Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


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.

29 Jul 1999 : Column 1737

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Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.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

29 Jul 1999 : Column 1738

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. I 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

29 Jul 1999 : Column 1739

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.

29 Jul 1999 : Column 1740

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.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page