Westminster Hall

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

Thursday 24 October 2024

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

Horseracing

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the horseracing industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank hon. Members for attending the debate—I know it is a Thursday, but people have shuffled their diaries to attend because of the industry’s importance to all our constituencies and to the country.

Racing is, after football, the second most watched sport in the country. About 6 million people attend the races every year, among them people of all ages, 40% of whom are women. Contrary to myth, racing is a cross-class sport—not that we want to use this debate to define working people. British racing is without doubt an international success story. Four of the top 10 races in the world are held here, which is more than in any other country. We have the best bloodstock; our races attract the best horses; and Britain has some of the finest trainers and horses, including modern legends such as Frankel and Enable.

Racing, like all sports, is a business and it brings huge economic benefits. The industry is estimated to generate £4.1 billion in direct, indirect and associated expenditure every year. About 85,000 people are employed at race- courses, training yards and breeding operations, and in the betting industry. In Newmarket, racing brings in more than 7,000 jobs and generates hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the local economy.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. I am delighted to have Ludlow racecourse in my constituency and, if he ever gets the chance, I would welcome him to Eyton races—a great day out. He made an important point about the local economy, so does he agree that the lack of a clear way forward and support from the Government at this stage is creating uncertainty in horseracing?

[Nick Timothy]

I am sure all hon. Members would look forward to a trip to Ludlow to experience the racing. If I am honest—I say this as a Conservative—this issue has dragged on for a while. I will turn to some questions for the Minister shortly, but time is of the essence.

As so often with Britain, part of the draw, especially for international investors, traders and spectators, is our history and tradition. Racing in this country dates back more than three centuries, and thoroughbred racing was first created here. The association with royalty, which continues with His Majesty the King, only adds to the prestige—I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), the most ardent monarchist in the House of Commons.

That success story, however, is strangely neglected. To those who do not know the industry, it can sometimes appear to be something of a caricature, with horses selling for millions of pounds, breeders paying hundreds of thousands for a particular stallion to cover a mare, and aristocrats and royals being prominent in their patronage. But the reality of racing, unfortunately, is that its future is far more precarious.

Many breeders and trainers operate on tight margins and, as many hon. Members present will affirm, any conversation with them turns quickly to prize money. A horse that wins a top-tier British race increases its future breeding value, but the immediate return is limited compared with in Australia, Ireland and France, where racing benefits from Government support, or in Japan and the United States, where there is simply more money around.

The prize fund for the Dubai Turf, for example, is £4.5 million, and for the All-Star Mile in Australia it is £2.7 million. The Queen Anne Stakes in Ascot, which is a fair equivalent, offers £600,000, and the same is true for the less famous races. At an average of £16,000 to be divided by all placed horses, prize money across the board is much lower here than in competitor markets. Lower down the pyramid, most races pay less than £5,000 to the winner. Owner expenditure far outstrips the total prize money up for grabs in British racing. That is down to how the industry is funded.

In Japan and Hong Kong, where betting is generally banned, there are exceptions for horseracing and some other sports, because they are seen as being run efficiently and by Government Departments. That means proportionately more bets are placed on horseracing than elsewhere, and in both places the industry controls the gambling. In France, prize money is underwritten by the Pari Mutuel Urbain, which enjoys a monopoly on betting. In Australia, where prize money has almost doubled in a decade, it is funded mostly through a betting tax. In Ireland, more than two thirds of prize money comes directly from the Irish Government.

Our system is different. Here the funds come from media rights, executive contributions from racecourses, owners’ entry fees, and the betting levy—a 10% tax on bookmakers’ profits from bets placed on races staged in Britain. Around a third of prize money comes from the levy, but income is falling. Over the past two years, the industry estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen by over £1.5 billion and could be as low as £7 billion this year. The Horserace Betting Levy Board says

“falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health”,

and I agree.

Nobody expects us to adopt a Japanese or French model, but I ask the Minister how things might be changed so that we can put racing on a sustainable footing and make sure that we retain our position as the best place in the world to breed, train and race horses. First, does the Minister agree with all hon. Members present—this is probably the easiest of my questions— that the British horseracing industry is an undoubted international success story, a source of British soft power around the world, and home to many vital community assets in regional towns here, and that we must therefore do everything in our power to make sure it continues to prosper?

Secondly, will the Minister confirm today that the Government will not go back to square one and will instead pick up where their predecessors left off? In May, the British Horseracing Authority agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the levy should be increased to 11.5% to create a growth fund to market and promote British racing at home and abroad, and to hold an independent review of the racing funding model.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate—he and I are co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock. It is important to get more money into the racing industry because there are so many people employed throughout the sport for whom racing is their livelihood, but their commitment and the lifestyle that they have to lead to do their work means that we must make sure they are in decent well-paid jobs as well. We cannot have racing squeezed, as it could be in years ahead.

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The racing industry is connected to many associated industries and many different kinds of jobs. As I said, when people see the large sums that are invested in bloodstock and so on, they do not always see that the industry rests on thousands of people, many of whom are on low incomes.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is well attended for a Thursday. He knows my family’s interest— I am about the only one who is not involved in racing; my father was a national hunt jockey. Does he agree that from the 2,000 Guineas and the Derby down to the small trainers, small tracks, point-to-points—Fakenham is just outside my constituency—the rural economy and pony clubs, there is an equine economy right across this country, but it relies on money trickling down from the top? Does he further agree that racing’s finances are not just unhealthy, but in crisis? The problem goes across a lot of Labour constituencies as well, so I support him in asking the Government—we will hear from the Minister—for a strong steer to prevent the further decline of racing’s finances.

[Nick Timothy]

I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend. I do not think this is a party political matter at all. We are all in this room regardless of our party badges because we know the importance of horseracing to our constituents and to our local economies and the country. A lot of the beneficiaries of the British horseracing industry reside in rural and semi-rural areas and regional towns. We spend a lot of time talking in this House about how we are going to improve the regional economy and racing is a really important part of that economy. To return to my point, we do not have time to go backwards.

As part of the work that I referred to, my third question is: will the Minister commit in this debate to the principle of a higher levy? In 2022-23, the levy raised £105 million, but the British Horseracing Authority estimates that an indexed yield of at least £133.5 million is needed for a sustainable future for racing.

Fourthly, will the Government reform the way in which the levy works? It is anomalous and nonsensical that the levy should apply to bets placed here on the races in this country, but not on bets placed here on races held overseas. That does not happen in Ireland or France, which derive significant income from the best British meetings, and we are penalising our own industry. I note that the Gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, has committed to

“making sure that the levy is administered efficiently to best support racing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 801.]

Indeed, I think the way in which the levy works is a vital part of that commitment.

Fifthly, following the Secretary of State’s encouragement that

“we cannot believe everything we read in the papers”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 969.]

as somebody who sometimes writes in The Daily Telegraph, I demur—can the Minister rule out today the reported Treasury plan to increase taxes on bookmakers? If the idea is to crack down on problem gambling, such a blanket policy would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and would obviously damage the racing industry.

Sixthly, and finally—you might be grateful to hear that, Sir Edward—the Secretary of State rightly wants to “strike the right balance” to prevent problem gambling while also protecting the racing industry and responsible gambling, which she says

“brings joy to many people.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 968.]

Will the Government commit today to ensuring proportionality in their efforts to stop problem gambling?

Even though Parliament has not legislated for affordability checks, as the gambling review has dragged on, bookmakers are operating pilot checks at the behest of the Gambling Commission. The idea was that those checks would be frictionless, and we were told that eight in 10 people placing bets would never undergo checks, but we know that punters are being asked to provide bank statements and payslips to prove they can afford their bets. Nobody wants to see problem gambling go untackled, but the rate of problem gambling on horseracing is comparable with that of many national lottery products, and affordability checks are already driving people away from legal betting on horseracing and on to the ever-growing offshore black market through online accounts, where of course there are no safeguards at all.

While the numbers for viewing and attendance at races is at least the same as it was before affordability checks, we know that betting turnover, and therefore racing income, is down by 20% in two years. Independent analysis for the Racecourse Association has forecast a £250-million hit to racing over the next five years, and the BHA says that one in seven jobs in the sport could be lost because of that issue alone. We need to appreciate the difference between gambling on racing or other sports, and the fixed-margin gambling online and in casinos that drives so much addiction and suffering. If we do not, it will be to the detriment of the racing industry and the enjoyment, employment and prosperity that it brings to so many. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. To get everybody in, we will start with an informal time limit, so please do not speak for more than five minutes. Keep an eye on the clock, please.

