HL Deb 29 July 1999 vol 604 cc1718-40

(" . The Secretary of State shall by order transfer to the Authority his responsibility for London museums and historic properties in the Authority's area.")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 454 is a probing amendment and is only intended as a means of asking the Government about their plans for London museums under the new GLA.

In the White Paper of March 1998 the Government proposed, a more radical approach with regard to the Mayor's relationships with other bodies and organisations". Since then there has been no further indication of any rearrangement envisaged by the Government with regard to the capital's museums and galleries, nor of what powers the mayor will have over them. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update and tell us along what lines his department has been thinking.

In particular, I shall be grateful if the Minister can let us know what has become of the proposal to transfer responsibility for museums such as the Geffrye Museum, the Horniman Museum and the Museum of London from the DCMS to the GLA. The Geffrye and the Horniman, though both formerly under GLC control, have adapted extremely well to being part of a wider museum umbrella under the DCMS with all the back-up and resources that that involves. There have been rumours that there are proposals for the mayor to have the powers to nominate two trustees for those museums. Is that true? If so, can the Minister give us more details? What will the benefits be?

Furthermore, are there any other plans which might affect the funding of those museums? There will inevitably he serious anxieties if any core funding were to be split between the DCMS and the GLA. Can the Minister reassure us that the museums' funding will be secure, if necessary by some form of ring-fencing within the GLA budget, and will not be gradually whittled away by other demands? The DCMS has all the mechanism and experience necessary to run important national resources. Is it wise to contemplate handing any of its powers over to a body whose composition is as yet unknown and which has no proven track record? Why change a structure and a system that works well for an unknown quantity just for the sake of it? There must be a greater benefit than merely providing the mayor with some museum as part of his or her responsibility. It seems essential that the cultural sector of the GLA should complement rather than duplicate the grant-giving powers of the current cultural funding agencies. In such circumstances it would be of real value.

Can the Minister also inform the Committee as to whether or not there are any plans with regard to the Theatre Museum, the Museum of Childhood, the Sir John Soanes Museum or any other museum? If in the end a small number of museums come under the GLA's aegis, will the Minister be able to put in place a mechanism to ensure that the GLA will not be able to manipulate them, either through funding or direct intervention by trustees, in order to make political points? Also touched on in the White Paper was the possible transfer to the GLA of historic properties now managed by English Heritage. Could the Minister comment on whether this suggestion is still being considered? I beg to move.

The Earl of Clancarty

In speaking to Amendment No. 454, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 454XA and 455QJB which are tabled in my name. I very much support the probing intentions behind the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Freyberg and hope that the Minister feels able to give us a fully informative answer. The intention of the amendments that I have tabled, taken together, is to provide a safeguard—I stress that it would be a safeguard and not a prediction—to prevent the kind of crisis that occurred last year from happening again; in particular, what was suggested in terms of moving the responsibility for funding certain museums over to the authority.

It is important that such proposals should not be made lightly. It is important as well—indeed for all of us—to understand in a sensitive manner the very different characters and lines of development of the various institutions: for instance, developments variously in local, national and international terms, clearly part of the agenda of some museums. These agendas need to be encouraged in the right kind of way.

One of the things that has become clear is the great importance that certain museums attach to the superstructure that the department affords. It is not just a matter, as I am sure the Minister appreciates, of a hopefully secure a funding base but also expertise in terms of access, education, national and international links and in many other areas—and it ought to be said that in this regard the department is clearly getting a big pat on the back from the museums.

My understanding is that no museum wants to rule out any possibility for the future. For instance, we do not know exactly how the authority will develop. But the authority, at least as it is construed at present, does not necessarily offer the best scenario for the future development of certain institutions. In his reply, I ask the Minister to confirm that there would be proper, up-front consultation and discussion over such proposals if they came forward again—consultation which in a sense is not locked into or in effect hidden away within a separate agenda.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

When I read through this amendment, I thought that I was quite opposed to it or, indeed, worried by it. It seemed to me that it was suggesting that this responsibility should be transferred to the authority. However, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, his speech appeared to be contrary to what is in the amendment. Therefore, I like what the noble Lord said but I do not like the wording of the amendment.

I would be very sorry to see the Horniman Museum transferred to the authority. The noble Lord quoted a number of others, but I take the Horniman as a example in this respect. It has built up a great rapport with local people, as well as gaining quite an identity as a museum and as a tourist attraction in London. Indeed, it has often been debated in this Chamber. On one occasion, my noble friend Lady Trumpington told us how she had been offered the opportunity to be weighed, against the seal or the walrus which are on show in the museum. It really is quite a famous establishment. However, I should like to feel confident that such museums will be able to carry on in the same way that they have been doing, and doing so well, over the past 10 years. I support the principle behind the noble Lord's point, but I do not know whether the wording of the amendment is what it ought to be. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I speak in support of Amendment No. 454, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I am most grateful for the intervention by my noble friend Lady Gardner because it gives me the opportunity to point out that, when the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and I first discussed this amendment, I made the point that if I attached my name to it my noble friends would think that I had lost my senses. It is a vehicle by which one can probe the Government's intentions. I am glad that my noble friend gave me the opportunity to put that on record.

I also speak in support of Amendments Nos. 454XA and 455QJB, which were spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I am very appreciative of the cautionary words that he spoke with regard to those amendments. The purpose of this group of amendments is to ask the Government questions about their plans for museums in London. The Bill merely gives the GLA the power to pay grants to any museum. The only strings attached are that there should—quite rightly—be financial accountability for the expenditure and that one might have to pay back the whole or part of the grant.

However, that is in sharp contrast to the extensive changes which were proposed in the White Paper. I was intrigued by the gulf between the proposals in the White Paper and the matters which appear on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, went into some detail in that respect and I shall not attempt to repeat what he said. I merely endorse his argument and the points that he put. But I have a few questions which the noble Lord did not mention in detail.

