HL Deb 06 July 1998 vol 591 cc1025-40

7.34 p.m.

Lord Morris of Manchester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering to promote inbound tourism to the North West.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, most of us think, subjectively, that where we come from is very special. Many even think "There's no place like home". In the case of north-west England, where I come from, it must be true, for millions of more objective people from elsewhere think the same.

Inbound tourism to the North West is today a major and fast growing sector of the region's economy. It provides at least as many jobs as the defence, aerospace, automotive, textile and clothing sectors. Tourists also create a huge number of jobs in other sectors. On the north-west coast 40 per cent. of the jobs tourism creates are outside the tourist industry.

The region's growing popularity is proof of its attractions to tourists. In addition to the coastal resorts, they include not only the undoubted natural beauty of the nearby Lakes and Peak District but also the "paradise", as it was royally described, of the Trough of Boland. Other attractions include our rich cultural heritage; our fine universities and cathedrals; the North West's historic role as the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution and of movements for social improvement; and its more modern shrines like the set for "Coronation Street" at Granada Studios.

Among the movements for social improvement founded in the region there is one, the Co-operative Movement, in which I have an interest to declare. I do so with pride as former President of the Co-operative Congress, the highest honour the British Co-operative Movement can confer. The CWS, based like other major co-operative institutions in Manchester, is today the biggest enterprise in the North West, with its increased turnover in 1997 of £3.025 billion. The working people who pioneered the movement in Rochdale in 1844 inspired a world venture that today comprises 700 million co-operative members in over 70 countries, all of which have contacts with the movement here.

The other interest I must declare is that I first stood for Parliament in Liverpool, with my noble friend Lord Sefton as my admirable election agent, leaving me with an enduringly high regard for that city, before serving for 33 years as a Member of Parliament for Manchester, my native city. Thus some might conclude that my view of the comparative merits of the North West is not wholly unbiased.

The region's towns and cities each have their attractions for particular groups of tourists, and Liverpool and Manchester of course have commercial, cultural and sporting links worldwide. Manchester will host the next and, given due support from the Government to bridge a funding gap, the best-ever Commonwealth Games, while Liverpool, birthplace of the Beatles and home of one of Britain's two most successful football teams, hosts the world's most exciting horse race every year. International exhibition and conference business also makes an important contribution to tourist income for both of our major cities.

Tourism is the second largest source of employment after retailing in the North West. Its growth potential is far greater than that of the traditional manufacturing industries and makes it one of our most important means of economic regeneration. If with the Government's help we can further increase inbound tourism, we shall benefit both the region and the national economy, to which it already contributes £25 billion a year.

To assist this burgeoning industry we must make the North West more accessible to international visitors. Inevitably a high proportion of overseas visitors want to see the attractions of the capital. That provides competition enough for regional tourism ambitions without the additional challenge of less than satisfactory access to regional destinations.

Compared with just 13 per cent. for the North West, the latest figures available show that 63 per cent. of overseas visitors came to London. But the growth of inbound tourism to London is not without its problems. Ever-increasing congestion at the London airports makes it all the more urgent for the Government to spread the benefits of tourism more evenly across the country by improving access to the regions.

The North West has so much to offer, but for overseas visitors to see and enjoy it they need direct access to the region, free of the hassle of transfers over the London airports. This would ease pressure on Heathrow and Gatwick and enable the North West Tourist Board—and such bodies as England's North Country and Marketing Manchester—to promote the region to much greater effect and compete on more equal terms with London and tourist destinations across the globe.

It is much to the advantage of the North West that it has in Manchester one of the world's best airports. Over 16 million passengers a year pass through it and that figure is forecast to reach 30 million within the next decade. Much to my delight, my right honourable friend Tom Clarke MP, the Minister for tourism, visited Manchester Airport recently. He heard in detail about its potential for increasing inbound tourism and the pace of economic regeneration in the North West. It was a most timely visit and I am extremely glad he was able also to meet John East, who so ably chairs the board of the renowned Hallé Orchestra, another of our tourist attractions.