13:43

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Sir Edward—it is very kind of you to call me so early in the debate. I declare an interest as the vice-chairman of the APPG on racing and bloodstock. It is a pleasure to serve with you, the Father of the House, as custodian of the time limits and procedures. I appreciate your advice, and I will stick to the required five-minute maximum. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important and timely debate.

I have always been a firm supporter of the horseracing industry. It may be the sport of kings, but it is loved by many thousands, if not millions, of working-class people. It is a vital part of not only our rich cultural heritage but our economic engine, especially for more rural communities and towns in areas such as mine. We have 59 racecourses across England, Scotland and Wales, and as was mentioned a little earlier, the industry draws almost 5 million spectators each year—I was actually surprised by the numbers. World-renowned events such as Royal Ascot, the Cheltenham festival, the grand national at Aintree—represented by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden)—and the Ebor meeting at York attract people from all walks of life, who appreciate the opportunity to visit in person.

However, smaller, less famous racecourses are of equal, or perhaps more, importance to local communities. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) mentioned his racecourse in Ludlow—I am not familiar with it, but perhaps I will visit at some point in the future. We are blessed with many such racecourses in my region, with Hexham in the north and Sedgefield—the racecourse nearest my constituency—in County Durham, and they all play a crucial role in supporting the regional economy. Of course, I must mention Newcastle racecourse, the home of the Pitmen’s Derby—the Northumberland Plate—and, soon, the Fighting Fifth.

As we have heard, horseracing contributes a not insubstantial £4.1 billion annually to the UK and supports more than 85,000 jobs—it is actually the second largest spectator sport after football. It plays a significant role in rural areas, offering employment, boosting tourism and sustaining industries, including not just those directly involved in horse breeding and horseracing, but catering, transport and hospitality. However, as we are all aware, the industry faces economic challenges, many of which stem from previous policy decisions, as recognised in the 2023 gambling White Paper. As a result, it is accepted that reforms are necessary to ensure the sustainable future of this crucial sector.

One of the most pressing issues—I am sure the Minister is fully aware of this—is the need to reform the horserace betting levy, which is absolutely crucial for funding not just prize money to attract the best entrants, but equine welfare and veterinary science. Although the levy was due for review this year, the process was delayed because of the general election. In May the British Horseracing Authority and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reached an agreement to reform the levy, including by increasing the rate to 11.5%—I am sure the Minister will say a bit more about that. That would create a growth fund to promote racing domestically and internationally, and I gently encourage her to continue engaging constructively with the British Horseracing Authority and to build on those important earlier discussions. I understand that the British Horseracing Authority is eager to return to negotiations as soon as possible to secure a sustainable future and a sustainable funding model.

I completely agree with the argument we heard earlier that the levy should apply to all racing globally that is bet on by British punters. There is an international precedent for that, so I am not quite sure why it has not yet happened—it might be the technology, but advances in technology make it possible now. That would bring us in line with other leading nations, particularly Ireland, and would help to ensure the sport’s long-term viability.

Horseracing is a vital part of Britain’s economy and culture. It provides jobs, supports rural employment and attracts global attention and publicity. As I and other colleagues have said, it faces serious challenges, but those can be resolved through horserace betting levy reforms. I am confident that our new Labour Government and our new Minister and ministerial team will work with the industry to make the necessary changes and ensure that this sport continues to thrive for years to come.

13:49

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important debate.

Last week, I was lucky enough to attend the season opener at Wincanton races in my constituency. I found it hugely valuable to be there and discuss the issues of trainers, jockeys, owners and those watching the races alike. As the hon. Member said, the British horseracing industry is worth £4.1 billion a year to the UK economy, but most of that comes from mega-wealthy bettors who can afford to make substantial bets.

It is right that the Liberal Democrats have committed to implementing affordability checks, but it is vital that those checks protect vulnerable problem gamblers and their families, rather than deterring wealthy players, who help underpin the sport. One analysis shows that enhanced financial risk checks in horseracing, if implemented badly, could result in the sport losing £50 million a year. Similarly, a British Horseracing Authority survey suggests that 40% of bettors would turn to the black market if affordability checks were too stringent. Given that remote betting turnover, which accounts for at least 70% of all betting, continues to decline, the industry cannot afford to see that level of financial support just walk away. The Government must work with the industry to implement robust and frictionless affordability checks.

Racecourses, training yards and breeding operations are largely based in rural areas such as Wincanton and play an important economic role in those areas. Some 20,000 people are directly employed by the horseracing industry, and it supports another 65,000 jobs in supply chains. There is a real opportunity for the Government to ensure that local people in rural areas can access these jobs, by boosting the availability and take-up of apprenticeships and expanding higher vocational training. The lower apprentice rate should be scrapped to guarantee that everyone working in the horseracing industry receives at least the national minimum wage. That is particularly important in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton, where people still typically need to spend an additional 10% to 20% more on everyday requirements than those in urban areas due to the rural premium.

We should not forget that horseracing also plays an important cultural and social role at the heart of rural communities such as mine. In Glastonbury and Somerton, charities such as Racing to School are doing valuable work to provide curriculum-based visits to Wincanton racecourse for local schools. A day at the races is also an important way for many in rural communities, including the elderly, to socialise. I urge the Government to strike a balance between protecting these vulnerable groups, tackling the harms of problem gambling and ensuring that people are not unduly deterred from the sport.

Coming from a farming family and having ridden horses for much of my life, I care deeply about the welfare of the horses at the heart of this industry. The UK has some of the highest welfare standards in the world, including in horseracing, but I fear that that may slip unless the Government take steps to address the domestic vet shortage. Half of vets leaving the industry have been in the profession for less than four years. Recruitment and retention are significantly more challenging in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton.

To conclude, I urge the Government to work with the horseracing industry to introduce real safeguards and guardrails that support the progress that the industry has already made, such as the Betting and Gaming Council’s new voluntary code on consumer checks. The priority must always be to protect problem gamblers from being exploited by predatory gambling companies, rather than saddling the horseracing industry with tax rises to fix the financial mess left behind by the previous Conservative Government.

13:54

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for your chairmanship of today’s debate, and it is a pleasure to be able to contribute. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate. His extraordinary constituency has Newmarket in it, and I have not been there since I was about 10 or 11, when my godfather took me to see the sales taking place—I hope I can go and relive that experience at some point soon.

I have loved horseracing since I was a child. My dad, who was a dock worker, would take me to local racecourses. I did not grow up in the countryside, but in the city of Liverpool, and he would take me to Haydock racecourse and Aintree racecourse. The first grand national I attended was won by Red Marauder, and only four horses out of 40 finished the race—Red Marauder, Smarty, Blowing Wind and Papillon.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

That is very impressive!

[Dan Carden]

The racecourse was an absolute bog filled with water, and two of those horses had to be remounted to get to the finish. The event hooked me on horseracing because it was so extraordinary.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk and I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock, and our first meeting of this Parliament was attended by well over 20 colleagues. That—along with the strong attendance at this debate on a Thursday—just shows how highly the sport is considered.

I am incredibly proud to represent the Walton constituency, which now has Aintree racecourse within it. Aintree is home to one of the greatest races in the world, which is watched by more than 600 million people globally: the grand national. The economic contribution of the grand national—the three-day race meeting—is well over £60 million for. Aintree racecourse is also a world-class sporting facility, as well as being part of the local community, maintaining strong relationships, as some hon. Members will know, with Alder Hey children’s hospital, Park Palace Ponies and some of our schools and educational establishments. There is so much more potential for racecourses in our communities to have a positive and meaningful social impact, especially in urban areas. There is the potential for young people to benefit from alternatives to the classroom when it comes to skills and apprenticeships, and there are alternative fulfilling careers. Racing can play a role in helping the Government to deliver their national mission for growth.

Whatever the challenges British horseracing faces, it will always benefit from its prestige, including its centuries-old thoroughbred history, from Eclipse to Frankel, and Ascot racecourse, which was founded in 1711. Horseracing bridges the class divide. All of us want British horseracing to thrive into the future. For those who work in the industry, it is a labour of love and dedication, and a total life commitment.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk did an excellent job of putting on record the low prize money offered in Britain, compared to countries with different funding models, so I do not need to repeat that. However, given the reported decline in betting turnover, the current system —the reliance on media rights, racecourse contributions, owners and the levy—leaves the industry looking precarious. That is a real concern for all those who rely on it, and like all those in leadership roles in the industry, we in this place also have concerns. My message to the Minister and her colleagues is that they, and we as a Labour Government, have a responsibility to be good custodians of the industry for the future.