My honourable friend Peter Ainsworth tabled a Written Question in another place recently to ask the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport whether he intended to transfer responsibility for any of his department's sponsored museums to the GLA. I was intrigued to note that the Written Answer, which was printed on 8th June, was given as a "holding answer 13 April 1999". I hope that the Minister can take the matter further today. The Written Answer states that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to transfer to the GLA the responsibility for making some appointments to the boards of museums which were previously funded by the GLC. The Secretary of State also said: I am considering with colleagues the extent to which the Greater London Authority might he given further responsibilities in respect of museums and galleries in order to enhance the cultural role for the Authority".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/99; cols. 229–230.) I believe that it is important for this House to be able to debate such proposals, if there are any, at an early stage; if, indeed, they are to form part of this Bill. Obviously, another place will have no opportunity to scrutinise such proposals in Committee. Therefore, it will be our duty to do so here, if such proposals come forward.

I gave advance notice to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the four detailed questions that I have for the Minister. First, can the noble Lord say to which museums the Government are referring in that Written Answer? I ask that because it does have a bearing on the Bill. Secondly, can the noble Lord say what number of appointments would be transferred to the GLA as a proportion of the total number at the disposal of the DCMS? Thirdly, what would be the legal basis of the transfer of the right to appoint in this Bill, and would there be other statutory powers which could quite properly be used to make such a transfer? That certainly may be the case. I simply do not know, and seek elucidation on that point. Fourthly, what "further responsibilities", to quote from the Written Answer, are the Government thinking of transferring?

I am perfectly well aware that, in his characteristic way, the Minister will try to be as helpful as possible. Indeed, when responding to a Question in the House earlier this summer, he gave a fascinating reply which implied that the Government might be going down the route of "privatising"—that is the only word that I can think of—the management of national museums. It interests me to see that the Minister very vigorously shakes his head. That response is echoed in the Written Answer given in another place on 25th May. However, can the Minister say what proposals the Government have for the museums in London—and for which museums?

Viscount Falkland

I have attached my name to this amendment. I did so because I find the concept to be very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who moved the amendment, stated quite clearly that it is a probing device and that he is seeking the response and the view of the Minister. The amendment appeals to us on this side of the Committee because if museums within the area of relevant responsibility of the department were transferred to the authority, they might want quickly to change their ideas about presentation. I give the example of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich which is an extremely interesting and comprehensive museum of our maritime history. A strategic decision was taken to present that museum not just as an historical record of Britain's sea power but as a museum covering all aspects of maritime life and the sea. That decision is already starting to show great benefits.

To my mind other museums throughout the country will need to take such decisions. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, were accepted, these kind of strategic decisions would be easier to make and—this is probably more important—they could be made more rapidly. These are, of course, costly decisions, but I believe that the noble Lord has made a valid point.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

As regards what Amendment No. 454 of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, actually says, I hope that the Government will bear in mind that London is the capital of the United Kingdom and that people throughout the whole of the United Kingdom regard many of the museums and historic properties as of enormous interest to them and as belonging to them. To go too far in the direction of giving the mayor responsibility for these things might be a bit tricky. I hope that the Government have that in mind; I feel sure that they have. However, when we discussed time zones the other day it seemed that some noble Lords had forgotten that London is the capital of the United Kingdom and that the Government have responsibility for looking after the whole of the United Kingdom and not just England or London.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am grateful to all Members of the Committee for the genuinely probing spirit in which these amendments have been tabled. Neither of the substantive amendments defines the word "responsibility". I shall attempt a simplified definition because to give a sensible answer I suggest that responsibility can take two forms: one is funding and the other is the role in management which consists of appointments to the trustees. I shall deal with each of those as I deal with each of the institutions that I mention.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was intrigued by the differences between the proposals in the White Paper affecting museums in London and those we are now considering. There are indeed differences but there are no sinister reasons for them; they simply reflect the more detailed consideration during the Comprehensive Spending Review which followed the publication of the White Paper. The White Paper itself made frequent reference to the fact that the review was under way and might affect the outcome, as indeed it did.

In a Written Answer on 24th March—I think this is the key—Nick Raynsford, the Minister responsible for London stated, the White Paper raised the question of future responsibility for some London museums currently directly funded by the DCMS…Following the conclusion of his departmental Comprehensive Spending Review, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport…has concluded that there should he no change at the present time to the funding arrangements for these bodies, but that the GLA's role in funding the museums should be reviewed in due course".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/99; col. WA 252.] I believe that that is the basis of the answer that I want to give. The museums referred to are the Geffrye Museum, the Horniman Museum, the Museum of London, the Theatre Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood, all of which are mentioned in the White Paper but all of which have different considerations which I have to cover.

Let me deal first with the most straightforward points concerning appointments. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has indicated his intention to transfer to the mayor some of the appointments for which he is responsible on the boards of the Geffrye and Horniman Museums. We have been advised that this does not require legislation and could not in fact be implemented by legislation without the risk of making the Bill hybrid. He proposes that the mayor should be involved in one of his three Geffrye appointments and two of his four Horniman appointments. I think that answers one of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

The situation with regard to the Museum of London is more difficult. The board appointments to the Museum of London are shared between the Corporation of London and the Prime Minister. Although the Secretary of State and the Corporation of London have indicated that they are willing to transfer to the mayor responsibility for three of the corporation appointments and three of the Prime Minister's appointments, legislation is needed to give the mayor a role in appointments. However, we have been told that this would make the Bill hybrid. Therefore we shall have to consider separate legislation to achieve this change.

The position with regard to the Theatre Museum and the Bethnal Green Museum of Childhood is even more difficult. These are not separate institutions but branches of the Victoria and Albert Museum. Both have a national role which goes beyond the GLA's remit. This does not mean that we shall not consider the future of these two museums, but there would be practical and policy difficulties in trying to transfer these museums to the GLA as they are not separate entities.

