destination. I am sure that both tourists from overseas and our own residents will be keen to take advantage of this unique opportunity and that the opening of this new attraction, if I may call it that, will bring new visitors to London and hence to Britain. Thus the LTB's efforts are contributing significantly not just to tourism in the capital itself but because of London's gateway position to tourism nationally.

Before going on to talk about government support for the tourist boards, I am sure that noble Lords will join me in welcoming the appointment of Adele Biss as the new chairman of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. She brings to the appointment considerable business experience and marketing expertise which will be invaluable in seeking to persuade more of our residents to explore what this country has to offer, as well as attracting visitors from abroad.

Through the English Tourist Board, the Government give support to the regional tourist boards, including the London Tourist Board. The contribution to the LTB stood at £829,100 in the 1991–92 financial year. That was 25 per cent of the total. If one looks at those figures, the commercial membership produced £624,000, the local authority produced £246,000 and commercial revenue £1,612,000; in total, £3,311,000.

My department's review of government support for tourism concluded that the English Tourist Board should increasingly concentrate on its strategic, co-ordinating role rather than on large-scale central operations. Following that review, the English Tourist Board recently announced that some of the funds which it devolves to the regional boards will be allocated to projects in specific areas with tourism potential which the industry is not able to exploit fully without assistance. The regional boards will submit projects for consideration by the English Tourist Board under that new scheme. The overall total of funding for all 11 regions has been maintained at 1992–93 levels.

In relation to the following years, the English Tourist Board is currently reviewing all its programmes and activities, including its support for the regions. That exercise will feed into the board's three-year corporate plan, to be completed this summer. I must emphasise that the Government value the work of the regional boards and want to see them continue to operate effectively. The boards have recently been very successful in building up non-government revenue, particularly during the last decade, and I have no doubt that there is scope for them to make further progress.

The London Tourist Board, like all the other regional boards, is an independent, non-statutory organisation which has the status of a company limited by guarantee. Therefore its staffing policy is entirely a matter for the board and its members, and it would be quite inappropriate for the Government to intervene in or comment on decisions taken by the LTB regarding staffing levels.

I understand that the 13 redundancies announced in March were part of an internal efficiency review by the board which led to some streamlining of the organisation. I understand also that the LTB is pressing ahead with its full range of activities, including the major American campaign I referred to earlier. London is still the most important gateway to Britain, and I see no reason to suspect that the LTB will not be able to continue to attract both holiday and business travellers to the capital.

I am confident also that the effectiveness of the LTB will be enhanced through its links with the London Forum, and more specifically with London Visitors, one of the two bodies which will implement the forum's strategy. Sir Hugh Bidwell, the LTB chairman, is also deputy chairman of the forum and chairman of London Visitors, so there are already close working relationships. Those organisations will mutually gain from the expertise each can bring and that will he to the benefit of London and to tourism. I know that both the LTB and the London Forum see the way forward as a close partnership between the private sector and local government.

The London Forum held its first board meeting last week. It is now engaged in setting up its two London companies—London Inward and London Visitors. In drawing up business plans for their promotional activities, progress is being made in setting up the first-stop shop—an advice centre for incoming investment to London. London Inward is also enlisting the services of business people travelling overseas to act as ambassadors to London. They will sell the benefits of London as a business and commercial centre.

The London Forum is a direct result of the Government's manifesto commitment to convene a new body to promote London internationally. A formidable group of leading Londoners whose backgrounds include tourism, finance, local government, advertising and the media have been recruited to sit on the forum's board. The board will use its expertise to give London a powerful new boost, helping to enhance its position as an international business and tourism centre, and to encourage job-creating businesses to base themselves in London.

The convening of the forum sits well with other government initiatives aimed at consolidating London's status internationally. We have established a Cabinet sub-committee on London, chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, to look at matters affecting London at the highest possible level, to ensure that policies affecting London are well co-ordinated and to ensure that things get done. The setting-up of the Transport Working Group for London, led by a transport Minister, also illustrates that commitment, and the LTB's chief executive sits on the working group.

The forum is an independent organisation and is riot accountable to government. The Secretary of State for the Environment consulted on the membership of the forum, but it is for the forum to decide who will be appointed and who its membership will be.