British racing is British soft power; it creates bonds between states—not just our neighbours in France and Ireland, but Japan, Australia, the US and the Gulf states. It is one of the finest cultural and economic assets this country possesses, and it rightly has a reputation as a global leader. Will the Minister commit to being proactive in backing the industry and all those who work in it? Will she carry forward the current levy negotiations with at least the suggested increase and with some urgency? While negotiations between the Betting and Gaming Council and the BHA are resuming, we must remember that the Government set the red lines and make the decisions. Finally, could we have that independent review into the future of racing—into the funding model for racing—to ensure that, in the years ahead, we can arrive at a sustainable settlement to save and promote racing?

13:59

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: just 12 miles or so from here, and just round the corner from where I live in Sunbury in my Spelthorne constituency, is Kempton Park racecourse, where I enjoyed Jump Sunday as a guest of the Jockey Club last Sunday. It was a glorious and memorable day, and all my family will be back on Boxing day to enjoy the King George VI and Kauto Star Novices chases.

To the people of Spelthorne, the all-weather flat and turfed jumps courses are much more than that. The racecourse plays host to the weekly market and to the fortnightly international antiques market, now in its 40th year, where the buyers from the nearby Shepperton studios create the sets for the around 31 soundstages there. The annual total attendance for the racing is 20,000, multiplied many times by the global television audience, and for the antiques market it is 80,000. The course regularly hosts school visits and police training, and has a sell-out fireworks display in early November.

At its heart, Kempton Park is about the racing and the 70 or so meetings held there every year, and it is every bit as important to our national fabric as Formula 1, our world-leading track cyclists and the premier league. But, as my hon. Friend described, British horseracing, having led the world from its inception, is in danger of falling behind the leading group internationally. Where horseracing fails, it fails fast, and the Government want no piece of that.

Enough of the stick—what about a bit of carrot? The Minister has a huge opportunity to be the jockey who rides in a winner, generating growth and prosperity for our nation. With a swift and judicious settlement of the levy and protection from egregious taxation and regulation, the Minister will lead a late run on the stand rail. Glory awaits; I hope she achieves it.

14:02

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Horseracing is a national treasure and the UK is a world leader in the sport, which is worth more than £4.1 billion annually to the UK economy, as has been said. In Doncaster, our racecourse is a source of great pride. It is one of the oldest racecourses in the country, in operation since 1614, and has been home to the best race festival, the St Leger, since 1776. As well as being the largest racecourse in the country, it acts as a concert venue, hosting iconic pop artists such as the Saturdays, Madness and Jess Glynne. It was also host to this year’s election count, where I was duly elected to this place—without doubt, the best count in the country.

The importance of horseracing to Doncaster’s culture and the economy cannot be overstated. On leaving Doncaster railway station, visitors to our city can see our racehorses across the road on the city’s mural, and for four days each September Leger Way becomes impassable as locals and visitors alike flock to the country’s most iconic fixture at the racecourse. But we also have fixtures throughout the year—there were 36 in 2023—which are always popular events for both my constituents and visitors from further afield.

The racecourse is one of the jewels in Doncaster Central’s crown. As a proud Doncaster native and regular attendee at my course, I hope that racing continues to flourish to uphold this important cultural and economic asset in my city. To do that, it is important that the Government set the necessary conditions to sustain it and for it to flourish. As has been discussed, the British Horseracing Authority and the previous Government reached a settlement on the betting levy. The changes were due to take place in September, but following the election and the welcome change in Government, we have yet to see them implemented. I ask the Government to pick up the discussions on that settlement so that the horseracing industry can have clarity on its future and on the settlement, and to ensure that racecourses such as Doncaster are able to prepare and adapt to any changes.

I also ask, as other Members have, that the Government pick up on the need for an independent review of the wider funding model for the sport after this year’s settlement has taken effect, to ensure that the industry is able to succeed. I repeat the ask that consideration be given to applying the horserace betting levy to all horseracing globally that is bet on by British customers.

It is imperative that we do not underestimate the value of British horseracing to many constituencies like mine and recognise that we must protect its interests, so that racecourses such as ours in Doncaster can continue to thrive and provide high-quality events and jobs for visitors and constituents for the years to come.

14:05

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important debate.

It is an honour to represent a constituency that includes both Newbury racecourse and the Lambourn valley, which is home to some of the finest trainers in the country. Lambourn valley supports 34 trainers and employs more than 750 full-time workers, accounting for 30% of all jobs in that area. In addition to providing employment opportunities, the facilities make a major contribution to the local economy, with the gross value added from Lambourn estimated to be more than £22 million.

Nearly 15 miles south of the Lambourn valley, in the southern part of my constituency, lies Newbury racecourse. Unfortunately, our general election count could not be held there because an evening meet was going on. The venue hosts 31 meets annually, including the winter festival, and more than 23,000 people can be hosted both indoors and outdoors, generating an additional £5 million in gross added value.

It is clear that the industry is at the heart of my constituency, and it plays a vital role in ensuring the continued prosperity of the local economy. It does and can do more to support Labour’s focus on economic growth, but it needs support from the Government.

The hon. Member clearly laid out six asks of the Government. Although I do not want to repeat the excellent arguments he made, I put on the record my support for those measures. In particular, I will briefly address his sixth point regarding responsible gambling. I agree that none of us wants to see problem gambling go unchecked, but with the use of online platforms it is surely not beyond reason for sites to allow different access for different betting needs. A horse owner recently remarked to me that he could buy a horse for £40,000 without any checks, but he now has to provide bank statements in order to stake a couple of thousand pounds on a race. We need to find a better balance between protecting those most at risk and allowing people to spend their money freely without the involvement of the state and greater regulations.

I recently had the privilege of meeting trainers in Lambourn to discuss the importance of the industry to the local community and learn more about their outstanding efforts in caring both for horses and for the surrounding environment. During our conversation, they shared their concerns about the financial difficulties they face, including being forced to sell land just to stay afloat. The situation is unacceptable. Many people, both in my constituency and throughout the country, depend on the industry economically and socially.

It is vital that the Government take action to ensure the survival and continued success of the horseracing industry. The six asks from the industry, as raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk, will clearly help but, outside of direct interventions and tax changes, more needs to be done to support the industry indirectly. For example, balancing support for local economies such as Lambourn while balancing the environmental impacts of building in a national landscape is key.

Without a sensible approach, the horseracing industry of my home will struggle to continue. Stables are struggling with recruitment because workers are unable to find places to live. The median house price in Newbury is £99,000 higher than the median house price in the country as a whole, starting at £385,000. Prices are out of reach for most. If stables are unable to recruit staff due to high housing costs, they may be forced to close for longer periods, leaving them without enough staff to care for and train the horses properly. Increasing the availability of social housing would be a significant step forward in addressing that issue.

We have also seen nutrient neutrality rules bring developments to a halt across the country, including in Lambourn, and we urgently need the Government to provide better advice and guidance to developers and local authorities so that development can continue while we protect our precious waterways.

The community of Lambourn is currently developing its own neighbourhood development plan, and it includes a focus on the impact of planning policy on the horseracing industry. This forward-thinking approach to better inform planners and decision makers of the unique aspects and challenges of the horseracing industry is welcome and will add real context in the consideration of planning decisions. More financial support from the Government is needed, along with a stronger commitment to build social housing. We must not overlook the incredible work the horseracing industry does.

Newbury racecourse has recently been named a finalist in two categories at the Racecourse Association showcase awards, being recognised for its consistently high operating standards. The awards take place on 7 November, and I wish Newbury racecourse the best of luck. I am due to visit the racecourse tomorrow for a behind-the-scenes tour followed by an exciting afternoon watching the races. It is always exciting to experience this wonderful sport at first hand and witness the hard work of the jockeys, trainers and yard staff in action. Historic sports like horseracing are essential for not only preserving traditions but sustaining the local economy. It is vital that we ensure its future for many years to come.

14:11

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate.

