Tourism: Northumberland

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) on securing this important debate. I am fortunate enough to have enjoyed tourism in Northumberland very recently; I stayed in Longframlington and Hexham with my wife and daughter, where we visited Hadrian’s wall. During the few days we spent there, we also visited Lindisfarne, from where we took home a bottle of spiced mead. I can recommend it to Members seeking ideas for an alternative Christmas tipple that would be popular with Vikings and monks alike. We enjoyed time at Bamburgh castle, Alnwick castle and Warkworth. At Bamburgh, we saw the exhibition about “The Last Kingdom”, which prompted us to start watching that series on Netflix. If there were a competition for UK castles, Northumberland would surely be the premier league.

Liberal Democrats believe that tourism is the lifeblood of the UK economy. The UK contains a rich tapestry of destinations beyond our capital cities, ranging from traditional bucket-and-spade resorts such as Blackpool to creative hotspots such as Brighton, rural retreats such as the Lake district and modern city attractions such as Hull. If our tourism industry is to flourish, more focus is needed. We must all work, as the Minister alluded to in the previous debate, to rebalance tourism away from London; that is why this debate is so important. Doing so would benefit not only Northumberland, but also my constituency, Cheltenham, which welcomed 2 million visitors in 2022—an influx that supports around 4% of local jobs. Many of those are found in Cheltenham’s excellent hospitality sector, as will be the case in any tourism destination, and most of those businesses will be small and medium-sized enterprises.

The previous Government let small businesses down badly and took them for granted. When businesses needed certainty and stability during the recovery from the pandemic and the energy bills crisis, the chaotic approach of the previous Government made things so much worse. Liberal Democrats have called for a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system, replacing it with a commercial landowner levy based on the land value of commercial sites rather than their entire capital value, thereby stimulating investment and shifting the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. That this new Government are exploring changing the broken business rates system is positive and we welcome it, but small and medium-sized businesses need action sooner rather than later—they need it now, and much more urgently as a result of the decision to reduce the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40%.

At the weekend, I visited Emma, the landlady of the Hewlett Arms. She told me that it currently feels as if the Government still do not quite understand properly how the hospitality sector works. She thought that the contribution of independents in the hospitality sector needed to be better acknowledged, and that the combined impact of the Budget, alongside cost differentials between pubs and supermarkets in particular, meant that her job was getting significantly harder. I am sure that applies to many places in tourism destinations, including in Northumberland. I am certain that the new Government have a vision for tourism, having heard about it in the previous debate. I cannot promise the Minister that I will agree on every single point, but I will always aim for the compassionate, creative and constructive approach of the monks at Lindisfarne rather than that of a Viking invader.

Secondary Ticketing Market

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this important debate. I will put it on the table: the last gig I went to was Jason Donovan at Chepstow castle, and I think the next one on my agenda is also Jason Donovan, at Cheltenham town hall. For that, I have to thank my wife.

From personal experience, I know that it can lead to huge frustration and an inclination to do whatever it takes to get in if someone is denied the ticket they want. Fans often feel they have no choice. For fans of sports, music and festivals, there is nothing quite as disappointing as missing out on the tickets we want for that one event of the year that we want to attend. In some cases, it is 10, 20 or even 30 events, because we know that fans are fans. The one thing they want to do is get through the front door and see the thing they love.

Sadly, there are too many unscrupulous organisations that prey on good-natured dedication to a band, team or regular event. These unscrupulous organisations and individuals are getting away with it. It is an extreme example of market failure. When honest, hard-working fans miss out or are forced to pay hundreds of pounds over the odds because secondary ticketing platforms and touts sweep up the market, the sense of unfairness is very real. The UK’s secondary ticketing market had an estimated annual worth of £1 billion in 2019, with ticket touts mass-buying tickets—the “harvesting” we heard of earlier. They are doing that for sporting and cultural events, then selling tickets on at massively inflated prices.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. When fans are forced to pay way over the odds, they are not able to then go to 10, 20 or 30 other concerts or sporting events, because they may have spent their budget for the year on that one special event that they really wanted to go to. Does he recognise that this issue robs the fans of those multiple opportunities?

[Max Wilkinson]

Of course, and fans want to be there, in the room or the stadium, as often as they possibly can. It enriches their cultural enjoyment, and it is really unfortunate when they end up only able to go to one match a season, or one gig a year, because they have to pay 10 times the price in some cases.

This problem contributes to the unacceptable and extraordinary statistic that an estimated half of Britons have at some point been priced out of the market for tickets to events that they want to attend. When I read that, I did wonder whether it was true, but apparently it is, which is absolutely extraordinary. That is simply unfair. The fact that this subject is being debated today, and that the Government have signalled their intent to make things fairer, is definitely to be welcomed.

