Tourism Industry

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate. I am sure my husband, who is a Bedfordshire native, would have very much enjoyed his hymn to Bedfordshire. It has been a real pleasure to be a part of this debate, and to listen to Members from across the United Kingdom speak with such pride about their communities and extol the virtues of a visit.

Estimates show that visits to the UK are set to rise to above pre-pandemic levels, but in recent years the growth and prosperity that the tourism sector provides to our economy have been hampered. The pandemic is, of course, the primary explanation of the huge reduction in the number of people visiting the UK, but another key factor is Britain’s exit from the European Union. In response to a survey asking individuals why they would not consider travelling to the UK, around 60% of respondents identified political uncertainty as a deterrent, and around 45% cited potential increases in post-Brexit travel and accommodation costs.

The UK tourism sector directly employs approximately 3.1 million people, and businesses reliant on tourism-generating revenue have reduced hiring rates since 2016. That has impacted people’s livelihoods: individuals reliant on the tourism industry have experienced heightened job insecurity due to the uncertainty caused by the pandemic and Brexit. During a cost of living crisis, it is so important that people feel secure in their fields of work.

My constituency is home to a number of popular tourist destinations, including Richmond Park, after which my constituency is named. The decline of tourism to the UK has been felt by businesses around my constituency, because the park itself hosts 5.5 million visitors every year. Many of the hospitality businesses in the area rely on the footfall that the park attracts, and I have already received multiple emails from constituents saying how concerned they are about rumoured cuts to the park’s police department, which will detract from the tranquillity and safety of Richmond Park.

The park police conduct excellent work in the Royal Parks across London, ensuring that criminal activity and antisocial behaviour are kept to a minimum. The service they provide ensures that Richmond Park remains one of London’s top tourist destinations. The tourism industry is tied to so many different sections of our society, and that is just one example of how insufficient funding for an important department can have a knock-on effect.

I am also the proud representative of Kew Gardens which, according to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, is the 13th most-visited attraction in the UK, with just under 2 million visitors in 2023. If anyone is thinking of something to do this weekend, I recommend a visit to Kew Gardens, particularly to see the blossom and magnolia in their peak season—I swear that it is the best place in the UK to be this weekend. At the moment, they are accompanied by a musical soundscape from students of the Royal College of Music, so it is well worth a visit.

If people are looking for something to eat or drink afterwards, I can recommend a visit to the Original Maids of Honour tea room, just over the road. It is named after the dainty little tarts that have been baked since Tudor times. Henry VIII was allegedly so taken with the recipe that he kept it under lock and key at Richmond Palace, which can unfortunately no longer be visited because it burned down in the 15th century.

Kew Gardens has been suffering from the continued suspension of rail services. The District line and the Mildmay line have seen repeated cancellations and suspensions of services, particularly over the past year. I have heard directly from the director at Kew Gardens how those have affected visitor numbers, not just to Kew Gardens itself but to all the nearby businesses and services. That goes to show how cuts to transport or railway maintenance impact our tourism sector.

Tourism plays a huge role in ensuring the viability of our businesses, and we want the Government to reflect that role by upgrading its status with a dedicated Minister of State for tourism and hospitality. They could provide a holistic view across Government Departments and help to resolve not just some of the issues in my constituency, but issues raised by hon. Members throughout the debate. Promoting our tourism sector should be a focus for the Government. The appointment of a dedicated Minister would provide much-needed oversight and forward thinking to drive tourism and investment in the UK.

In addition, the UK’s rich and vibrant cultural heritage is a national treasure, and our creative and tourism industries contribute billions of pounds to our economy and employ millions of people. Our globally renowned creative industries attract visitors to the UK, and we are proud to be home to some of the most visited galleries, theatres and sports venues in Europe. Many of the creative industries intersect with tourism, and the Liberal Democrats support measures that allow creative industries to flourish, which means making tourism more accessible.

We want to ensure that people everywhere can enjoy the benefits of sport, music and the arts. One such measure would be to rejoin Creative Europe. The creative industry is one of the many sectors that was severely damaged by the catastrophic Brexit deals patched together by the last Conservative Government. The increased red tape, unnecessary bureaucracy and increased costs associated with travel, trade and hiring have left many creative industries struggling. Will the Minister commit to bolstering our tourism and supporting our cherished creative industries by committing to rejoin Creative Europe?

Tourism does not just enrich us economically. The benefits of expanding our horizons would allow for opportunities more broadly. As the Minister will be aware, the previous Government accepted an agreement that allowed EU member state nationals visiting the UK to benefit from a six-month visa waiver, while UK nationals are limited to a 90-day visa waiver when they visit the Schengen zone. That makes tourism challenging for more people—a further example of the appalling deal that the previous Conversative Government secured. By addressing this inequality and bringing forward a more reciprocal agreement, we could encourage more people to travel and explore, broadening opportunities for all British people—that should be central to any Government policy.

