1. Today the CMS Select Committee has published its first report on The impact of covid-19 on DCMS sectors . You may recall this was the inquiry that during lock down extended it evidence deadline from early May to mid-July. This created some confusion about timelines, submission dates and the conduct oral evidence sessions which would have normal followed the written evidence date but that in this case did not. The inquiry covers all DCMS sectors and not just tourism. It may well continue with further evidence sessions/calls and potentially second and subsequent reports to follow (?).
There is some very good narrative comment but the recommendations on tourism are perhaps a little thin and in part, perhaps not unsurprisingly slightly behind the curve of a fast-moving, bouncing ball. I would hoped to see a lot more on issues of tackling the, almost inevitable, post school summer holiday dilemma that large sections of the industry are likely to face. Getting throw to the end of summer is one thing, still being in business in March 2021, when hopefully the recover proper can start, is another.
If you wish to get a quick overview of what is covered where the content is at page 1 and the summary page 3. The specific tourism section is at pages 40 to 47, paragraphs 80 to 98 and tourism summary and recommendations pages 59 – 60, paragraphs 20 – 24. Depending on your responsibilities, snippets within the sections on sport and on culture and creative, covering both museums and theatre, for example, may be of interest?
Omission is often hard to spot but I was struck by the apparent absence of any mention, of the domestic outbound market which, to my mind at least, usually has significant, and often potentially competing voice, in the normal day to day tourism debate. There is plenty of evidence in the list of submission, of evidence being submitted but the emphasis on overseas travel in the report is entirely focused on international inbound visits, which seems at odds with the realities of two way international travel. I can’t make my mind up whether if this is a good or a bad sign, so for the time being I simply offer it as a hopefully interesting observation.
2. The latest BVA BDRC weekly attitudinal research, update report on on UK hotel form Hotel Solutions and more has been added to our C19 research page: https://britishdestinations.net/c19-research/
3. And one to watch. The Supreme Court has just finish hearing an appeal by UBER against the finding of the Court of Appeal and a lower employment tribunal. The lower courts found that a sample group of UBER drivers were employees of UBER and, thus, entitled to full employment rights. The decision of the Supreme Court, which is final, is expected, potentially within weeks but more likely sometime before, “Autumn”. If the Supreme Court also reject UBER’s case then basis for gig model used by numerous companies will be redrawn in the UK (as it has been elsewhere). The court’s ruling, whichever why it falls, will be of huge significance to gig employers, employees/app users and customers of the largely services provided: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0029.html
Conceivably this may have indirect consequences for the sharing economy and ongoing arguments about the legal relationships and responsibilities between platforms providers and the products and services offered by or through them. A long shot; the practices are different but the underlying principles may be similar?