I am not a follower of horseracing—I am a football fan and a season ticket holder at Wolverhampton Wanderers, who unfortunately are not doing too well at the moment—but we do not have to be supporters or followers of horseracing to understand how important it is to this country. Wolverhampton racecourse in my Wolverhampton West constituency is an important part of the city. Statistics have already been mentioned, but one point that has not been made is that British horseracing generates £300 million annually in taxation, contributing to the economy. I had the pleasure of going around the racecourse and saw what it does for the city and contributes to the local community. One thing that was really apparent was the high standards of animal health and welfare and how well the horses are looked after.

Horseracing is part of British culture and heritage. The first recorded race was at Newmarket in 1622, and we have had a racecourse in Wolverhampton since 1825. Wolverhampton racecourse was the first track to have floodlights. There are also evening meetings, which contribute to community engagement with the racecourse.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) mentioned the bands that play at Doncaster racecourse, so I would like to boast that Wolverhampton racecourse has had such great bands as Madness, the Kaiser Chiefs, UB40 and the Human League. Another important aspect of Wolverhampton racecourse is that it is a venue for meetings, conferences and wedding receptions. I have attended many wedding receptions and meetings there. Wolverhampton racecourse also has a hotel, which has 54 bedrooms, but the City of Wolverhampton council has now given planning permission to increase the capacity to 170 bedrooms.

Horseracing is a part of the economic, cultural and historical heritage of this country. As far as I am concerned as the constituency’s MP, it is very much a part of the culture and heritage of Wolverhampton West. I want to ensure that nothing happens that diminishes the viability of Wolverhampton racecourse. I would like to see it continue to flourish, so that many people can attend horseracing and other events there. I very much hope that British horseracing continues and that Wolverhampton racecourse continues to flourish.

14:15

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

It is an honour to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this important debate.

I am very fortunate that in my patch I have two world-renowned racecourses—the Royal Windsor racecourse and Ascot racecourse. There is very rarely a better place to be on a Monday night than Royal Windsor—hon. Members are all very welcome. Ascot is obviously famous the world over, particularly for its annual five-day Royal Ascot event—an event that bucked the national trend this year by seeing an increase rather than a decline in attendance, which is a credit to all involved.

For those who heard my maiden speech this week— I cannot remember the name of his constituency, but the Member for Aintree clearly did—[Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). Ascot racecourse was founded in 1711, and that course now has 330 years of history and has hosted some of the world’s greatest races. Royal Ascot has welcomed some of the greatest racehorses from countries all over the world, including the United States, Hong Kong and, probably most significantly, the Australian super-mare Black Caviar, which is often considered one of the greatest racehorses of all time. She only left Australia once, and that was to compete in Britain at Royal Ascot’s diamond jubilee stakes in 2012.

It is not only equine royalty that Royal Ascot attracts. A few speakers have made the point about Ascot’s soft power. We get prominent royal figures from Dubai, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and ambassadors from the Commonwealth and indeed the world over, which makes horseracing an important tool for soft power for this country. The event showcases the best of Britain and the best of my Windsor constituency on the world stage, and is broadcast in more than 180 territories internationally.

As well as the prestige that comes with competing in Ascot’s group 1 races, it is obviously a significant financial contributor in terms of increasing a stud horse’s value, which remains unrivalled in international racing. As some hon. Members have already pointed out, as a result the racing industry generates more than £4 billion per year and employs more than 85,000 people. Royal Ascot alone welcomes 270,000 spectators across five days and at peak time employs more than 4,500 staff. The visits to the racecourse make up 10% of national racing attendance and their economic importance to my constituency and the surrounding areas cannot be understated. In fact, in 2014 Deloitte assessed the economic impact of Ascot racecourse, just for that event, at £68 million in off-course expenditure through food, accommodation and fashion, all of which drives money into our local economy and into London, our capital, which hosts many punters during those events.

For years, the horserace betting levy has helped to fund the grassroots of horseracing. It is not just about Ascot at the top of the tree—this all filters down into grassroots sports. It increases animal welfare and raises the profile of the sport. At its best, that reciprocal, symbiotic relationship improves the sport and, in turn, the takings of betting companies.

However, a big risk we highlight to the Minister today is that an increase in financial checks on customers risks pushing a lot of gambling underground. Less money would be reinvested in the sport, and ultimately there would be less money for the Treasury. We should of course be doing what we can to ensure that a flutter on the races remains an innocent recreational sport, and we need to give support to the people who need it, but I would urge the Government to tread carefully and acknowledge the unintended consequences of further regulation, particularly as problem gambling statistics for racing are at low levels compared even with some national lottery products.

Any further introduction should be frictionless and should involve working closely with relevant stakeholders, whether that be the BGC or the BHA. Understandably, countries that have seen heavy regulation tend to see an increase in black market betting. PwC found that increased state regulation of gambling in Norway led to 66% of all gambling there taking place on the black market, and similar conditions have created huge black markets in Portugal, Bulgaria and Sweden.

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important point. Does he agree that if we do not support the UK racing industry, including supporting prize money, we will not only drive the betting revenues away but see more and more money going into other racing? Last year’s Hennessy, a big race in the autumn which I watch, had four runners, and on television all the racing that was being shown was from Ireland, where their horses had 20 entries. If we are not careful, we will end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Does he agree?

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that. I am a big cricket fan and effectively we have seen what big money overseas can do to the heart of a sport that originated in this country and gives us a lot of power, and we must be really careful about what we do. Obviously, we should also acknowledge that if people are pushed to the black market, there will be even fewer barriers to entry there, which might have a bad effect on problem gambling overall.

So, we are at an important crossroads for British horseracing. As bookies’ takings, which fund the levy, continue to decline, it is important that the Government’s approach to gambling respects individual liberty, and drives growth rather than limiting it. Just to expand on that—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Member now draw his remarks to a close?

[Jack Rankin]

Certainly, Sir Edward.

I hope the Chancellor will carefully consider introducing further punitive taxes on the gambling sector in next week’s Budget, because that would further squeeze the horseracing industry. And given that the Labour party made growth its priority, I hope that this Government will be forthright in their support of British horseracing—an industry that plays a vital role in my local economy and in generating this country’s unrivalled soft power.

14:21

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair today, Sir Edward, and I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this debate.

I am proud to speak today about the remarkable contribution that the horseracing industry makes to our local economy and community in Epsom, and to say why it is vital that we support this industry. For 245 years, Epsom has proudly hosted the Derby, one of the world’s most prestigious and historic horseraces. However, the Derby is much more than just a race; it is a symbol of Epsom’s rich heritage and tradition.

The annual Epsom Derby festival draws more than 40,000 people over two days in early June and is a spectacle like no other. That is not just because of the high-end hospitality experiences on offer, but because the middle of the racecourse is free to enter and open to the public, allowing everyone to participate. And Epsom is unique as a racecourse, in that people can stand on the side of the track without paying a single penny.

That accessibility is absolutely crucial in maintaining a sense of inclusion and community. Indeed, the downs, a public access area surrounding the racecourse, serves the community all year round. Epsom racecourse maintains that land for public use and local residents use the downs for everything from exercising dogs to flying model planes to running—there are running races on the downs—archery, hosted by local clubs, and even metal detecting, organised by groups. So, Epsom is indeed a model of how a racecourse can contribute more broadly and become a resource for the community.

Beyond the 11 race days that Epsom racecourse hosts each year, the Epsom training gallops form the backbone of the local racing ecosystem. That training centre, which is owned and maintained by the racecourse, draws trainers to the area, with 170 horses across 10 different yards. Those independent yards are local businesses that provide year-round employment and they buy in from local suppliers. Each trainer has between five and 50 horses, and it is estimated that over 100 people are directly employed in those yards, with even more jobs being supported indirectly. That training centre is a critical asset for Epsom and the surrounding area, and those trainers are there because of the facilities on the downs. Without consistent racing, prize money or a vibrant industry, those yards would simply struggle. The local economy benefits year-round from the employment, the use of local services and businesses, and the sense of vibrancy that those yards create.

Furthermore, the racecourse is home to over 250 non-racing events throughout the year, as many other Members have mentioned, supporting local businesses and community groups. It hosts business meetings, exhibitions, dancing competitions and pigeon shows. Recently, there were celebrations to mark the 80th anniversary of the D-day landings. The count at which I was elected was also held there. The racecourse facilities bring investment into Epsom from outside, while also offering a really versatile space for the community to use as needed. The excitement of the Derby is important, but the industry’s real strength lies in the ecosystem that it supports throughout the year. The Epsom training gallops attract trainers to local yards and sustain local jobs.