All these museums are important to London and it is right to consider how the mayor might be involved in supporting the work they do. However, as our consideration during the Comprehensive Spending Review has shown, these amendments raise valid questions about the transfer of full responsibility, including funding, to the GLA. The Comprehensive Spending Review revealed potential problems in transferring responsibilities. In the White Paper we said that we would consider further the case for transfer of funding to the London, Geffrye and Horniman Museums. The review suggested difficulties in each case. It may be possible to meet these concerns, but it would be better to wait to decide on the scope for a transfer once the authority has been established. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said that the GLA was a new institution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the Government's plans for the management of national museums. I do not think that I gave an unwise answer but I think that she misinterpreted me because we were certainly not talking about privatisation. At the request of the National Museums Directors' Conference, we have been looking at—and we are still looking at—how to give them greater financial and managerial autonomy. We are keen to see how this can be achieved within the current trustee and management arrangements and in the context of the modernising government initiative. Certainly that goes nowhere near the concept of privatisation. In the meantime I can assure the Committee that the Government value all these museums and we shall not take any hasty steps which could endanger the good work they do for London and the nation as a whole.

I was asked about the Sir John Soane Museum. There are no proposals to alter the current status of that museum. I hope that on that basis noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press these amendments.

Lord Freyberg

I wish to thank everyone who has spoken this evening. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, if I created a misunderstanding as regards the intention of my amendment. The Public Bill Office advised me on tabling a suitable probing amendment. I thank the Minister for his extremely full and helpful answer. I shall clearly want to mull over this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 302 [Grants by the Mayor for museums, galleries etc.]:

[Amendment No. 454XA not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 454YA: Page 159, line 18, leave out ("pay grants") and insert ("grant such financial and other assistance as it thinks fit")

The noble Lord said: I speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 454ZA. They both relate to a very important provision in the Bill which allows the authority to "pay grants"—that is the expression used— for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or other cultural institution". These two amendments are designed to widen the scope of that allowance.

Amendment No. 454YA goes beyond the mere payment of grants to allow the provision of, such financial and other assistance as it thinks fit". That would cover such things as loans, advice, guarantees and so on and gives the much wider possibility of meeting the needs of the cultural institution.

Amendment No. 454ZA seeks to make plain what is meant by "other cultural institutions", about which there is uncertainty at the moment. At present the only institutions mentioned are museums, galleries, libraries and archives—all non-performing institutions, if I can use that phrase. In legal interpretation there is a tendency to interpret according to the particular examples which are in a clause. The addition of theatres, cinemas, concert halls and opera houses is designed to make it absolutely clear that performing institutions are as much within the capacity of the authority to assist as the non-performing institutions.

Again, I draw the attention of the Committee to two uniquely experienced Members of the Committee—the noble Lords, Lord Bragg and Lord Puttnam—both of whom feel that this amendment is desirable and necessary. I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Freyberg

Can the Minister confirm whether the phrase "any museum" in Clause 302, with regard to the powers of the authority to pay grants, refers to independent museums as well as those funded through the DCMS?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The answer to that point is yes.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to hold firmly on to his seat. I think he has a point. In Clause 303 we already use the phrase "other assistance" in relation to the power of the authority on tourism. That it should be extended to Clause 302 is an interesting suggestion. We shall have to consider the implications of the amendment, so I cannot accept it immediately, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling it. I shall give it full consideration between now and Report stage.

I cannot be quite so friendly to Amendment No. 454ZA. That amendment would add to the list of purposes for which the authority may pay grant. The proposed additions—theatre, concert hall, and so on—are all worthy institutions and eminently suitable. They all relate to activities and institutions which have much to offer, and are highly valued by the Government. However, the argument is still that the list is illustrative and not exhaustive. The phrase in subsection (1), or other cultural institution", is a catch-all that makes the addition unnecessary. Such institutions are all already eligible for grant. I hope that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 454ZA.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

I am grateful to the Minister for those replies. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 454ZA and 454A not moved.]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 455:

Page 159, line 19, at end insert— ("() The power in subsection (1) shall be exercised so as to support the provision of central facilities to be approved by the Authority for the study and performance of music by young people with musical talent from schools in the London area.")

The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 455 is to reinstate the core funding for the Centre for Young Musicians. Both the relevant Green Paper and the White Paper recommended that the Centre for Young Musicians should be a recipient of GLA funding.

The amendment is specifically worded to try to avoid any complications with hybridity. I am particularly grateful for the support I have received on this amendment, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who I know has an interest in that institution.

The Centre for Young Musicians is a pan-London training provision for over 2,400 young Londoners aged between seven and 19, recruited principally from the state schools. They attend the centre regardless of their ability to pay fees. There is a 1:3 hardship factor and a 1:4 minority community representation.

The Centre for Young Musicians also produces London's youth orchestra, the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra. I shall now blow my own trumpet. Over 20 years ago, I played the trumpet in the London Schools' Symphony Orchestra for three years. With a great deal of prejudice, I can say that it is one of the finest youth orchestras in the world. It is an ambassador for London. This year it will travel to Argentina to strengthen further links between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I believe I am right to say that it is a world-renowned youth orchestra, and to have played in that orchestra is certainly my greatest ever achievement.

The Bill represents an opportunity for the centre to return to London, having been divorced from its single London authority by the abolition of the ILEA in 1990. Currently, the Government fund, through the DfEE, less than 16 per cent of the moneys raised by the centre's supporting foundation towards central organising costs. That is less than 5 per cent of the overall budget. After nine years, the foundation is experiencing genuine difficulty in finding the centre's central organising costs because of donor fatigue.