I appreciate the difficulties that the London Tourist Board has experienced in securing local authority funding. However, that must remain a matter for negotiation between the board and its local authority members, as is the case with all other regional tourist boards. The London Tourist Board has in the past sought top-slicing for tourism from other service blocks of local authority funding. But that removes discretion from the boroughs. Perhaps like other regional boards, the London Tourist Board should explore the possibility of approaching boroughs individually in order to raise awareness of the benefits of tourism. The London Boroughs Grants Committee has many demands on its limited resources and your Lordships will be aware that its grant to the London Tourist Board has reduced in real terms over the years, though it is still highly valued by the London Tourist Board.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene. I rise on the point in relation to the London boroughs and the nexus under which local government gives grant aid to the London Tourist Board. That arises directly out of the demise of the GLC and the substitution for the GLC in this context of an Act of Parliament.

This House passed an Act of Parliament which created the grants committee, and that is the nexus. Local government is presently under severe strain. Does not the Minister realise that when hard-pressed councils of all political persuasions are looking at their stretched budgets, with competing claims from the homeless, the elderly, meals-on-wheels and tourism, tourism is not likely to be the first call upon their public money?

I realise the limits of a debate, but perhaps the Minister could ask his colleagues not merely to leave the London Tourist Board to knock on doors with its begging bowl asking for more money; there needs to be statutory provision. I remind the Minister that the resort bodies have been in touch with me and asked me specifically to say that, where there is non-statutory obligation, far too often they are denied income. If the obligation were made statutory, the income would be forthcoming.

I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about whether the department is aware of the debilitating effect upon the morale of those who work currently in the LTB and in the other bodies. The Minister may say that when redundancies take place it is nothing to do with the Government; it is to do with management. But the next time it happens and they say it is nothing to do with them, and in the intervening period there have been cuts in grants, people will worry. Individuals who have given many years service are being treated unfairly by the system.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, in any situation where redundancies occur it is regrettable for those who are made redundant; but at the end of the day that is a function of management and it is a function that the management of the London Tourist Board has to carry out. I understand the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, about statutory funding. Those arguments are put to my department on a number of issues, whether it be funding for arts, libraries or sport, by local authorities. As the noble Lord will appreciate, my department covers those areas. He is quite right to say that when local authorities look for cuts, they often look at the easiest places in which to make them. It is right to say that we have to fight our corner to make sure that local authorities are able through their standard spending assessments to continue to fund those important areas. I take very seriously the points that the noble Lord makes.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, the issue that we are talking about in relation to the London Tourist Board has everything to do with the unified business rate. I was vice-chairman of policy and resources in County Hall. We gave the London Tourist Board a good grant because the businesses of London were paying us rates. The tourist board was their organisation and they were entitled to some of the rates in order to further their organisations. The Government now take the unified business rate. Why can the Government not give the LTB the same kind of grant that it used to get under the GLC? What is the problem?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, the simple problem in all these situations is money and resources. We must work within the money and resources available. I have carefully described how we are looking at the new role that we want the English Tourist Board to carry out. We want it to be more of a co-ordinating and strategic body as opposed to carrying out what may be called large scale operations on its own. But we are clear about the importance of funding regional boards. We want the money to flow through the English Tourist Board to the regional boards.

The position is always difficult in the tourist industry because it is a high profile industry. We are satisfied that the arrangements that we have to support the tourist industry at national and regional levels are in the best interests of tourism and the economy as a whole. I have set out tonight the thinking behind those arrangements. We have had debates recently in this House and in another place on this topic. We fully accept that there is still a case for assisting the industry to promote Britain overseas and to develop potential areas of tourism. Tourism is a core area and a crucial part of the Department of National Heritage. It is an area that binds together all the other activities that we have. All the reasons why people come to this country are because of our heritage.

But we are also convinced that this is a successful and increasingly self-reliant sector. Further support for that view is given by early estimates that overseas visitors were up by 9 per cent in the first two months of this year, building on last year's all-time record figure. The picture on the domestic front is also encouraging, with operators such as Madame Tussauds and Rank announcing significant increases in business and advance bookings. Similarly in London, while the Government will continue to take forward the various initiatives that I have mentioned this evening, the main impetus must come, and is already coming, from the private sector which is taking the lead in the London Forum. The London Tourist Board is already playing a full part in the exciting developments that are taking place and is well placed to build on its fine record to bring visitors to this first-class capital.

House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.