Unfortunately, on occasion festivities have got out of hand. Sadly, this year we saw residents in Langley Vale frustrated by antisocial behaviour, vandalism and even ball bearings being shot into their windows. Thankfully, follow-up conversations with the police, residents and the Jockey Club will mean that security arrangements will be tightened for next year.

I want to mention the unique structure of the Jockey Club, which owns Epsom and 13 other racecourses across the UK. It reinvests every penny it makes back into racing, so there are no external stakeholders taking a cut. The more Epsom Downs is supported, the more it contributes to societal investment, benefiting the local community and the sport as a whole. Prize money increases attract better horses, bigger crowds and more interest in the area, and that success ripples out, supporting jobs, local businesses and community initiatives. While Epsom Downs is best known for the Derby, the racecourse brings so much more than that to the community: it is a year-round focus of activity, a training centre for excellence and a cornerstone of our local economy and community. The horseracing industry there supports employment, attracts tourism and fosters a real sense of community pride. Whether it is through the world-class racing, the training gallops or the many events and opportunities available to locals, the industry remains an integral part of what makes Epsom special.

I agree with the six points that the hon. Member for West Suffolk made in his speech, particularly on the need to strike a balance to prevent problem gambling. I hope the Minister agrees that racecourses like Epsom should be supported to continue contributing to the local economy and community, by a review of the general funding model.

14:26

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate. I also thank Sporting John, the most recent horse that I successfully bet on at Cheltenham. The fact that it was in November 2021 tells us something about my record of success.

This debate is on a subject of crucial importance to our country and of central importance to my constituency. The breadth of the contribution of the horseracing industry to our nation’s economy and sporting and cultural life is undeniable. Indeed, as was mentioned, the world’s oldest classic race took place around a century before the first FA cup final. The first Cheltenham gold cup took place in 1819, although I am told that it was very different in those days. The hon. Member set out the economic contribution of horseracing to the country, and I will not go over that. However, it would be a disservice to local areas like my constituency if we failed to do everything possible to secure the future of the sport in a way that is good for racecourses, spectators and the economy of those local areas.

Racecourses are understandably frustrated that agreements reached prior to the general election have effectively timed out; that is why it was important to hold this debate today. Racecourses rightly seek clarity on the new Government’s position. On that note, I wholeheartedly back the hon. Member’s call for reform to the levy, which is a crucial part of the solution. Our racecourses must be placed on a level playing field with their international competitors; reform of the levy can help us support that goal. Extending the levy to cover bets placed in this country on races taking place abroad would help our racecourses and those who rely on them to achieve long-term financial sustainability. Can the Minister confirm that that is being considered alongside other reforms and the potential for uprating the levy to help racecourses?

Reforms to protect problem gamblers from the harm they encounter are long overdue, and it is good that there is cross-party consensus on the matter. Doing so in a way that protects racecourses is a key challenge for the Government, and I know Ministers will take that seriously. Can the Minister confirm that when the Government take much-needed action to address problem gambling, that will be done in a way that tackles the root cause by asking betting companies with the deepest pockets to bear the brunt of any changes, and not racecourses?

On local matters in Cheltenham, a study by the University of Gloucestershire found that the contribution of the 2022 Cheltenham festival to our local economy was a staggering £274 million over just four days. There are many other days of racing, which means the contribution to our town is significant. The festival helps our brilliant local hospitality industry. Many of its members tell me that they exist entirely on those four days; if they were not there, we would have far fewer excellent pubs, restaurants, nightclubs and bars. That industry has of course suffered so much in recent years. It also provides good jobs for local people.

I am a strong supporter of the racecourse and that will continue, but its positive impacts in Cheltenham do come with antisocial behaviour, which too often spills over into unacceptable behaviour, misogyny and practices that many local people find distasteful. It is to the racecourse’s credit that it has campaigned proactively to try to bring an end to the things that local people find difficult.

The Love our Turf campaign is helping. As part of that, over the last two years I have declared a war on wee during race week. That is against the legions of men—it is always men—who feel it is appropriate to urinate publicly in our town centre, in broad daylight, on their way to the racecourse. The use of hydrophobic paint on town centre walls and extra public loos have helped to reduce reports of public urination. The racecourse’s deployment of staff on routes to and from the town centre has also helped. But we must go further: the war on wee will be fought again this coming March.

On the subject of undesirable impacts, there is no demand for sexual entertainment venues in Cheltenham town centre for 51 weeks of the year, but during race week, the on-the-ground impact of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 appears to be that sexual entertainment venues can pop up in a local pub or bar with little reference to the local authority. That puts local councils in an invidious position. If they award a licence to an establishment, it is unpopular, divisive and unwanted by the local people, but if they do not, SEVs pop up in a seemingly haphazard way that places women at much greater risk of harm. The Minister probably cannot comment on that issue today, but I would be grateful if she raised it with appropriate colleagues.

I do not want to take away from the importance of the debate, but as the hon. Member for Cheltenham, I cannot stand up and support national hunt racing without raising these points of difficulty. It is not the racecourse’s fault—local people in Cheltenham know that—but the fault of many different authorities that need to get a grip. I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk for giving me the opportunity to make that point, which does not take away from my support for the racecourse.

Another important matter, already raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), is animal welfare. The industry takes it seriously, but that is often badly misrepresented by those who seek to undermine the good work being done. It is important to get on the record that the Jockey Club has made significant improvements that are worthy of praise, such as lowering the height of hurdles at Cheltenham in recent years. The industry will do more in the coming years; it is listening.

An industry worth £4.1 billion, which supports 85,000 jobs and brings so much joy to so many people from all walks of life, must be cherished. There is cross-party consensus in the Chamber today, and Minister will have heard that. I am pleased to lend support through my comments, just as I will lend support to my picks at the Countryside day at the November meeting in three weeks’ time.

14:32

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for securing this debate. I congratulate him on being elected as one of the new co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock, alongside the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) who represents the fantastic Aintree racecourse, home of the grand national. For his information, my last winner was Silver Birch a long time ago; I cannot tell him who came second or third.

I look forward to working together to help to protect the future of British horseracing as a cultural and economic asset for the whole country. I know that is certainly the case in my hon. Friend’s constituency, home to the famous Newmarket racecourse and many world-class yards, having visited not too long ago. He is quickly becoming the Member of Parliament not only for West Suffolk but for horseracing—a title that many will be jealous of, including myself.

Putting aside the cultural and sporting importance of horseracing for a moment, the industry is of considerable economic benefit to the United Kingdom, as we have heard with respect to Ascot, Kempton Park, Ludlow, Aintree, Epsom, Wolverhampton, Newmarket, Fakenham, Newcastle, Doncaster, Newbury, Windsor and Cheltenham. I apologise if I missed any that were mentioned, but it shows the breadth of contributions from across our great country.

According to the British Horseracing Authority, the racing industry has direct revenues in excess of £1.47 billion and makes a total contribution to the UK economy of £4.1 billion. In fact, it was the second largest sport behind football for attendance, employment and revenues generated annually. More than 5.5 million people attended the more than 1,500 individual race meetings across England, Scotland and Wales in 2019. While attendance has not quite recovered from the pandemic, in 2022, almost 5 million people attended racing events across our great country.

In pure economic terms, the value of the industry is clear, but it contributes much more to life in Britain than just tax revenues. It is a core part of British culture that we have successfully exported around the world. On my travels in years gone by, I had the pleasure of witnessing at first hand some of the amazing horseracing courses in other parts of the world—I would add that I paid for that myself before I was a Member in this place.

Horseracing is synonymous with having a flutter, and the gambling industry is a key supporter of horseracing, providing a lifeline through racing’s income stream. Together, they are key to the non-financial benefits that I just mentioned. Research shows that 82% of betting shop customers visit their local shop at least once a week, and that 89% of those go on to visit other shops while on the high street. We have a clearer picture of loneliness in our society now than ever before, so we cannot take for granted the social contribution of horseracing, via high street betting shops and visits to the course.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we made the first major governmental contribution to the national conversation around loneliness and the importance of social connections. From my time working for a bookmaker when I was a student, I know that many people living in our communities rely on interactions with betting shop staff to keep them going. While the stakes gambled may not be high, I know many pensioners whose 10p lucky 15s are the highlight of their day—win or lose.