Since Tom Clarke's visit the Government have made two welcome announcements that create further opportunities for Manchester Airport to develop to its fullest potential. First, the UK's bilateral treaty partners were informed that the capacity and frequency of direct international air services into regional airports would no longer be linked with issues concerning access to London's airports in bilateral negotiations, provided that UK airlines have the opportunity to operate on the same routes. While this falls short of the full Open Skies policy for which the regional airports continue to press, it is an important move in the right direction.

The second announcement, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, allows Manchester and some other regional airports to fund their development through borrowing on the strength of their balance sheets. This was a major step forward for which I hope my noble friend, who also deals with Treasury matters, will thank himself for me most warmly! The constraints suffered by Manchester and other local authority-owned airports in terms of public sector borrowing requirements were pushing the more successful airports into the private sector for no good reason. Happily now Manchester Airport can retain its present status and focus on regional benefit, while being free to act in a more commercial way so far as its funding is concerned.

Much credit is due to the Government for these announcements. But there is more they can do to enable the major regional airports to make their regions more attractive to tourists. They should develop a proper methodology for assessing the regional economic impact of air services and continue to roll back the barriers to genuinely free international access to regional airports. Specifically, they should allow airlines providing direct international flights into Manchester and other regional airports to fly on to third countries, carrying revenue passengers between each of the destinations served. This is the so-called "fifth freedom" of the air. It would increase the viability of services and add significantly to inbound tourism.

Even more importantly, the Government should allow Manchester Airport a further commercial freedom, one well justified by its pivotal role in the regional economy. The freedom we seek is to allow the airport company to diversify, to pursue its own commercial objectives without being bound narrowly to the operation of the airport itself.

As of now, the airport is barred from this normal business activity because of limitations on its local authority owners—a matter of vires. This has significant implications. Your Lordships will be aware of the impending loss of duty-free trade generated by travel between member states of the European Union. The British Airports Authority, which owns London's airports, can hedge against this loss of income by diversification. It undertakes property development, for example, and invests in airports abroad. But for Manchester such action is impossible because of its more limited powers. And in the case of projects to improve surface access to the airport, the airport company is often relegated to a back-seat role because it cannot put money into them on a commercial basis.

Freedom to invest in such projects would be of immense value to the airport and the North West. It would also further promote inbound tourism by speedier access to all parts of the north from the airport. Growth at the airport creates new employment of the order of 1,000 on-airport jobs for every 1 million more passengers. More inbound tourists from more nations around the world will mean increased spending in the region, sustaining jobs, creating new ones and allowing more investment to make it more attractive to its visitors and the UK as a whole more appealing to overseas tourists.

I know the Government will want to respond positively to the points I have raised and that my noble friend, with his customarily instinctive helpfulness, will do all he can, informed by this debate, to work with us to make the North West an ever more accessible, attractive and welcoming destination for inbound tourists.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Wade of Chorlton

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I share his enthusiasm for the North West and its wide range of attractions. The more people we can get there, the better for everybody. I should like to follow the noble Lord, first, by supporting his views about the importance of Manchester Airport. The implementation of his well put suggestions would benefit the airport enormously.

It has been estimated that by the year 2000 tourism will be the world's biggest industry. The North West is an important economic area of the United Kingdom and it is therefore important that it should benefit from that growing industry and that it should have available the resources and opportunities to allow it to grow with that world demand. The North West has many other advantages, but they might be even greater if a little attention were paid to them.

Better and more effective co-ordination of the North West's very different tourism attractions is needed. I am thinking of attractions as diverse as Blackpool and the Lake District. Ever-increasing traffic is a problem, caused in part by the growth of day trips. The pattern of tourism is always changing. When the RDA is established, perhaps it will be instrumental in achieving a more organised approach.

There is certainly a lack of co-operation between local tourist and planning authorities when developing and promoting tourist areas. My own city of Chester has encountered considerable problems in trying to co-ordinate an approach to enable the city to take advantage of tourism opportunities while trying to meet some of the planning pressures encountered by our older cities. During my period in your Lordships' House, I have pressed both governments on this and have asked them to look more seriously at the implications of planning decisions because it appears that the planning authorities do not always consider the general well being of an area.