Under the White Paper, the DfEE had been recommended to transfer its role and responsibility in that regard to the GLA and we want to see that provision on the face of the Bill. I understand that it is the Government's belief that the LSSO and the CYM should be treated separately and differently from any other youth orchestra or centre for young musicians in any other metropolitan centre or county youth orchestra in Britain. It is the only youth orchestra that has to obtain its finance from the private sector. That situation is unhealthy. It is in the interests of London and the GLA that core funding, which is the most difficult funding to obtain, should be provided by the GLA.

I do not know which of my noble friends will respond, but I argue that the CYM and the LSSO are special. Some form of words needs to be found to make sure that their core funding is a direct responsibility of the GLA as that institution plays such a visible and important role in promoting London to young people, within London and abroad. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee

Amendment No. 454A also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Newby. He is very sorry not to be present to support the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. In the briefing that was circulated, I was struck by the comment, put even more bluntly than the noble Lord has put it in talking about the core funding, that benefactors are reluctant to finance unglamorous administrative costs previously met by government. That seems to be precisely to the point. We support the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I rise briefly to support the amendment, which also stands in my name. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has set out the case for it superbly.

I simply add a reference to a Written Answer in another place on 24th March, the day before the Committee stage in another place, that cast a little light on the gloom. There is reference in that Written Answer to, Specific provision is not required in the GLA Bill to achieve any transfer'".— [Official Report, Commons, 24/3/99; col. 252.] Therefore, I merely endorse questions as to when the transfer is to take place and what are the legal grounds on which the transfer may take place outwith the remit of the Bill.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster

I support the amendment. In doing so, I must declare an interest as one of the trustees of the Foundation for Young Musicians, which raises finance for the Centre for Young Musicians and for the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. We have been greatly assisted over the nine years of our existence, since the Inner London Education Authority was disbanded, by successive grants from the Department for Education and Employment and its predecessor, particularly towards the central core costs.

It is increasingly difficult to find private sponsors who are willing to support those kinds of costs. They are happy to support activities carried out by the centre and the orchestra, such as the visit to Argentina to which the noble Lord. Lord Ponsonby, referred. However, it is much more difficult to find people who are willing, year after year, to support the central core costs. The foundation of which I am a trustee is very glad to go on raising funds for the activities, but badly needs support towards those core costs. The amendment is designed to ensure that it receives that support.

The activities of the centre and the London Schools Symphony Orchestra are deeply worth encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said. It would gladden your Lordships' hearts to go into Morley College on a Saturday and see young schoolchildren from all over London coming together to learn and practise their instruments and to play chamber music together. Some noble Lords may already have heard the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. It is one of the best youth orchestras, if not the finest, in this country and indeed the whole of Europe. Its activity is well worth supporting.

It is also well worth supporting institutions which channel the talents and energies of young teenagers into this kind of social activity. The young people make music together and learn not only to perform to the best of their ability, but to do so in a social context. That in itself is an objective well worth supporting. I am happy to support the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey

I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I have no interest to declare other than the fact that I have attended a number of performances by the London Schools Symphony Orchestra. I have heard the assurances that have been given in another place and have discussed the matter with a number of people. I am told that the funding arrangements may continue.

Nevertheless, the amendment proposed by my noble friend would provide considerable reassurance. Not only would it ensure the possibility of the mayor and the authority providing the necessary support to continue the excellent work that is done by the Centre for Young Musicians, but it would also provide encouragement for any similar initiatives that might be undertaken in the future.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Whitty

I do not wish to take anything away from the positive comments on the Centre for Young Musicians and the orchestra; however, I find the amendment problematic. It effectively seeks to constrain the mayor's discretion to pay grants for the purposes of any museum, gallery, library, archive or any other cultural institution in the arts world in London by requiring specifically that grant is paid to support the provision of central facilities, for the study and performance of music by young people with musical talent from schools in the London area". It is true that my honourable friend, the Minister for Transport in London, explained in another place that, despite the commitment given in the White Paper, it had become increasingly clear as the legislation was developed that it would be wrong, as well as legally difficult, to single out the Centre for Young Musicians as the only voluntary organisation that the GLA would be required to fund.

The amendment attempts to arrive at the same end by introducing a category of people; namely, young people in London who study and perform music. But once again, it requires that they must, under the grant giving provision, be provided with central facilities by the GLA.

The arguments against requiring the singular provision of funding for that category of people are exactly the same as those against requiring the funding of a single organisation. It is difficult to explain why that should be the only category of people that is designated on the face of the Bill. If young musicians must be funded, then why not young actors, young sportsmen, young painters, young sculptors, young architects, or indeed young carers or young gardeners? Indeed, to declare a negative interest, why should such a requirement be limited to the young?

It is difficult in a general grant giving power to specify one particular category. There are many London voluntary organisations, covering every conceivable category of human interest, which provide encouragement, inspiration and training for a range of people and interests in London which, broadly speaking, could be regarded as cultural. There is no proposition that the GLA should be required to fund any of them, although many would merit funding and there are many that the GLA would wish to fund. Many are of parallel merit to the organisations that promote the interests of young musicians.

The GLA will of course be able to co-operate with the responsible statutory authorities and other bodies in the co-ordination and facilitation of specialist services. We expect organisations such as the Centre for Young Musicians to fall into precisely the category of organisation that the GLA will choose to help. It is our view that that could be done either under the general powers or under the provisions of Clause 302(1) as it now stands. However, by specifying a particular group, that group is singled out and at the same time provided with a degree of preference over a whole range of other potential organisations which might legitimately have equal call.

That is not to say that we are unsympathetic to the cause of the Centre for Young Musicians. It does a very good job. We are keen to encourage a close association between the centre and the GLA. As regards its funding, as my noble friend Lord Harris hinted, I am pleased to confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has recently agreed to extend his department's grant to the CYM until the year 2002. He will in due course make regulations to permit him to pay grant-in-aid to the GLA, on the condition that it must be used by the GLA to provide a discretionary grant to the CYM covering the period April 2000 to April 2002. The grant will be in the region of £50,000 per annum.