People who visit a betting shop or racecourse are helping to support the horseracing industry, with the horserace betting levy, sponsorship and media rights raising around £350 million for the sport overall. From the conversations that I have already had as the shadow Minister for Gambling, however, I know that there is an increasing tension in how the levy operates, which we have heard about already today.

I am sure that hon. Members present will already know that the horserace betting levy results in betting firms giving up 10% of their gross profits from horseracing back to the sport. That is on top of the 15% betting duty that the Betting and Gaming Council’s members pay to the Exchequer. Those members are expected to contribute a record £150 million in levy payments for 2023-24—the third consecutive year that the levy contributions have increased.

Despite the increased payments from betting to racing, betting turnover is down 17% in the first three quarters of this financial year. To further demonstrate the decline in racing, it is estimated that, in 2007, 17% of people enjoyed betting on horseracing, but that fell to 10% in 2018. As we have heard, that is causing great concern among not only racecourses but Betting and Gaming Council members. I have even heard reports of some operators already withdrawing offers such as paying extra places on races or offering best odds guaranteed, and some members have gone as far as not offering prices on horseracing meetings altogether. That is not sustainable or good for racing.

The previous Conservative Government were committed to the long-term success of horseracing in Britain. In line with the statutory requirement that we set out in 2017, we began the required review in April this year into the rate at which the levy is charged. Unfortunately, work on that has stopped dead in its tracks given the change in Government. Since the election, there has been a new appointment to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, with Anne Lambert appointed as interim chair, but otherwise the industry has been left in limbo by this new Government. On 29 July, Baroness Twycross, the new part-time Minister for Gambling, said in the other place:

“It is too soon for me to commit to the shape of future policy.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 July 2024; Vol. 839, c. 801.]

Well, as we enter the national hunt season, the industry needs clarity and it needs it soon, as we have heard from other hon. Members today.

What support will the Minister and her Department be offering to the horseracing industry, financial or otherwise, and will she help to negotiate the new level at which the horserace betting levy is to be set? Will she bring forward some of the reforms set out in the gambling White Paper, which will help to level the playing field and promote growth in the sector? What conversations has she had with Government colleagues to make sure that the sport is not damaged by sky-high tax rises in the upcoming Budget? What measures is she taking with industry to stop the growth of the black market, and to make sure that punters can continue to have a flutter freely and safely? What support is she offering horseracing to help grassroots development, equine research and participation in the sport?

Horseracing is vital for many reasons: its economic contribution to the Exchequer, its social and sporting contribution, and the community it provides in mostly rural areas. From raising a foal to the final furlong, horseracing is an essential part of life for people and places up and down our country, as we have heard today. The industry is about not just sport, but, vitally, maintaining and promoting horse welfare across the country.

The BHA’s expenditure supports horse welfare; one of its goals is to drive high-quality care and support for the horse in racing. In total, the Horserace Betting Levy Board spends around £3.5 million annually on horse-related areas, such as educational research and a number of horse welfare projects. As we have heard already, the Jockey Club has also made changes over the years to ensure that the safety of horses is improved at our tracks. Moreover, the BHA is responsible for the safety of horses at races in Britain and works with animal welfare organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and World Horse Welfare, to keep racecourses as safe as possible for the horses. The cross-industry Horse Welfare Board also makes recommendations, including a multi-year strategy to improve welfare.

Earlier this year, alongside Great British Racing, the BHA launched a new campaign, HorsePWR, to promote the facts around welfare in horseracing and to challenge and correct inaccurate information in the public sphere. As the Horse Welfare Board’s first five-year strategy comes to a close in the new year, I hope to work with the BHA as it begins to prepare the next one. For anyone listening who has not had the opportunity to visit their local yard, I highly recommend going to their nearest stables to see the fantastic passion and work that goes on. I also recommend a trip to the National Stud, which is like visiting a five-star hotel—but visitors should make sure to take some Polo mints to keep the horses happy if they are allowed close to them.

From end to end, the equestrian economy is valued at nearly £8 billion, almost half of which is not the racing industry. Horseracing, as we have heard, is much more than just a sport; it is a true British pastime that has a permanent place in the hearts of many people across the country—me included—and it must continue to be supported by this Government as it was by the previous one. In closing, I urge the Government, after a slow start, to leave the stalls, gallop into action as if they were Kauto Star cruising up the Cheltenham hill, and give British horseracing the certainty and future it deserves to remain internationally competitive.

14:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I begin by referring to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having taken part in a charity bet earlier this year and attended Donny races this time last year. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important debate on the future of and support for horseracing. I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) on being elected co-chairs of the all-party group; the Department looks forward to working with them.

We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the shadow Minister did an excellent job of listing all the places, so I will not repeat them. Instead, I will speak about the issue in broad terms before addressing some of the specific points made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk and others.

His Majesty’s Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy. As has been rightly mentioned, it plays a central role in the livelihood of many different communities. I am well aware from my time as the shadow Minister for Gambling of the strength of support on both sides of the House for horseracing, and of the concern around its finances. In February, I took part in a Westminster Hall debate on that subject, prompted by a petition signed by more than 100,000 people. Horseracing is a powerhouse industry that supports employment across racecourses, training yards, breeding operations and related sectors, and is respected at home and abroad.

Horseracing is the second-biggest sport in the UK in terms of attendance. According to the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth more than £4 billion annually to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure. British racing and breeding enjoy a reputation as a global leader and is promoted worldwide as part of the “GREAT Britain & Northern Ireland” campaign, recognising the cultural and economic importance of horseracing to the UK and the role it plays as a soft power asset.

I will outline the measures that the Government are taking to protect horseracing and its valuable economic and cultural contribution. I will also take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the horserace betting levy, which has been mentioned a number of times. Given the long-standing acknowledgment of the symbiotic relationship between racing and betting, racing is the only sport with a direct levy that is overseen by the Government. The levy is therefore our most direct lever for supporting the sport, but it needs to reflect the common interests of both sides of the relationship.

The Horserace Betting Levy Board collects the levy, as Members know, and applies the money raised for one or more of the following purposes: supporting breeds of horses; the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science and education; and the improvement of horseracing. The largest proportion of the levy is used to support prize money; in fact, prize money is a means of injecting funds into the wider racing ecosystem through the employment of trainers, jockeys, work riders and a whole host of people in over 500 training yards who are involved in caring for horses and putting on race days.

The ability of prize money to cover the costs of training is a key consideration for owners deciding to enter and remain in the industry. This is seen in the board’s recent announcements that it has budgeted to contribute £72.7 million to prize money for racing fixtures in 2025—an increase of £2.2 million on 2024 and around £13 million more than each of the pre-covid years of 2018 and 2019.

The horserace betting levy has evolved in step with the betting industry since it was introduced in the 1960s. In 2017, the previous Government extended the levy to online bookmakers and fixed the rate at 10% so that it no longer had to be negotiated each year. The 2017 reforms almost doubled the amount of levy collected, from £49.8 million to £95 million, and it has continued to perform well, collecting £105 million in 2023-24.

I place on the record my thanks to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which continues to do an excellent job, especially in difficult circumstances following the sad death of the chair Paul Darling in August this year. I understand it was his memorial this week, and I send my thoughts to his family. The Government will continue to work with the levy board and the wider industry to maximise the benefits of the levy and ensure that it continues to deliver for the sector.

The previous Government undertook a review that concluded in April, and I recognise the significant work undertaken by both the racing and betting industries to secure a sustainable future for the sport. I am aware that, as part of that review, the British Horseracing Authority presented its case that there is a significant gap in its funding, stating that it is unable to compete with jurisdictions such as Ireland and France. The Minister for Gambling has met representatives from both the horseracing and betting industries, has encouraged a voluntary deal that fairly reflects the relationship between racing and betting, and will write to both parties soon. I understand that both parties agreed the value of a growth fund for the sport, and we look forward to hearing about progress on that.

It is fair to say that racing and betting should maximise income from other sources, as the levy represents just 6% of income, with far greater proportions earned from owners, breeders, racegoers, media rights deals and sponsorship. The Government welcome recent changes to the fixture list that are designed to grow the sport, engage new and existing customers and bring an additional £90 million to racing by 2028. I was also encouraged to see horseracing showcased in the recent TV documentaries “Horsepower” and “Champions: Full Gallop”.