As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, the North West lacks a national "must visit" tourist destination. This would raise important planning issues, but the North West of England needs one major tourist attraction. That would make marketing the region a lot easier. At the moment, our attractions are diverse and we have to market a range of attractions and activities, including Blackpool, the Lake District and the City of Chester. One major attraction of world renown would have a major impact on what we can achieve in the region.

We also need effective transport planning. The North West has very good motorway links, but we do not have such good links to the areas that the tourists actually want to visit. We need greater understanding of how we can tackle overcrowding on our side roads which are used by tourists.

It is of interest that tourists do not visit as they once did. At one time, a tourist would visit Blackpool for a week; now he visits for a day. As a result, the ability of a town to offer the right facilities to tourists has changed dramatically. Transport authorities need to be much more aware of the changes. Some 38,000 jobs in the rural areas in the North West of England depend on the tourist industry. This House has had many debates on the future of the rural economy and the requirement for greater growth. The tourist industry can be one of the best providers of new job opportunities within rural areas and should be considered very carefully by the Government particularly when developing their rural policy.

There is speculation that the Government may scrap the English Tourist Board. It would be a very bad thing if that happened. Perhaps the Minister can refer to that matter in winding up the debate.

Competition from abroad is now fuelled very much by the strength of sterling. No doubt as time goes on this will change. Today the world-wide holidaymaker has much higher expectations of quality. What we could have got away with at one time is no longer acceptable. If the tourist board or a similar organisation is to continue it must try constantly to raise standards and provide what the public want.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has referred to the Commonwealth Games. However, one is considering not only those games but a major festival of academia and other cultural activities that take place at the same time. The promotion of such major events which take place not only in Manchester but throughout the whole of the North West and the provision of resources and opportunities in that area will be very important. I hope that the Government will take heed of what is said in this short debate.

7.52 p.m.

Lord Montague of Oxford

My Lords, reference has been made to the possible closure of the English Tourist Board. I do not propose to dwell upon that. I am quite sure that the Government are alive to what needs to be done to promote tourism. If they have in mind better arrangements, we await them with interest. As a director of Jarvis Hotels, with many hotels in the North West and a total of 70 in this country, including Planet Hollywood, and theme restaurants that employ 700 people in the Leicester Square area alone, I am well aware of the importance of having good facilities and interesting things for people to see and do.

I am much struck by what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, about the promotion of a major attraction in the North West. During my six years as chairman of the English Tourist Board I have visited the North West on a regular basis. One of its marvellous attractions to which I draw particular attention is Blackpool. Blackpool is a major attraction, but it requires modernisation. Blackpool needs better conference and exhibition facilities. It is untrue that the Labour Party has left Blackpool and will not be holding any more conferences there. We shall skip one year only. We shall be there this year. I am sure that I speak for everyone on this side of the House when I say that we look forward to being in Blackpool this year. But I respectfully suggest that it is time to consider whether some contemporary conference and exhibition facilities should be developed further to improve that extremely important seaside resort.

It is essential to raise standards throughout the country, not merely in Blackpool, and that depends on getting tourists into the regions. More tourists mean greater profits; greater profits mean reinvestment; and reinvestment means new investment. That is what is required throughout the country. We also need to raise the standards of the personnel who serve visitors. Some are still a little gruff and unfriendly. I was not surprised to read today in the newspapers that British Airways had some new ideas about how its cabin staff should respond to please visitors. That must be done in all areas of tourism.

We must also be sensitive to the fact that not everyone welcomes tourists. I refer to my experiences in Oxford. I have said in this Chamber before that Oxford is schizophrenic about tourists. Tourists provide very meagre economic benefits and irritate residents by creating a good deal of congestion without a reward. I hope that those who are responsible for tourism in both central and local government will keep a constant eye on that problem. That applies particularly to London. We must try to get more tourists out of London. Surely, tourists who come here on second visits should make London simply an entry point for the purposes of seeing the rest of the beauty and interests of our wonderful country.