In continuing that assistance to the Centre for Young Musicians, our assumptions are that, by 2002, the GLA will have worked with the centre to find alternative sources of funding—some of which may come from the GLA direct in the form of a grant. That indicates our respect and the desire for continuing support that the Government wish to provide for the Centre for Young Musicians. I hope that my noble friend will not pursue the amendment. It is essential that the mayor retains a discretion to decide which categories of interest will be supported through grants. It would be wrong to place a requirement on the face of the Bill for him or her to favour any particular interests.

I hope that my noble friend will accept that, where the mayor does choose to exercise his or her discretion in that way, he or she will have sufficient powers to do so under this clause and other provisions in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary to achieve my noble friend's aim. In the meantime, I hope that the confirmation of the good news relating to the grant from the DfEE will give some comfort to those who support the Centre for Young Musicians and to noble Lords who have spoken on its behalf in this debate.

The Earl of Gowrie

While I greatly welcome the stay of discretionary execution just outlined by the Minister, perhaps I may pick up the reference to the degree of preference. As he and all those involved in the educational sector are aware, the problem is that over the past 20 years—that indicates I am not making a political point—there has been a withdrawal from, and decline in, musical education. Through the intervention of Sir Simon Rattle and others, and with the encouragement of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, the Government have taken action to put some vitamins back into the diet of musical education. What I believe worries the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and certainly my noble friend Lord Armstrong and others, is that here we have something that works, and to cast a blight of uncertainty over it means that it will work less well. Therefore, it is not quite as simple as an ordinary degree of preference.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I welcome particularly the intervention of the noble Earl. My noble friend's answer disappoints me. While it is true that the extension of the grant is welcome, I do not believe that he addresses my argument; namely, that the Centre for Young Musicians and the LSSO are special organisations. As the noble Earl said, they work but will work less well because their long-term future is not secure. Having said that, I shall read my noble friend's response with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 455QJ:

Page 159, line 24, after ("records") insert— ("() conditions with respect to the setting of concessionary user charges for certain categories of user;")

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 455QJ is again related to the very important provisions in Clause 302. Subsection (1) is concerned with grant-making; subsection (2) provides that any grant may be subject to conditions; and subsection (3) brings into prominence two issues that the Government believe should generally be the subject of conditions when grants are made— accounts and repayment. This amendment seeks to persuade the Government of another matter that should be given prominence when grants are made; namely, the potential benefit to London and Londoners of requiring the recipient, in appropriate cases, to make concessionary fare arrangements as the authority may specify.

The arrangements may relate to old people, disabled people or young people. Different categories may, depending on the particular grant, be relevant for the purposes of a concessionary arrangement. The amendment forces nothing on anyone but gives prominence to the potential importance of concessionary arrangements in the making of grants. We hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government who have made plain their concern that the arts in London should be available to all. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I had a very simple answer to the noble Lord. It was that the mayor already had power to make such conditions for any grant that he might wish to make. If the mayor wishes to target particular categories of users to give them cheaper access to the cultural purpose in question, that is quite legitimate. That is a 100 per cent knock-down argument against the amendment. However, in moving the amendment the noble Lord referred to concessionary fares.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

I apologise for that slip of the tongue.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am much relieved and grateful. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that my original response that Clause 302 already does what he seeks to do persuades him to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

The noble Lord spoke about the mayor having power to impose conditions. Did he mean the authority?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

It is the mayor who has the power to do it, because he sets the conditions.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 455QJA not moved.]

Clause 302 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 455QJB not moved.]

Clause 303 [Duty of the Authority to promote tourism]:

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 455RJ:

Page 159, line 27, after ("people") insert ("from within and outside the United Kingdom")

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 455RJ I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 455WAB and 455WAC. My noble friend Lord Falkland will speak to Amendments Nos. 455XAA and 455ZAYA. For the record, these amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos. 455UA, 455VA and 455ZAA, to which other noble Lords will speak.

Amendment No. 455RJ is designed to encourage visitors from within as well as outside the UK; in other words, not just overseas visitors. I am concerned that the Bill places emphasis on encouraging visitors from outside. I dare say that we, who by definition spend a good deal of time in London, are above all the ones who miss all the great benefits that London has to offer. Of course, London provides attractions for UK visitors, but I have tabled this amendment to try to understand the Government's thinking on this matter. Amendment No. 455WAB is similar, and Amendment No. 455VA in the name of the Conservative Front Bench is one to which I have added my name.

Amendment No. 455WAC picks up the references in the Bill to those who visit the UK by way of London. Clause 303(4)(b) provides that the authority shall have power to encourage people coming to and through London to visit, not just London, but the UK. Visit, yes, but I believe that it is not necessary, and quite possibly undesirable, that all transport should head for London. In tabling this amendment I had particularly in mind the strains placed on London, as well as the benefits conferred upon it, by its major airports. I also had in mind the disadvantage that is often suffered by regional airports because so many visitors to the UK arrive in London rather than go directly to the regions.

I also refer to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link which I hope will soon persuade visitors to the UK not to go straight to London or to the south coast and then, because of the way that services are organised, head for London. We are glad to have the visitors, but I do not believe that in this Bill we should be so ambitious as to disadvantage other parts of the United Kingdom. We should be aware of the dangers of overheating and stress by bringing in everybody through London. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 455UA, 455VA and 455ZAA which are in my name and are grouped with Amendment No. 455RJ. I share some of the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The reason for tabling these amendments is to put to the Government the general question: how and for whom should the mayor and authority promote tourism in future? At this stage all of these are probing amendments.

Paragraph 5.96 of the White Paper states: Tourism is vital to London's future. It contributes some £8.5 billion to the economy of the capital and 220,00 people are directly employed in tourism-related jobs. Tourism in London is very important to the UK as a whole. Over half of nil overseas tourism expenditure in the UK is spent in London and London is the best known image overseas of the UK". I agree with those sentiments.