I take this opportunity to renew Liberal Democrat calls for the Government to consider entering into a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. We have been talking about this a lot in Parliament—

[Chris Bryant]

Oh, you have?

[Sarah Olney]

We have! We have had countless debates and I have mentioned it on many occasions at Cabinet Office questions—my more usual home. Indeed, a Petitions Committee debate is scheduled in this very Chamber for Monday afternoon, when we will doubtless raise the issue again. I urge the Government to consider such a scheme and the opportunities it would create for young people. Some of the recruitment pressures the tourism industry faces could be alleviated by considering the merits of a UK-EU youth mobility visa.

To summarise, the tourism industry in the UK has been blighted by Britain’s exit from the European Union and the catastrophic deal the previous Government reached with our neighbours. This has impacted the viability of our businesses and the job security of millions of people. I encourage the Government to take the steps outlined in my speech to help to bolster our tourism sector.

Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Again, this is another false dichotomy being presented to us between opt in and opt out. That is why we have landed on the term “rights reservation”. A lot of the material out there is not copyright. That is either because it is long out of copyright—the law for most works lasts for 70 years after the death of the author or the first publication of the work—or because some artists have categorically decided not to retain their copyright. Tom Lehrer, the author of many satirical songs from the 1980s and 1990s, such as “The Vatican Rag” and “The Masochism Tango”, has deliberately surrendered his copyright.

This is a world where we want to make sure that the vast majority of rights holders, whether they be the record label, the individual photographer, the artist or whatever, have the right of control over their copyright—over whether it is used and how it is used—and if it is going to be used, they should be remunerated. I urge my hon. Friend, who I know has a great interest in this subject in his role on the Select Committee, to make sure that that false dichotomy between opt in and opt out is abandoned. We talk about rights reservation, because then, opt out might look remarkably like opt in.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In July of this year, it was revealed that 173,000 YouTube videos, including material created by globally recognised British musicians, news channels and artists, had been scraped into a dataset used to train AI models. Content from over 40,000 creatives has been found in this dataset, yet I do not believe that consent was sought from a single impacted creator to use their copyrighted works. It is clear that AI offers a fantastic opportunity for our economy, but it must supplement and grow industries rather than replace them wholesale. Creatives deserve to be compensated for their work. AI companies will happily pay the electricity bill for their data centres and wages for their staff, so why should they not also pay to access the creative content on which their models depend?

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Of course those companies should pay for the content that they are using. I think she is referring to LAION-5B, which is the dataset that was produced in Germany. Interestingly, a court in Hamburg has decided that this is already covered by the exemption for data and text mining for non-commercial purposes for research. Subsequently, though, this has been used not just for research, but for other purposes, which is precisely the kind of area where there is a legal dispute. That is why we are trying to provide legal certainty in the UK as to what can and cannot be used, when it can be used, and how we can make sure that people’s creative rights are protected.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th November 2023 Commons Chamber

Overall, I think we need to make sure, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that we put the consumer first and foremost. It should all be about that. There is huge competition in the tech sector not just on market share, but on the fundamentals of the technology that changes and evolves in a way that leaves companies that do not keep up out of business. That is not like supermarkets, whose shares may go up 1% or 2% over a year. This is about going from having the predominant market share to hardly existing as companies. That is how rapidly the sector has changed over recent years and, indeed, over recent decades, so we should not be too worried about a lack of competition. However, we should always be worried about the difficulties of the over-mighty regulator that is unaccountable to this place or to Ministers. That is why I have put my name to my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendments, and why I urge the Government, as this Bill progresses, to keep on thinking hard about why we should put faith in a regulator to have any lower standard than full merits for any review, because surely the rule of law requires that people’s interests are properly protected and that they are not subject to arbitrary law.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome many aspects of this Bill. We are pleased that the Government are finally acting on the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations in bringing forward measures to prevent the tech giants from putting our digital sector in a stranglehold. We want to see a thriving British tech sector in which start-ups can innovate, create good jobs and launch innovative products that will benefit consumers. A strong competition framework that pushes back on the tech giants’ dominance is essential for that.

For too long a small number of big tech firms have been allowed to dominate the market, while smaller, dynamic start-up companies are too often driven out of the market or swallowed up by the tech giants. New rules designed by the CMA will ensure that these large companies will have to refrain from some of their unfair practices, and they give the regulator a power to ensure that the market is open to smaller challenger companies. The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see changes to the competition framework, which will allow the CMA to investigate the takeover of small but promising start-ups that do not meet the usual merger control thresholds. This change is particularly important for sectors such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality while they are in their infancy. The benefits of these changes will filter down to the end users, the consumers, in the form of more choice over products and services, better prices and more innovative start-ups coming to the fore.