This is the time of devolution for Scotland, Wales and London. We must also be cautious about wasting public money. Inadvertently, we may create a good deal of duplication. For example, if we asked the British Tourist Authority to do some of the work that had been done by the English Tourist Board it might create suspicion. The tourist boards for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and perhaps even London might want to establish their own branches overseas in the belief that they could do the job better than the British Tourist Authority. That would be very unfortunate and we must guard against it.

We have been hearing about how well tourism is doing. One in five of all new jobs is created in tourism. Between 1.7 million and 2.2 million people are employed in tourism. People argue about the correct figures. There is a slight decline in inward tourism. For the first time since records were kept we have witnessed the largest quarterly deficit in the tourism account. There is some important work to be done. Therefore, it is timely that the Government appear to be reviewing this matter, although it is being done in the name of the public expenditure round. Thank goodness that that information will, we hope, be available next week and that the sword of Damocles which is now suspended over the head of the English Tourist Board will be removed and the difficulty resolved one way or another. In any sector of commerce there is nothing worse than uncertainty. Uncertainty is plaguing tourism at the moment.

7.57 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, those of us with roots in the North West are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for giving the House this opportunity to encourage the growth of the tourist industry in that region. Tourism and the jobs that go with it are absolutely vital for the future prosperity of an area that has long suffered decline.

I felt it most important to add my name to the list of speakers this evening in order to give some balance, not in the party political sense but in relation to the famous rivalry between Manchester men and Liverpool gentlemen. I had not appreciated that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, began his political career in Liverpool, as I did. Liverpool was part of my territorial designation. I was Member of the European Parliament for Liverpool following the first direct elections in 1979. At that time I was very much involved in a number of major European Community-funded infrastructure projects which have helped tourism in Liverpool and the whole area. For example, in 1984 we had the International Garden Festival. We have had the refurbishment of the Albert Docks and the opening-up of the South Docks which have had such a tremendous environmental impact. On one occasion—it may have been the end of the Tall Ships race which was a glamorous occasion for the Mersey or when we were extending the Maritime Museum—the noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, visited as chairman of the English Tourist Board. He was helpful and encouraging.

As many noble Lords will be aware, I am a trustee of the National Museums and Galleries of Merseyside. It is one of my ongoing commitments to the area. We have had the vexed subject of entry charges to museums. We struggled not to introduce entry charges, but were eventually obliged to do so. One of my arguments was that the support for museums in London was misguided, because London had so many tourists who could well have paid their way, as they have to pay their way in their own countries. Areas such as the North West should have had more support from the Government. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to that view. Nevertheless, it is important to make the point yet again.

The museums and galleries of Merseyside are a great attraction for tourists. The Maritime Museum is the only Merchant Navy maritime museum. It has a special theme area on Irish emigration which is important for those seeking their roots. There is also the Museum of Atlantic Slavery with which the late Lord Pitt of Hampstead had so much to do. There is also the Walker Gallery. The department responsible for the heritage did a very good job in supporting the Royal Academy's recent regional art exhibition here in London. I have met a number of people who went to that exhibition and who saw paintings from the Walker Gallery in Liverpool and from Manchester's gallery. They said, "I really must go and see the collection on the spot". That was a good move.

There are those, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said, who visit Liverpool regularly on a Beatles pilgrimage. There are great sporting events. We have two famous football teams as well as the Grand National course. What about the Grand National? It is an event which takes place on two days a year. The course is virtually unused for the rest of the year. Something should be done to make it a permanent sporting site and a useful centre.

We do our best with conferences. The two Liverpool universities are useful and helpful in promoting conference-type tourism. There is much more that we can do on the theme of education. There is the traditional tourism, which has been referred to, of miles and miles of golden sands at Southport and Crosby which I remember visiting as a child.

It is clear, as my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said, that there should be more co-ordination with local authorities as well as central government. I hope that there will be support from the Government for the latest project which is to encourage more ships back to the Mersey. There is a plan to encourage tourist ships to visit the docks in Liverpool. Some dredging of the Mersey is already taking place. It would be helpful if masses of tourists arrived who were based on their tourist ships. They could visit Liverpool and the wider region. I also support my noble friend's suggestion that there should be some major annual event.