Clause 303 imposes on the GLA a duty to promote tourism. It is intriguing to note that this clause: was not originally on the face of the Bill. It was added by the Government at Committee stage in another place. It was something of an afterthought, albeit a very important one, and one that I was pleased to see.

My amendments address the question of who should benefit from the GLA's promotion of tourism. Knowing how widely read the Minister is—it may sound as though I am creeping, but he has caught me out on matters such as this before—I suspect that he has had the opportunity to read the report Making the Connections, which was recently produced by the English Tourism Council, the English Historic Towns Forum and English Heritage. The report claims that England's historic towns are in danger of being swamped by tourists.

The newly appointed chairman of the ETC, Alan Britten, was quoted in the Guardian on 19th July as saying: We have to promote an awareness so as not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg … You certainly don't want to take away the volume, but you have to try to find a way of handling the volume". I believe that he hit the nail very firmly on the head.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, Clause 303(1)(b) imposes a duty on the GLA to encourage tourists from overseas to visit the UK by way of London. I echo the concern that she has raised regarding the question of whether it is necessary and desirable, and whether there are other ways in which tourists can be encouraged to come to the United Kingdom and spend as much as possible of their money to contribute to our economy.

Technically, as a result of my other amendments, Amendment No. 455VA amends Clause 303(1)(c), to make it clear that the promotion and provision of tourist amenities in London should be for the benefit of London's residents and workers, as well as for the benefit of visitors. Amendment No. 455ZAA is consequential on Amendment Nos. 455UA and 455VA.

7 p.m.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane

From my accent, it will not surprise anyone that I support the amendment. I believe that the Government might be wise to think again about promoting London as the gateway to Britain. London is, de facto, a wonderful destination in its own right.

I happen to believe that it is singularly unfortunate that we have in this country decided to concentrate exclusively on London in terms of air transport, thus preventing many people from visiting other parts of Britain simply because they have arrived in London and find it expensive on occasions to move onwards. I believe that it would be greatly in the public interest to encourage the use of major regional airports. I would obviously prefer Scotland to be one of the destinations—and Glasgow would be the obvious airport—but Manchester may also be considered.

Some of our American visitors who came to the Open Golf Championship at Carnoustie had to fly for an extra hour across the Atlantic, bypassing Scotland, in order to arrive in London; they then had to purchase expensive air tickets to return again to Scotland—a ridiculous situation. Some of these people will no doubt be returning next year to St. Andrews.

We really must be very careful that we do not concentrate too many resources on London. It already is, quite correctly, a huge draw in its own right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, pointed out, 54 per cent of our tourism expenditure overseas is spent in London. That is undesirable. It is a matter of regional policy which we should be spreading around the country.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I take quite a different view of this matter. I believe that if this person is elected to be responsible for London, London is certainly the cause that he should be promoting.

I listened with some sympathy to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in relation to Scotland. However, I believe that it is up to Scotland to solve their own problems. It is not for the mayor or the Greater London Authority to decide what should be done to help Scotland. The rest of the world—and I speak as someone who has come from 12,000 miles away—believes that London is the hub of the universe to visit. That is what brings people here. It provides a huge source of employment.

I do not believe that any improvement in other areas will result from the mayor denigrating or taking less interest in the promotion of London. I believe that such improvements are more likely to be achieved as a result of the mayor promoting London. I therefore oppose this amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, for the speech that he did not make! He suggested that visitors should go direct to Scotland or Northern Ireland and thus relieve London of the responsibility about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has complained.

As Clause 303(1)(b) is worded, it gives the impression that the idea is to persuade people to go to other parts of the United Kingdom, using London as a point of entry to the country, as they did for the Open Golf Championship the other day. Scottish tourism needs to point out to visitors to London the fact that they can go on to visit other places. They may also wish to encourage such visitors to give London the benefit of their custom but point out that there are other parts of the United Kingdom that they could visit. There are several angles to this amendment.

I was rather disappointed to hear that my noble friend on the Front Bench does not like Clause 303(1)(b), because I believe that that is what it means. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.

Viscount Falkland

I speak to Amendments. Nos. 455XAA and 455ZAYA standing in my name and the names of my noble friends Baroness Hamwee and Lord Phillips of Sudbury. We have returned to the question of lists.

On this occasion, however, we seek to add the London Tourist Board to the list of bodies named in Clause 303(11). Five boards or authorities are listed in this paragraph: the British Tourist Authority, the English Tourist Board, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board. It seems to us both necessary and appropriate that the London Tourist Board should be added in this part of the Bill.

The second amendment at the beginning of Clause 304 deals with the Authority's duty to advise on such matters relating to tourism in Greater London as the Minister may think fit or as the authority may refer to it. For the same reasons, we would add the London Tourist Board to "any Minister of the Crown, the British Tourist Authority, or the English Tourist Board", as a body to be advised. If there are to be fairly comprehensive lists, we believe that it would be appropriate to add the London Tourist Board.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I start by acknowledging and trumpeting the unique contribution that tourism makes to the success of London and London makes to the success of tourism in the United Kingdom. The mayor will certainly need to develop clear policies to help him fulfil his role with respect to tourism in Greater London, and he will be free to adopt whatever strategic approach to tourism he considers appropriate.

In general terms, the clauses require the mayor to promote Greater London as a tourist destination, both in its own right and for overseas visitors, as a gateway to the rest of the United Kingdom. I shall return to that point later. The authority will have broad powers to achieve this general objective, including powers to undertake publicity and promotional activities, provide advice and information, and offer financial assistance for tourism-related initiatives.

