To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the basis for their decision not to award any additional funding for tourism in respect of the 2012 Olympic Games.

My Lords, to date, we as a Government have provided more than £130 million in funding to VisitBritain during the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review—between 2008 and 2011—for the purposes of marketing Britain overseas and England to the British. A great deal more is being provided at local and regional levels, and we are satisfied that, if the investment is co-ordinated efficiently, it is sufficient. The matter will be further considered in the next spending round.

My Lords, the Government have on many occasions confidently predicted that there will be an extra £2 billion of revenue from tourism arising from the holding of the Games. How can they do that without granting additional funding, without a national marketing campaign and without additional promotion of tourism in the run-up to the Games? Is it any wonder that the chairman of the Tourism Alliance has described the decision not to grant any special funding in the run-up to the Olympics as short-sighted and damaging?

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows better than I, feelings understandably run high on this subject in the tourist industry, and we are aware of some of the comments and criticisms that have been made. Our view is clear: after due consideration of the request for additional funds for marketing we believe that they are, first, not available and, secondly, in our judgment, not required at this stage. We have made significant investment in many other areas of the tourist industry, whether in training or in our commitment to bringing in new signature events, major sporting events and global events, as well as commissioning the strategic review of the industry. We have said that for the period of this Comprehensive Spending Review, the budget for marketing is as it is. We believe that more value could be extracted from the budgets that are available, and we will revisit the question in the next review period.

My Lords, would my noble friend agree if I suggested to him that the public investment of £10 billion in the Olympic Games is sufficient for them to be able to market themselves? For the tourist industry to be demanding yet more money is a sign of greed on its part that should not be acceded to by Her Majesty's Government.

My Lords, perfectly put, if I may say so, by my noble friend. I am not sure that I would go as far as to use the greed word, but none the less, our view is the same as his. There has been significant investment. Frankly, this is a rather arcane debate about marketing budgets and other investment. The scale of investment in this area has been significant.

My Lords, I must declare an interest as president of the Cumbria tourist board. Does the Minister accept that there are potential tourists to this country who do not like sports and will therefore be unlikely to come here in 2012?

My Lords, we are trying to cover as many sports as possible. As the noble Lord will know, we are pitching for an unprecedented decade of sport, including golf and the Rugby World Cup—four world cups, in fact. I take his point that there is a significant part of the market for whom sport is not necessarily the most attractive reason for visiting this country. The programme for promoting tourism is not dependent on the investment in sport, but that does not undermine the fact that the Olympics are an enormous opportunity to promote this country more broadly, beyond the sporting activities associated with the Games.

My Lords, does not the Minister appreciate that the single biggest boost to domestic tourism at no cost would be if we moved to double summer time and embraced the arguments of the campaign for daylight saving supported by all of the tourist industry, Age Concern, RoSPA, the Local Government Association and, I suspect, the organisers of the Olympics?

My Lords, as I am conscious that we are running out of time, a debate about time may not appropriate. The noble Lord knows the Government's position on that question, which remains as is.

My Lords, Australian friends engaged in the Sydney Olympics tell us that the great success in Sydney was the use of volunteers both for the Games themselves and for the wider tourist industry in Sydney. Can my noble friend assure us that we are investing in recruiting and training, attracting volunteers to give the same sort of welcome that made Sydney such a success?

Absolutely, my Lords. This goes back to the question of how narrow an attraction sport is. The Olympics are an opportunity to bring a wide community of people into the process of welcoming visitors to this country. The Sydney Games were a shining example of how to do it well, and they were exploited by Australia as an overall marketing event as well as a hugely successful global sporting event. We are most certainly learning those lessons and seeking to apply them.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Olympic Games are not just about sport? They involve many other happenings, including a cultural Olympics, the Paralympics for handicapped people and all sorts of other events around the country for tourists to see. Does the Minister agree—I do not suppose that he does, but I will ask him—that this failure to up the money for the tourist industry in 2012 just shows contempt for the industry?

My Lords, I certainly welcome the noble Lord’s comments about the wider reach of the Olympics as an event and the events happening alongside them. To describe our response to this question as contemptuous is a misrepresentation of the time, effort and consideration that the Government have put into coming to our conclusions. I think that reasonable people will have to agree to disagree.