I hope that we shall hear what plans the Government have for fitting tourist organisations—in particular, the successful Mersey partnership—into their proposed regional development agency. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

8.4 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Macclesfield

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may intervene. I wish to refer to the possible demise of the English Tourist Board. I would welcome that if we could promote England on a regional basis. I shall not repeat the assets of the North West of which we are already aware. I have experience of arguing for the Olympics to come to Manchester. The tourist board's portrayal abroad of England as traditional, with its guardsmen and its old empire and imperial background, oriented on London, undoubtedly attracted some tourists for this country, but it was counter-productive for the many tourists who might have come here had we shown some of the country's other assets.

We have heard about Liverpool. The last view of mainland Europe for the ancestors of many people was Liverpool docks. That is important for people returning to trace their ancestry. I do not need to elaborate on the Lake District, William Wordsworth and so forth. Chester is a Roman city. I would welcome a move towards regional promotion, because the North West has a great deal to offer. What it offers is different from what other regions offer.

8.6 p.m.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, when speaking in your Lordships' House I am always struck by the knowledge and experience displayed. This evening has been just one such occasion. From these Benches, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for this opportunity to discuss tourism in the regions. Perhaps I may also offer the apologies of my noble friend Lord McNally, who was unavoidably detained and so is unable to be in his place this evening. I regret especially that he is not here, because he has a great knowledge of the North West, having been a Member of the other place for a constituency in the North West. I was relying upon him to speak with a north western flavour from these Benches, so that I might permit myself to speak on a broader regional theme.

As my noble friend is not here, I shall unfortunately have to confess and display my ignorance of the North West. I think I have only been to any part of the North West three times in my life. Once was to stay at the Chester Grosvenor, which was a splendid hotel, and I very much enjoyed my visit; once was a day trip to Blackpool to speak to the British Incoming Tour Operators Association; and the third was a visit to the Granada studios in Manchester to speak at the World Travel and Tourism Council. They were at least worthy causes in aid of tourism, but that, I am afraid, is the extent of my knowledge.

In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, I shall look at the problem of the promotion of regional tourism for all the UK regions. We can all agree on the benefits of tourism. I have had the privilege of speaking on tourism on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. There are many noble Lords here tonight who have spoken in those same debates. We usually all agree, pretty well, on the benefits of tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, gave the figures. We know about the number of jobs and the economic benefits. However, in more and more of your Lordships' debates we now look at the other side of the tourism balance sheet, which has also been mentioned tonight; that is, some of the downsides of tourism. The noble Lord, Lord Montague of Oxford, mentioned them in regard to Oxford. We need now a thought-through planned strategic development of tourism within the framework and objective of sustainable growth. The case for that is becoming much more widely accepted.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris, spoke mainly on accessibility and transport, with particular regard to air travel. I shall not touch on that. I agree on the necessity for accessibility and I would underline the case for rail accessibility. A great many people come to the North West from other parts of the UK. We must not forget the domestic tourist. That is an important part of the tourism mix in all regions. Without doubt, an improvement in the rail infrastructure would be helpful.

We need to look at two aspects of tourism in the regions: first, organisation; and, secondly, funding. As regards organisation, we have touched this evening on the potential abolition of the English Tourist Board. There was an article in the Financial Times today. On these Benches we believe there is a clear answer: tourism is a devolved issue and the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland assembly will deal with tourism. We therefore believe it appropriate that that parliament and those assemblies should deal with international and domestic tourism. Accordingly, the organisation whose role should be questioned is the British Tourist Authority. We propose a merger of the ETB and the BTA, calling it the English tourist board. I underline the fact that we would maintain the same level of funding of the two organisations in that one organisation. Each of the devolved countries and the remaining mother country would be responsible for its own promotion. I suspect that as a consequence all four of the tourist boards would quickly come up with a mechanism for promoting Britain. However, the fairest way is to allow them to do so under their own steam.