While we are glad that most of the CMA’s recommendations are in this Bill, we have concerns about certain aspects, such as the forward-looking designation of SMS firms and the definition of countervailing benefits that SMS firms are able to claim. The countervailing benefits exemption allows the CMA to close an investigation into a conduct breach if an SMS firm can demonstrate that its anti-competitive practices produce benefits for users that outweigh the harms. There is some concern that big tech may seek to exploit this exemption to evade compliance with conduct requirements and continue with unfair, anti-competitive practices. It could also create scope for tech firms to inundate the CMA with an excessive number of claims of countervailing benefits, diverting the CMA’s limited resources away from essential tasks. Amendment 209, tabled in my name, seeks to strengthen the Bill and to curtail the power of large tech firms to evade compliance by tightening the definition in the Bill of what kind of benefits are valid.

The Liberal Democrats also have concerns about several of the Government amendments, particularly those relating to the appeals standard, as they risk watering down some of the CMA’s most powerful tools. There is now a real danger that powerful incumbents will use their vast resources to bog down and delay the process, leaving smaller competitors at a disadvantage. These amendments show that the Government are taking the side of these established firms at the expense of smaller, growing firms, and at the expense of economic growth and innovation as a whole.

The Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure that big tech is prevented from putting the British tech sector in a stranglehold. We hope that the Government will be robust on the defensive measures in the Bill. It is important that they reject any attempt to water down or weaken this Bill with loopholes, and that they ensure there is no ambiguity that could be exploited. Although competition is crucial for Britain’s tech sector, we hope the Government also move to tackle some of the fundamental issues holding it back, such as the skills gap, the shortage of skilled workers and weak investment.

[Saqib Bhatti]

With the leave of the House, I would like to address some of the points that have been made today.

I am grateful to Members across the House for their contributions to this debate and, of course, throughout the development of this legislation. I am similarly grateful for the cross-party support commanded by the digital markets measures. Members will find that I agree with points raised on both sides of the House, and I am confident that this Bill addresses those points.

I thank the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for kindly welcoming me to the Treasury Bench, for her amendments and for her commitment to getting this legislation right. She asked about the countervailing benefits exemption, and I reassure her that the wording change maintains the same high threshold. SMS firms must still prove that there is no other reasonable, practical way to achieve the same benefits for consumers with less anti-competitive effect. This makes sure consumers get the best outcomes, whether through the benefits provided or through more competitive markets.

The hon. Lady also asked about appeals, and it is important that decisions made by the CMA can be properly and appropriately reviewed to ensure that they are fair, rigorous and evidence-based. We have considered strong and differing views about appeals from a range of stakeholders, and judicial review principles are the appropriate standard for the majority of decisions under the regime, as we have maintained with the additional clarification on the DMU’s requirement to act proportionately. We have, however, aligned the appeal of penalty decisions with appeals under the Enterprise Act 2002, so that parties can challenge these decisions on their merits to ensure that the value of a penalty is suitable. Penalty decisions have less direct impact on third parties, and the amendment will provide additional reassurance without affecting the regime’s effectiveness.

The significant changes we are making will provide more clarity and assurance to firms on the need for the DMU to act proportionately. They also bring the regime in line with the relevant CMA precedent. Parties will have greater scope to challenge whether the interventions imposed on them are proportionate or could have been achieved in a less burdensome way. When financial penalties are imposed, parties will have access to a full merits review to provide reassurance that the value of the fine is appropriate.

The hon. Lady also asked about the implementation of guidance, and I can assure her that we are working at pace to ensure the regime is operational as soon as possible after Royal Assent. Guidance must be in place for the regime to go live, and the Government will be working with the CMA to ensure timely implementation. The Secretary of State will, of course, review all guidance for all future iterations.

The hon. Lady also talked about amendments 187 and 188, which seek to replace the countervailing benefits exemption with a power for the CMA to consider benefits to users before finding a breach of a conduct requirement. The exemption will ensure that there is a rigorous process to secure the best outcomes for consumers, and removing it would jeopardise clear regulatory expectations and predictable outcomes. In turn, this would make it more likely that consumers lose out on the innovations developed by SMS firms, such as privacy or security benefits. Government amendments 13 and 14 clarify the exemption while, crucially, maintaining the same high threshold and clear process.

The hon. Lady also mentioned amendments 194 and 196, and the Government agree that it is important that the DMU’s regulatory decisions are transparent and that the right information is available to the public. We understand that these amendments would require the DMU to send decision notices to third parties that it assesses to be most affected by those decisions. However, under the current drafting, the DMU is already required to publish the summaries of key decisions. Requiring the DMU to identify appropriate third parties and send them notices would introduce a significant burden on the DMU, to limited benefit, and I argue that it would undermine the flexibility and quick pace that we expect from the DMU. We believe the current drafting strikes the right balance, providing transparency and public accountability on DMU decisions.