In order to carry out his duties with respect to tourism, he will receive grant-in-aid from the Secretary of State. With the assistance of grant-in-aid, it is intended that the mayor should implement nationwide tourism schemes and initiatives in Greater London in a manner that is consistent with the national strategy for tourism. In exercising his general duties in relation to tourism, the mayor will be required to give consideration to consulting and co-operating with the Secretary of State, the existing tourist boards and other relevant persons and organisations. He will also be required, if asked, to give advice to the tourist boards and Ministers.

Clause 303(1)(a) places a duty on the mayor to encourage people to visit Greater London. The effect of Amendment No. 455RJ is to state expressly that such visitors may be people either from within or outside the United Kingdom. The provision the amendment seeks to amend already encompasses people generally, in other words, both inside and outside, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.

It is intended that the mayor should have statutory duties to promote tourism in Greater London in all its forms. Although it is recognised that London is not the only "gateway" for tourists to the United Kingdom, it is clear that it has a very significant role as such. The provision that Amendment No. 455UA seeks to remove was included to highlight this important aspect of the tourism industry in Greater London which the Government would not wish to see undervalued.

We need a little further explanation on this matter. The British Tourist Authority is the authority that encourages visitors to go to other areas of the United Kingdom. The authority is funded by taxpayers, including the taxpayers of Greater London. However, over 50 per cent of visitors want to come to London, and it is very difficult to stop them if they want to do that. Our intention is to persuade those visitors to move beyond London. That is the object of the exercise. Noble Lords have interpreted subsection (4)(b) in two different ways. One way is to encourage them to come via Greater London and not any other way, and the other is to visit the United Kingdom via Greater London. If that has caused confusion then I think we should look at the wording again in order to ensure that everyone interprets the clause in the same way. It is certainly not the Government's intention to cause confusion in this way.

The mayor also has a duty to the promotion and development of the tourism industry in Greater London. We do expect that tourist amenities and facilities provided or improved by the mayor will benefit residents and workers as well as tourists. However, it would be casting the mayor's powers too widely to create additional duties to provide and improve amenities and facilities for residents and workers, as is proposed by Amendment No. 455VA.

It would not be helpful to remove the definition of tourist amenities and facilities as is proposed by Amendment No. 455ZAA. The definition of "tourist amenities and facilities" in the Bill is intended to cover any amenities and facilities that might be used by visitors to the area or other people travelling within the area for the purposes of business or leisure. The definition is intentionally wide so as to allow the mayor broad powers to enhance Greater London. Removal of the definition could confine the scope of the mayor's duty to those amenities and facilities used only by tourists, which would be inconsistent with the objectives of these provisions. Incidentally, the amendments themselves are mutually contradictory.

Amendment No. 455WAB concerns the promotion of London outside the UK in itself and as a 'gateway" to the rest of the country. It seeks to add the encouragement of visits from people within the United Kingdom, which makes nonsense of the provision.

Although we recognise that Greater London is not the only "gateway" for tourists, it is clear that it does have a role. Amendment No. 455WAC would remove the mayor's power to encourage people to visit the United Kingdom by way of Greater London. I referred to this issue when I said that we should think again about the wording to make sure that it is unambiguous.

Clause 303(11) defines the term "tourist board". It is intended that the definition should mean the national tourism bodies and the British Tourist Authority, which are responsible for promoting Britain overseas. These bodies are referred to in the Development of Tourism Act 1969. Amendment No. 455XAA seeks to add the London Tourist Board. However, the London Tourist Board is not a statutory body and it would be inappropriate for it to be written into the Bill. So the amendment is inappropriate.

Lord Gordon of Strathblane

The Minister may wish to bear in mind that, although he is correct in stating that the London Tourist Board is not a statutory body, it is given observer status on the board of the British Tourist Authority. I believe that it is recognised that London is almost sui generis in this regard and perhaps should be graded up to the level of a national tourist board.

7.15 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am not putting forward an argument against the mayor having dealings with the London Tourist Board. I say only that because it is not a statutory body, it is not appropriate for reference to it to be made in statute. My noble friend can achieve what he wants without amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

The London Tourist Board is a company with limited liability.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That is true. Regional tourist boards are also companies limited by guarantee, but they are statutory. The position is not entirely symmetrical.

The same consideration applies to Amendment No. 455ZAYA. It is intended that the mayor should advise any Minister of the Crown, the British Tourist Authority or the English Tourist Board on matters relating to tourism in Greater London. We cannot add to that the London Tourist Board because it is not a statutory body and it would be wrong for that to be written into the Bill. I hope that I have dealt with the points raised in this rather long list of amendments and that noble Lords will not seek to press them.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank the Minister for his assurances as regards visitors to London. I am grateful to him for agreeing to take away the point made on the wording in subsection (4)(b). That raises another issue; namely, whether the mayor should properly have powers to encourage overseas visitors to the UK. I have read the provision that covers encouraging visitors to the UK by way of London and I have laid emphasis on the latter part because I wonder whether the mayor should be given wider powers. The situation is complicated and I look forward to seeing new wording from the Government at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 455UA to 455WA not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 455WAA:

Page 159, line 32, after ("shall") insert ("without limiting the provisions of section 28")

The noble Baroness said: The amendment adds a cross-reference to Clause 28. Clause 303(2) gives the authority power to do anything to discharge, the functions conferred on it by this section; or … incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions".

This is a probing amendment. It seeks to understand how this provision lies alongside Clause 28, which confers on the authority the power to do, anything … calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any functions of the Authority".