The second area of organisation is at local level. It is sad that so few people in tourism take part in local tourist board activities. There is clearly an opportunity there for considerable development. It is at the local level that the tactical delivery of tourism is so important. I am concerned about the RDAs. They clearly could work well but they are not accountable to local government. They are accountable to central government but have no proposed elected representatives. I am wary of any body which has no elected representatives.

I have mentioned that we should put together funding of the BTA and the ETB in one central organisation. A figure quoted recently is the spend per head. I totally disagree with that. There are more people in England than in the other countries. Therefore whatever figure is chosen, there will be a greater spend per head in the devolved countries than in England. One could say to noble Lords opposite that possibly it should be from each according to his means; and to each according to his needs, but that might be somewhat Old Labour. I move rapidly on.

Clearly to allow each devolved government to spend its own budget is the appropriate way forward. Rather than invidious comparisons between nations, we should allow them to do that. I urge the Minister not to use reorganisation of tourism structure to achieve an unnecessary and extremely small saving on funding which is so important to tourism.

8.12 p.m.

Baroness Rawlings

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for introducing this interesting debate at a moment when tourism in general is highly topical.

Recently the Select Committee in another place on Culture, Media and Sport castigated the Government for neglecting tourism despite the lip service paid to its importance by Ministers and officials. When we were in government we were criticised by many for bringing under one department heritage, museums and the arts together with tourism. Some thought that tourism would dominate the department to such an extent that everything would be treated as a tourist attraction. That did not happen. However, tourism does not feature now even in the unpronounceable acronym which designates the department. This is symptomatic of the low priority that tourism is granted.

I agree with the Select Committee of the DCMS that there is the strong, impression that tourism is viewed as the Cinderella of the Department". It is greatly neglected, notwithstanding the economic importance of the sector. Contributing 5 per cent. to GDP, it is the third largest British industry. Britain as a destination ranks fifth in the world tourist market and is growing, as my noble friend Lord Wade so rightly said. It attracted 26 million visitors last year whose main reason for coming here is our great heritage and traditions. If I were the marketing director of Britain Inc, I should be very pleased, though not complacent, with the success of our product. Furthermore, on the basis of those facts I should be very cautious about launching a rebranding exercise across the board.

Britain does not need a new image, nor mega PR stunts like the Millennium Experience. It needs an enlightened Government to act at a number of levels, supporting specific tourist attractions. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Hooper, in the North West the Tate in Liverpool, nearby the National Museum of Photography in Bradford and the Royal Armories in Leeds have contributed to raise the profiles of those cities. For instance, the Royal Armories attracts 60 per cent. of its visitors from outside Leeds and its immediate surroundings and 9 per cent. from abroad.

In Trafford, Daniel Liebeskind's project for the Imperial War Museum rivals in daring and beauty Gehry's Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. It may fail to find the necessary funds as a direct consequence of the changes to the National Lottery rules. I urge the Minister to press the Government to back this excellent scheme, in particular as it contributes to the regeneration of a large derelict area.

Beyond those specific measures the Government must do more to get the right framework in which tourism can flourish. The publication of a new strategy for tourism is being postponed, and in addition there is great uncertainty about future funding. Will the regional tourist boards lose the 20 per cent. from the English Tourist Board if the latter is to be abolished? What alternative arrangements are being made? Will funding be channelled via the Regional Development Authority? If so, what role will the RTB play in it?

Other than creating uncertainty—so well stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Montague—the Government have initiated yet another review: tourism towards sustainability, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, mentioned. Sustainability is the panacea of the moment, the politically correct policy par excellence. In the consultation paper, the Government put forward too rosy a picture. It sounds like a matchmaker extolling the virtues of marriage to young naive couples. In a number of cases tourism and the environment can be married successfully, as in the effective traffic management techniques adopted in Chester. In other cases, marriage can be made to work, for instance, through incentive schemes for the industry such as the Green Lantern. But sometimes it is not possible. In such cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said on another occasion, "conservation should always prevail". Will the Government acknowledge this?