Let me address the specific points raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk. Several other Members made similar points. First, as I have hopefully made clear in my speech so far, I absolutely agree that British horseracing is an international success story. I am delighted to put my support for it on the record. As I said, I was at Donny races last year. Indeed, the year before that I was at York races with my good friend, the late great Jim Andrews, who was my agent. That was one of the last days we spent together before he sadly passed away— I pay tribute to him—and I have very fond memories of York races for that reason. I know of the huge contribution that horseracing makes not just to our economy but to communities up and down the country.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second and third questions, in the absence of any current legislative opportunity to impose changes to the levy, the Government are inviting the betting and racing industries to resume negotiations on a voluntary deal. We think that is the best and fastest option to get additional money flowing to the sport. I share the hon. Gentleman’s hope that we will not go back to square one, and that the parties will reflect on areas where there was agreement.

I do not think the previous negotiations were publicised at the time, but they have been discussed in detail today. I believe they resulted in an offer of an additional 1.5% from the betting industry, which racing agreed was reasonable. There was further agreement that the majority of those additional funds should be targeted towards a growth fund to generate interest in the sport. The Minister for Gambling is happy to continue dialogue with both parties, and if racing would like to hold its own independent review, the Government would welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman’s fourth question was about reforming the scope of the levy to include international races, which a number of Members discussed. There are strong arguments on both sides, but we should focus on what is achievable in the short-to-medium term. Although it is true that racing in other jurisdictions benefits from British racing in a way that is not reciprocated, the funding mechanisms in Ireland and France operate more centralised, state-led systems, and there are fewer opportunities for the commercial deals that we have in the United Kingdom.

On the hon. Gentleman’s fifth question, he might be new to this place but he is an experienced and seasoned actor or character—I am trying to be diplomatic—in the Westminster and Whitehall world. He tempts me, but he knows that I cannot comment on plans for the upcoming Budget.

The hon. Gentleman’s sixth question was about addressing problem gambling proportionally. He will have heard the answer that the Secretary of State gave him in the Chamber last week. I think that, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, it is incredibly important to strike a balance when dealing with problem gambling. Nearly half the population gambled in the past four weeks, so although it is of course important that we provide support to tackle problem gambling, we must do so in a balanced way.

A number of hon. Members raised frictionless checks. As they will know, the Gambling Commission is leading the pilot work on financial risk checks. We will be watching those pilots with interest, but I have heard Members’ concerns and will reflect them to the Minister for Gambling.

I will make representations to my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on animal welfare and the number of vets. I will ask the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on the question he asked.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), made an important point about loneliness. I have visited most of the betting shops in my constituency of Barnsley South, and I have seen at first hand the difference they make in helping to combat loneliness. As the Minister responsible for loneliness, I take that seriously. I say gently to him that we do not have a part-time Gambling Minister; we have a Gambling Minister who sits in the other place. I have answered a number of questions about the Government’s broad support, but I am happy to facilitate a meeting or a letter from the Gambling Minister to him.

The Government remain committed to supporting British horseracing. We believe it is vital to our economy, and it brings joy to many people. I know the Gambling Minister will look forward to continuing to engage with stakeholders in this area. This debate has highlighted the huge benefit that racing has for communities up and down the country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Does Nick Timothy wish to say a few words to sum up?

14:52

[Nick Timothy]

Unfortunately for you, Sir Edward, I would like that very much.

I thank everybody who participated in this really constructive debate. We have learned a lot—and not just about the dubious music tastes of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). I took the hint from the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), and I will extend an invitation to all hon. Members who participated in the debate to come and see the delights that Newmarket has to offer.

There was strong agreement from Members from all parties on the six issues I raised. I will not repeat them, but I want to say something in response to the Minister’s answer, for which I am grateful. I note and appreciate the warmth of her words and those of the Secretary of State in the main Chamber last Thursday. I appreciate that it is early days for the Government, and that Ministers often need time to familiarise themselves with the challenges, but I gently say that Labour Members are in government now; they are not shadow Ministers. Being in government means that they have power, and it may not be enough to convene conversations between interested parties and hope that we might reach voluntary agreements. In the end, Ministers often need to decide.

On each of the points made by the Minister, I encourage her and the Secretary of State to go a little further. It is easy for us all to agree on the ends, but when we agree on the ends, we have to determine the means. Sometimes that will involve making decisions that some of the interested parties might not like to hear. Sometimes people assume that the racing and gambling industries’ interests are coterminous, but they are not. Therefore, I invite Ministers to intervene on such issues.

Specifically on including overseas races in the levy, as on other issues, there was a high degree of consensus among all those who contributed to the debate. Obviously, an opportunity is coming up—I do not know whether the Budget has been put to bed, but a Finance Bill will follow, and that is the easiest change in the world to make. From a Government perspective, it is cost-free, and it would make sense for British racing. The Minister noted the difference in structures and financing of racing in countries such as Ireland and France, but the debate has exposed the extent to which the industries in those countries stand in an advantageous position compared with ours. I press the Minister once more on that.

I thank everyone for participating in the debate and you, Sir Edward, for your excellent skills in the Chair.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It has been a pleasure to chair this debate. I am only sorry that no one mentioned the best racecourse in the country—Market Rasen.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the horseracing industry.

14:57

Sitting suspended.

Secondary Ticketing Market

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

15:00

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the secondary ticketing market.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I am delighted to see so many other Members who have long campaigned on this issue, including my north-east colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and I look forward to her contribution. I also thank organisations such as the FanFair Alliance for their hard work on this matter, and the Co-operative party for its End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign.

Live sport, music and entertainment brings joy to millions of people every single week. Whether it is watching their favourite team or going to a gig, concert or play, people save up for events, wait in online or telephone queues and eagerly anticipate games and shows. I am sure that that is something just about everyone in this country has experienced, and we can all think back to our favourite game, gig, concert or play. They are memorable events that we remember for decades—moments shared with friends, family or partners that last a lifetime. Members need not worry—I will not go around the room and ask everyone about their first gig or their favourite one, or about that live sporting fixture that lives with them forever.

Growing up, my friends and I would save our pocket money or our paper round money, and we would queue up at local music shops such as Pet Sounds to get tickets to gigs, generally at the local universities. As true millennials, we got to see loads of our favourite punk bands—NOFX, Bowling for Soup, and Spunge being just a few. For those who think that punk is just a phase, I am looking forward to the Tour of the Setting Sum farewell tour by Sum 41 next week.

These are formative moments and cherished memories, but for everyone who gets to enjoy them, there are those who have missed out—those who were not able to secure tickets and make those memories. Far too often, those consumers are then left at the mercy of what is the topic of today’s debate—the secondary ticketing market. The issue profoundly affects music and sport fans, event-goers and the integrity of our live entertainment industry, but it appears to be inadequately addressed by current regulatory frameworks. People understand that they will not always get a ticket to the show, gig or game, but they feel a real sense of injustice at the scale of secondary ticketing platforms, with tickets often appearing just moments after people have attempted to purchase them. While allowing a space for those tickets to be resold is important, it is also important that that is not to the detriment of consumers.

The industry is vast, with one in five tickets ending up on secondary platforms, so the need for education and measures to protect consumers is becoming increasingly clear. Recent findings from O2 show that consumers lose an estimated £145 million each year due to inflated resale prices, which are pricing many out of the events and experiences they love. A study by ITV News and the FanFair Alliance found that over two thirds of resale tickets for 174 festivals and outdoor events were being offered by just three traders, who collectively sought to profit by almost £1 million.

Earlier this year, it was reported that two prolific touts were jailed after buying tickets for high-profile gigs and reselling them on secondary sites for up to 500% of their original cost, with the scheme being worth more than £6.5 million. Worryingly, with technology, the issue is becoming more and more prevalent. In just six weeks, O2 prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform, with those tickets almost guaranteed to end up on resale sites and other people losing out. I will touch a little later on the practice of ticket harvesting, and while some progress has been made to prevent it, new technologies and techniques continue to circumvent the measures in place.