Liberal Democrats have, for some time, been calling for greater protection of fans who are exploited by ticket touts. That means that we want to see the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on illegal ticket resale—and it was mentioned earlier that the authority itself might take a more expansive role.

We are calling for the prohibition of platforms that allow sellers to list more tickets for an event than the seller is able to procure legally from the primary market. That practice is clearly exploitative, misleading and wrong. The Liberal Democrats are calling for platforms to be strictly liable for incorrect information about tickets listed on their websites. Dodgy tickets that are not what they seem mislead the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) told us earlier.

We also believe that all secondary ticketing sites must be forced to hold a licence to operate in the UK. Many of us who have been going to sporting events for some time are familiar with the person standing outside the music venue or stadium who says “Any spare tickets?” as crowds walk past. The unlicensed nature of this market means that some secondary ticket operators are little more than that, but they are fronted by an official-looking website. Licensing will bring them into line or put them out of business, which is what they deserve.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a ban on the use of surge pricing by ticket platforms. It cannot be right that people pay a significantly higher price for the same product based on the fact that many others are seeking the same ticket at the same time. That is not an example of a liberal market that helps consumers; it is predatory behaviour. That said, it is clearly desirable for sellers to retain the ability to give early-bird discounts or late deals on undersold events. Those are examples of variable prices that work for consumers.

The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a reform to transaction fees, with the aim of placing a cap on the amount that can be added to ticket prices. How can it be right that a ticket listed for £50 or £60 can, by the time it gets to the checkout, end up costing £80 or £90? That is another example of dishonest and predatory behaviour.

We believe that the changes we are calling for would make it very difficult for professional sellers to sell tickets that have been procured unlawfully. They would also make it more difficult for the professional sellers to sell through secondary ticketing platforms in breach of the law. The changes would help event organisers too: their terms often prohibit or restrict resale to identify and cancel tickets, but sometimes those rules cannot be enforced.

Attending gigs, sporting events and festivals is core to the enjoyment that so many of us take in our leisure time. This issue is central to people’s ability to be happy and healthy, and to enjoy their lives. We must do all we can to stop the widespread abuse that causes so much frustration to so many.

I finish by saying that there is a suspicion that ticketing companies could solve this whole issue tomorrow, using technology that is currently available, but that choices have been made not to do so. That is why a crackdown is needed.

Edinburgh Festivals: Cultural and Economic Contribution

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Efford, to serve under your chairmanship and I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) on securing this important debate.

We have heard many inspiring stories today about Edinburgh. I regret that my most recent cultural experience in Edinburgh was bellowing out Proclaimers songs in Fingers piano bar at my stag party. That was a great day out, but it does not match up to some of the other stories that we have heard—

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)]

It does not sound like it would. [Laughter.]

[Max Wilkinson]

It was a lovely evening out as well, Minister.

Our challenge is that we must build a creative environment that showcases the best of British talent—bringing together British culture and creativity, and showcasing it for the world—and that we use that to foster a thriving and informed democracy. The impact of cultural festivals in achieving those aims is substantial.

In the case of the Edinburgh festival, we have already heard that it benefits Edinburgh itself by more than £400 million; the wider impacts on the rest of Scotland and the UK are much, much bigger. The festival opens the door to tourism for the rest of our nation, which is a really important aspect that we must not miss out when speaking about cultural events.

That is why it is very worrying to hear the concerns of festival organisers, which have been highlighted in recent news coverage. Regardless of funding pressures, it is our opinion that it is extremely important that the Scottish Government do what they can to meet their past funding pledges. For appropriate balance, I will add that such responsibility extends to other public funders of cultural activities across the rest of the UK, whether those are devolved nations or local government.

Festivals, such as the festivals in Edinburgh that we are debating today or the Cheltenham festivals in my own constituency, play a key role in our cultural life. It is vital that they receive the support necessary to continue to flourish. This week, my constituency is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Cheltenham Literature Festival, which continues to flourish. However, despite large ticket sales, reductions in funding and in-kind support mean that the organisers of the Cheltenham Literature Festival have had to make some really tough choices in the past few years. Nevertheless, they still engage youngsters in reading to the tune of around 23,000 children every year. Of course, reading for pleasure is one of the single biggest indicators of a child’s future success.

At the launch event for the Cheltenham Literature Festival last Friday evening, supporters—including me—were reminded that the UK spends just 0.46% of its GDP on culture; that is based on the latest figures, which are from 2022. According to the University of Warwick’s “The State of the Arts” report, the UK is not alone in Europe in cutting its cultural budgets in recent years, but that does not make it right and we remain towards the bottom of the European league table, lagging behind our neighbours. If we are to remain a cultural superpower, that situation needs to be addressed.

Cultural funding extends to local festivals, theatres, cinemas, museums, art galleries, music and dance venues, libraries and public spaces. These are all vital to communities the length and breadth of our country. They are spaces devoted to creative endeavour. They not only fuel local economies; they also stimulate community participation across a whole range of creative activities.