The noble Lord, Lord Morris, concentrated many of his remarks on Manchester airport, and quite rightly so, as airports are the main gateway for incoming tourists. Gateways, however, are only one facet of a transport network which helps tourism, and sustainable tourism in particular. We should like to add our voice to the chorus calling for an integrated transport policy. But how long will we have to wait for it? Will it address the transport requirements of sustainable tourism?

Furthermore, how long will it take for the Government to understand that more regulation is damaging? We understood the significance of regulation or deregulation. For example, we removed the prohibition on 16 and 17 year-old apprentices working in bars. Most importantly for all business, and tourism in particular, we negotiated an opt-out to the social chapter. By signing up to it, this Government have opened the floodgates to a raft of legislation. Some is highly damaging, like the part-time workers directive and proposals for fixed term workers' treatment, as well as compulsory consultation in establishments with over 50 employees. Will the Minister give assurances that the Government will build flexibility in implementing measures of the existing directives and that they will oppose the current proposals?

We are all aware that one of the most important factors today discouraging tourism is the strength of the pound. The social chapter, together with the introduction of the minimum wage and the working time directive, are likely to increase the industry's costs and make it less competitive. It is impossible to quantify exactly by how much, but inevitably higher costs will affect inbound tourism, in particular in areas such as the North West.

The tourism industry is thus constrained by a strong pound and by environmental as well as social policy imperatives. In these circumstances, are the Government prepared to look at tax measures to help tourism? In particular, are they prepared to reduce VAT on accommodation? I look forward to the Minister's answers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for introducing this short debate. He has a record of distinguished service to his city and his country; now, quite clearly, to his region as well. We are very grateful to him.

The Question on the Order Paper is what new help the Government are considering for inbound tourism to the North West. It is necessary that I address that question although the tone of the debate generally—with the exception, as so often, of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings—was very constructive and laudatory about what the North West has to offer. I am very much in sympathy with the debate in that sense.

When we look at what help the Government can give to tourism we have to be clear about the different roles of government and the private sector. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that governments can deal with major structural failures in industry, be it tourism or any other. What a government can do is provide help with redressing market failures. Above all, they can provide co-ordination, standards and support structures for the tourist activities and accommodation, which, fundamentally, have to be provided by the private sector.

I am pleased that we are making progress on accommodation standards. The new unified accommodation standards are moving ahead and will be publicised within the next two to three years, having been agreed by all the relevant organisations. I accept that we have a responsibility for the transport issues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, among others, referred. We cannot provide accommodation and we cannot provide more than a part of tourist attractions.

I shall briefly run through what we think the Government can do. Too much is made of the structures of government support for tourism. An enthusiastic government can work to help tourism whatever the structures. I am not too worried about the comments that have been made about the English Tourist Board. We had a short debate at Question Time about this and I made it clear that there is nothing I can say in advance of the comprehensive spending review. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that whatever happens to the English Tourist Board and other tourist organisations will not in any way diminish the high priority which we give to tourism. My noble friend Lord Montague of Oxford said he would await with interest the conclusions of the comprehensive spending review. I am afraid that is exactly what he will have to do.

While on the subject of structures, the House will be aware that we established a very wide-ranging tourism forum last autumn. It has more than 50 members, all with distinction in the industry, working towards a tourism strategy. It will not be only a government strategy but a strategy of the representatives of the industry. It will be published later this year.

Again on structure, concern has been expressed about devolution and the establishment of regional development agencies. We see these as being a real plus already. The British Tourist Authority is working with the Scottish and Welsh Tourist boards, and the prospect of the regional development agencies is leading to better co-ordination of efforts in tourism at a local level rather than nationally.

There was comment from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about sustainable tourism. Our consultation document published in April this year has already been debated in this House. As we said then, we recognise that sometimes tourism can mean that certain parts of the country, to use a phrase, are "loved to death". That is undoubtedly the case. Unless we study these issues, we shall not contribute either to our international obligations on sustainable development or to the development of a greater diversity in tourism, which is what sustainable tourism, to a very large extent, is all about.