After I had tabled the amendment I noticed a query from the City of Westminster asking whether this provision meant that the mayor could clear streets for the purposes of tourism. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance on that kind of issue. I may be told that I am scoring an own goal because I realise that Clause 28(2) states that, The Authority shall not by virtue of this section raise money". If Clause 303(2) allows the raising of money, then perhaps I shall wish I had not opened my mouth. However, I shall be interested to learn how the two parts of the Bill fit together. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Clause 303(2) gives the authority the power to do anything for the purpose of discharging its tourism functions. The power exists of course within the normal limits of local government financing. Clause 28, to which the amendment refers, is a general subsidiary power permitting the authority to carry out a number of duties which it is not specifically empowered to do, provided that they relate in a demonstrable way to one or more express functions. That is the equivalent of Section 111 of the Local Government Act. For the very old hands here it was Section 132. For even older hands it was the sixpenny rate. I acquit any noble Lord of being as old in the tooth as I am. The tourism power complements this general power.

In so far as the noble Baroness's intention is to ensure that these powers are complementary, I can reassure her, but I am aware that she previously proposed to delete subsection(2) of Clause 28. That is the subsection that makes it clear that the general subsidiary power is not a way around the controls on GLA finance. If the intention behind the amendment is to permit the GLA to raise money outside the controls specifically for tourism purposes—I take it from what the noble Baroness said that it is not—I have to say to her that she knows what the Government think about that. My noble friend Lord Whitty has made it clear that the GLA is to be subject to the normal local government finance regime. That is not in any way to seek to dent the noble Baroness's enthusiasm for tourism, which we share entirely. But I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, she will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee

The Minister, or possibly the officials, sees more in my amendments than I do myself. I am grateful for the explanation of how the two clauses work together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 455WAB and 455WAC not moved.]

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns moved Amendment No. 455XA:

Page 160, line 10, after ("Board") insert ("or Tourism Council")

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 455YA and 455ZA. The purpose of these amendments is to put on the face of the Bill references to the English Tourism Council in place of references to the English Tourist Board. On 19th July the English Tourist Board officially changed itself into the English Tourism Council. 1 am sure that all noble Lords wish it well in the future, particularly its new chairman, Alan Britten, to whom I have already referred. It still has a vital job to do on behalf of England, despite being stripped of its important domestic marketing remit. The ETB was highly successful with the help of its excellent staff. I was disappointed to read in the June edition of Leisure Management that 13 jobs have already been culled from the ETB itself. I hope that the expertise of those staff will not be lost to the industry.

I am aware that the ETC has taken a positive approach to its new role. Today, noble Lords will have been circulated with two publications from the ETC. One is called Focus on the English Tourism Council and the other, A Framework for Action. I have no doubt that it will take positive action. I was intrigued to note that the Bill as currently drafted refers to the extinct ETB. Can the Minister explain why the reference to the ETB has been left on the face of the Bill and not changed at this stage to ETC? I assume that there is a sound legal reason for the name being left unaltered, but I should like to be persuaded of that.

I note that a Written Answer of 30th June from the Minister for Tourism to my honourable friend Richard Spring stated: Following its launch on 19 July, the English Tourism Council will be the trading name for the English Tourist Board. The new name reflects the change in the body's remit and will be changed formally when a legislative opportunity arises".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/99; col. WA 201.] That Written Answer raises further questions. If the ETC can now trade legally as the ETB, why do the Government need to find time in another parliamentary Session to make what must then be expensive statutory changes? We have the chance to do it here. If the ETB can trade as the ETC, why change the name of the organisation at all just for the matter of a relaunch? What does "Tourism Council" as a concept convey so much better than "Tourist Board"? Was this a spin doctor's wonderful imagination coming out with some fantastic new title? I wonder, perhaps; rather unkindly, how much money would have been saved in promotional costs if the ETB continued to trade as the ETB.

I read in Design Week of 4th June that the Government have appointed Springpoint to create a new corporate identity for the ETC. I understand that a new logo will be applied to buildings, signs and stationery and that it might even be used, intriguingly, to endorse tourist accommodation. What is the budget for that exercise and which organisation will pay? Finally, if there really is to be a change of name, why not use the Bill to achieve the change of status? As at least one of those questions was a serious legal question, I gave advance notice of them. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, both for the way in which she moved the amendment and also for giving us advance notice of her questions. She quoted the Written Answer given by Janet Anderson. The new name has trading status only and no statutory basis. It is perfectly possible for any organisation to have a legal name and to trade under another name. Such names used to be registered in the register of business names. I suppose that they are not so registered any more, thanks to the reforms of the previous Conservative government. As the English Tourist Board is still the legal name, the terminology in the Bill has to be consistent with the existing law, which is the Development of Tourism Act 1969.

The noble Baroness asked when and where the change will take place. It cannot take place in this Bill because the Long Title of the Bill concerns London. The English Tourist Board is outside London. We cannot change the Long Title of the Bill in order to bring in something quite different. We are not in a hurry. We are not looking to create a legislative slot. We will not spend extra money on drafting and legislation. But when there is a wider package of changes, we will bring in this change, and parliamentary time will not be wasted.

The noble Baroness cast doubt on why the name should be changed at all. The point is that the functions have been changed. However, as the noble Baroness knows from our previous discussions, a number of the functions are being transferred. The balance of funding is being transferred to the regional tourist boards, which—perhaps I may take the opportunity to correct something I said earlier—are not statutory bodies either.

The ETC is a different body in a number of ways. It is much more concerned with research and marketing and is less concerned with those matters which are now dealt with directly by the regional tourist boards. Therefore, it should have a new name to recognise its new role. The noble Baroness asked about the cost of the contract to rebrand the ETB. It comes out of the ETB/ETC budget and the contract with Springfield is for £36,315. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will not find it necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

I am grateful for that explanation. I look forward to seeing how a tourism council differs so radically from a tourist board. But I do of course accept the Minister's technical explanation and the good will with which it was given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 455XAA and 455YA not moved.]

Clause 303 agreed to.

Clause 304 [Authority's duty to provide advice on tourism]:

[Amendments Nos. 455ZA and 455AY A not moved.]

Clause 304 agreed to.

Clause 305 agreed to.

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Falkland moved Amendment No. 455ZAZA:

After Clause 305, insert the following new clause—