In addition, we must not ignore the positive impact of the cultural sector on another great challenge facing our nation: deteriorating mental health. As we seek to reduce pressure on the NHS, we should look to the arts and culture as part of the non-medical therapy available. While few in the Chamber would dispute the difficult economic inheritance of this Government, we cannot look past the positive economic and social impact of investment in culture. It generates incomes and helps communities to thrive in non-monetary measures, too, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out.

What can we do to help our cultural sector boost the economy and increase happiness and wellbeing? Central Government can make a difference in many ways, although at heart it often comes down to money. However, Westminster and devolved Governments can make other important contributions. The promise made by the new Government for the restoration of multi-year funding settlements for local government will provide an important route to that. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) mentioned creative subjects, and we agree on that.

Planning reform offers another opportunity. Engaging the cultural sector in that will be important. We can beef up powers for local areas to protect cherished cultural venues. The cultural sector, too, would benefit from the abolition of business rates and the introduction of a commercial landowner levy.

A more sensitive subject is freedom of expression in the cultural sector. We all need to remember that sometimes we will see and hear things that we do not agree with. If art is not there to stimulate debate, it is nothing.

Finally, Chair—

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Max Wilkinson]

I appeal to the Government to make a small re-prioritisation: appoint a Minister for tourism and hospitality.

Technology in Public Services

Max Wilkinson Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for that intervention and welcome the hon. Member to his place, too. The Government take extremely seriously the role that AI and digital technologies have in productivity in all public services and, as my speech unfolds, I hope that he will hear more detail about the scale of our ambition. To take just one of the schemes that we will be unfolding, the fit for the future programme—a £480 million commitment in our manifesto—will be responsible for driving innovation through the NHS, with adoption of the very latest scanning equipment as well as other equipment right across the NHS in England. Those are just some of the things that we are committed to, and I assure him that the Government are wholly committed to this agenda.

Nothing about change is inevitable. The future of technology is ours to shape, and the opportunities it offers are ours to seize. My ministerial team and I want to see a future where technology enriches the life of every single citizen and a future with safety at its foundation, because only when people are safe and feel safe can they embrace technology and the possibilities that it presents.

Today, Britain’s tech sector is showing us what that future might look like, but far too often our public services are simply stuck in the past. The contrast could not be clearer. Much of the century so far has been defined by the sheer speed of technological advancement. The digital revolution has transformed our lives in ways that would have been unimaginable just a couple of decades ago. Most of us can access our bank accounts anywhere, at any time, and transferring money takes just seconds. Social media and video calls have given grandparents back precious time with their grandchildren, no matter how far away they may live. Young people live in a world where they can find thousands of jobs at the click of a mouse and work for a global brand without having to leave the community they love living in. Yet, as innovation has accelerated, the state has fallen further behind. Our citizens still need to contend with up to 190 different accounts, with 44 different sign-in methods, to access Government services online. Each of them is easy to lose or forget.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

This is obviously a positive debate, as there are so many benefits for us all. I could not remember 191 passcodes—I struggle to remember my own to log in every day in Parliament—but of course we have to underpin everything that we are talking about in terms of technology with cyber-security. In Cheltenham, we have a 4,900 member-strong community speaking for our industry in CyNam, and of course we have GCHQ, where thousands of people work every day; they do not ask for our thanks, but they deserve it in bucketloads.

The Secretary of State may be aware of the golden valley development in Cheltenham, which I recently sent him a letter about and which would include the national cyber innovation centre. I wonder whether he might like to find out more about that by sending members of his team—or he could come himself—to have a chat with me about it.

[Peter Kyle]

The hon. Gentleman, who I welcome to his place, spent quite a bit of time on his intervention, but I realise that there is simply so much to talk about in his constituency. I pay tribute to the organisations he referenced, including GCHQ and CyNam. The work that they do often goes unthanked, but it is absolutely essential to the security, wellbeing and economic welfare of our country. I certainly intend to visit as soon as I can, and it would be great to meet any of his representatives at any point; I am sure that my ministerial team will be willing to do so as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make some progress. I understand that colleagues will want to move on to other points, but this is a very important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, it will not be possible to un-bake that cake of an independent civil service. Imagine the ambitious civil servants—the directors, the directors general—who never even had the chance to be considered for this role!

[Max Wilkinson]

Interested as I am in this question of process and the discussions about cronyism, I turned up here to listen to a debate about tech and public services. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had any opinions on that subject.

[Andrew Griffith]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak about exactly that subject later. However, it is critical and, I think, a point of commonality across the House that we can deliver change only through professional and competent civil servants, and it is important that the morale of the Secretary of State’s Department, like that of every other Whitehall Department, is maintained.