We have responsibilities for tourism regeneration. Some of these are private, some public and some are a mixture. The Granada Studio Tours are an entirely private venture; the redevelopment of the Albert Dock and the King's Dock in Liverpool are public and private, as is the Wigan Heritage Centre. The National Lottery and the single regeneration budget are contributing heavily in the north-west region, including a National Lottery grant of £60 million for the Lowry Centre in Salford and the single regeneration budget expenditure of £90 million in Blackpool towards the improvement of the infrastructure, to which my noble friend Lord Montague referred.

There were a number of references to museums. I recognise the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. We hope that we have halted the tide, but there is a certain amount of a King Canute problem here. Financial pressure will inevitably continue the difficulties which Merseyside and other parts of the country have. They will be difficult to overcome.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to the Imperial War Museum project in Trafford. We hope very much that this exciting project will succeed. There has been and will be additional fundings for the Manchester museums, for the Xanadu project in Wigan and many other projects in the north-west region.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke about the need for a big idea—although he did not use that phrase—for a tourist attraction of international significance in the North West. I do not agree with that. Diversity of tourist attractions makes for a more balanced tourist industry. It makes different kinds of people come to different parts of the region. That is what we want in terms of sustainable tourism. Seven-and-a-half million people a year visit Blackpool pleasure beach. That is a tourist attraction of international dimensions.

I acknowledge what a number of noble Lords said about the need for continued attention to the transport infrastructure. Of course, that is what the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is working on now, as it is also working on the preparation for its local government White Paper on contacts between local planning authorities and the tourism industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Wade, seemed worried about that. I remind him that local authorities are very active subscribing members of the regional tourist boards, so much so that the North West Tourist Board is serviced by Bolton Borough Council. Considerable amounts of money—£75 million in the North West—are spent by local authorities on tourist attractions. Their role is extremely valuable. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the continuing need for co-ordination between them and the tourist boards, but his fears do not worry me too much. Nobody referred in particular to the division between the Cumbria and North West Tourist Boards, but I can tell the House that they have a joint strategy and are establishing single points of contact which are of great value.

The most important matter for my noble friend Lord Morris and others is Manchester Airport. I am grateful for my noble friend's recognition, first, of the Treasury's conversion to the ability of the airport to borrow money on the strength of its balance sheet, with the effect that the borrowings need not be included in the PSBR. Similarly, I am grateful for his recognition that we have removed many, if not all, of the restrictions on bilateral air services being opened up in Manchester, with the result that from Manchester there are now flights to more than 50 international destinations. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is looking at the possibility of loosening the restrictions which Manchester Airport, as a local authority airport, has in undertaking partnerships and joint ventures. We hope that its conclusions will be apparent in the forthcoming White Paper on local government.

Noble Lords referred to the European Regional Development Fund and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred in particular to the need for support in rural areas. He will know that under objective 5(b) east Cumbria and north Lancashire are included for help under the Regional Development Fund.

There was reference to the Commonwealth Games in 2002. Noble Lords will know that the relevant departments—the DCMS, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the DTI and the DETR—together with Manchester City Council and the English Sports Council are actively planning the funding which will be necessary. However, noble Lords are quite right to say that at that time other events will be taking place. There will be cultural events and of course, although this was not referred to, the Queen's Jubilee will take place in that year.

I have not had time to talk at all about other government policies which are helpful in promoting tourism, although the House may allow me a few extra moments in order that we avoid adjourning during Pleasure. I pay tribute to those major companies in the tourist industry which have supported our New Deal initiative—Whitbread, Stakis, Thistle, Queens Moat House, Granada, Allied Leisure, Swallow and hotels in every part of the north-west region. They are all taking part in the New Deal.

I believe also that our policy as regards the minimum wage, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, thinks, and the social chapter are helpful to the development of quality tourism. We do not want a tourist industry in which people are paid starvation wages and are forced to work for unreasonable hours. A sensible working week and minimum wage are already applied by those best companies in the tourist industry. The adoption of the social chapter will enable us to ensure that those high standards are achieved by all parts of the tourist industry.

I am not in any way apologetic for the Government's intervention, their role and the help that they can give to inbound tourism in the north-west region. I believe that we are already doing a great deal and that our progressive and forward-looking plans will enable us to do more in the future.