With that as a backdrop, is it any wonder that research from the FanFair Alliance found that 80% of respondents believe that secondary ticketing services are unfairly exploiting fans? Practices such as drip-feeding, surge pricing and strategic holdbacks create a precarious environment for consumers, and concerns have been raised about practices that manipulate supply and demand, driving up prices and creating artificial scarcity. Shockingly, between 30% and 50% of tickets may be withheld from public sale, leading to heightened frustration among genuine fans who simply want to attend events. As the cost of attending events increases, it is ultimately fans who are missing out. We cannot allow a situation where genuine fans are priced out of culture, art and entertainment because of these practices. We are already at a stage where too many fans opt out of trying to attend events, dispirited by the existing landscape, with little chance of seeing their team, group or artist at what would be the normal asking price. Again, at the heart of this is people—consumers—who are missing out. Due to enhanced costs, they cannot attend the gig or event they have dreamed of.

What do consumers have to navigate at the moment? As I have said, ticket harvesting, surge pricing and a concerning transparency deficit. Ticket harvesting—where individuals or groups use automated software and bots to acquire large quantities of tickets during primary sale—is preventing fans from accessing culture at an industrial scale. As mentioned earlier, O2 indicated that it prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform in just six weeks. Similarly, FanFair found platforms where people bragged about the extent of their exploits. Members of a Discord group were able to purchase up to 1,700 tickets to an upcoming tour next year, with the tickets then being sold at enhanced prices, and fans paying the price. Those alarming statistics highlight the scale of the problem.

We have all heard what this can lead to. Whether it is tickets to major concerts, Eurovision or other events, I am sure everyone has seen and heard the stories. The latest hot tickets go live, and within minutes they are listed on secondary platforms at significantly inflated prices. To give one example, after the swift sell-out of Eurovision tickets in 2023, tickets resold for upwards of £9,000—more than 20 times their initial price. That kind of price gouging creates an environment where only the wealthiest fans can afford to attend popular events, alienating loyal supporters and pricing them out of culture.

Turning now to transparency in the market, consumers deserve clear and accurate information regarding who is selling tickets, how many are available and the pricing structures involved. One of the most pressing issues is the information gap that exists on secondary ticketing platforms. When consumers purchase tickets, they often receive insufficient details regarding their authenticity, the identity of the seller and the potential risks involved. Enhanced transparency is crucial to enable fans to make informed decisions. At the moment, it is unclear what exactly the secondary ticket market is, with research showing that 62% of music fans purchasing from resale platforms do not realise they are buying from individual sellers, creating confusion for many. In the best-case scenarios, we hear of fans having to meet people in car parks for handovers of tickets; at worst, the tickets do not exist.

Greater transparency would play a pivotal role in educating consumers about the risks of ticketing, and especially the practice of speculative selling, where tickets are listed that do not exist or are not available. That practice can lead to dire consequences, with fans thinking they have secured tickets, only to find that they have been misled. Investigations have uncovered instances where tickets worth more than £1 million were speculatively advertised online. Despite consumers being assured that protections are in place, it appears that some sellers remain able to circumvent protections, with the consumer paying the price and experiencing the double whammy of missing out and losing out financially.

Fans, whether at sports events, gigs or other events, should be at the heart of events, yet current practices lead to disillusion among fans and a disconnect with those they support and the sector more widely. Inflated prices leave loyal fans priced out of attending live events they once enjoyed, with the prohibitive cost of attending eroding the connection between fans and artists. Trust among fans is another casualty; when fans feel they are being exploited, their trust in both the industry and the teams or artists involved is eroded. Anger at missing out can be directed at those acts or teams, with allegations that they are complicit in a system that excludes ordinary fans, when this is largely through no fault of their own.

We have seen many recent examples where fans have expressed upset at the initial difficulty of getting a ticket and then at the surge pricing and instant relisting on secondary platforms. When tickets are resold at an inflated price, that does not benefit the artist or the venue. Instead, the profits are siphoned off, removing crucial funding from cultural communities. We know that artists rely on ticket sales as a significant portion of their income, especially in an era when traditional revenue streams such as album sales have dwindled due to streaming services. The success of a tour can hinge on the ability to sell tickets at a fair price, and unfair practices undermine the economic viability of live performances. So this is about protecting not just consumers, but entertainment more widely and making it more accessible.

So what is currently in place to protect consumers and the sector? Well, there is regulation and enforcement from a number of organisations: the Competition and Markets Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, trading standards and, in some cases, the police. The CMA published a comprehensive report in 2021 that outlined recommendations aimed at curbing detrimental practices in the ticketing market. Among them was a call for stronger measures against ticket resellers who exploit fans with excessive prices. The CMA’s investigation revealed that a significant portion of tickets listed were being sold at inflated prices on secondary platforms.

The previous Government were hesitant to implement all the CMA’s recommendations, which included further proposals. However, there have been recent changes in regulations in this area, with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and we have taken a significant step forward. There has been an expansion of the CMA’s investigation and enforcement powers, allowing for direct action against non-compliant reselling platforms. Additionally, the Act will enable the CMA to enforce existing rules, addressing a long-standing concern over the lack of transparency and ensuring that consumers have access to clear and accurate information. The previous Government could have gone further, but held back from embracing some of the reforms, which could have further strengthened consumer protections. I am pleased that the new Labour Government have already confirmed that a new consultation will take place and that we will revisit the recommendations.

As a proud Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I am delighted that the party has launched a new consumer campaign on this issue. The End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign highlights the fact that, whether it is dynamic pricing way above face value or fans being frozen out of culture, the party movement has always had consumers at the heart of it, standing up for consumers and helping to deliver everything from the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. I really welcome the latest campaign, alongside a petition that has already been signed by thousands calling for strong powers to stop fans being taken advantage of and to protect them from being exploited by touts and resale sites.

I know that the Government are setting up the consultation as we speak and that it will involve not only DCMS but the Department for Business and Trade. I hope that it provides a real opportunity to look at all options to take action that can fundamentally transform the ticketing landscape for fans, artists and the integrity of the market and to enhance consumer protection, ensure fair access to tickets and mitigate the current issues faced.

Campaigners have raised concerns about whether the current regulatory framework is being enforced. Following high-profile cases, the CMA has opened investigations, but the problem is far more prevalent. Will the Minister comment on how we can better use current legislation to provide protections to consumers? The Co-operative party has been campaigning for much tougher enforcement action against platforms hosting ticket touts. Where websites continuously exploit fans, could the use of fines and the removal of websites entirely be considered to strengthen the protection of fans?

Much as the Co-operative party has long been a movement for the consumer, access to arts and culture is a Labour value. It is why our trade union movement adopted the bread and roses slogan from the American suffrage movement. Life should not be just about the basics—food, housing and wages—but about the roses too. For too many at the moment, culture is becoming inaccessible because of a trade that relies on the exploitation of enjoyment, buying up excessive numbers of tickets before real fans have a chance, and reselling them at extortionate prices. I am sure that the Minister agrees that culture enriches lives, that it should be open to people and that fans should not be priced out due to a secondary ticket market. Can he reassure me that that will be at the heart of what we do as part of the consultation?

To conclude, although this matter may not be at the top of the list of things impacting on people across the country, it is important in demonstrating our values. Culture should be available to all and not just the privileged few. Live entertainment should not be in the purview only of those who are able and willing to pay extortionate prices. People already save up for the cost price to access events; they should not be made to pay multiples of that. A system that allows ticket harvesting, surge pricing and tickets being resold at multiple times their original value excludes people from the enjoyment of a gig, sporting event or show. Those actions freeze people out of enjoyment and take away their chance of having the special, memorable moments that live entertainment can bring, whether that is music or sport.

As the great Newcastle United manager Bobby Robson once said of football and our beloved Newcastle United,

“What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It’s not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city. It’s a small boy clambering up stadium steps for the very first time, gripping his father’s hand, gawping at that hallowed stretch of turf beneath and, without being able to do a thing about it, falling in love.”

Everyone deserves that opportunity to fall in love. I hope we can work to protect fans and end the ticket rip-off.

15:15

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this important debate. She said secondary ticketing might not be at the top of everyone’s list, but it is incredibly important. It is one of those things that we do not know anything about until we become victims of it. I became a victim of it: I bought tickets to a concert in good faith. I then thought my parents might like to come along so I bought a second set of tickets. When we got to the venue, it turned out that my parents’ tickets had been duplicated. The other people had already got into the venue, so their tickets were invalid. The venue sorted it out and thankfully my parents got to see the concert, as did I. But that was 12 years ago at Sting’s Back to Bass tour at the Hammersmith Apollo in 2012, and frankly very little has changed since then. If anything, I would say the situation has got worse for consumers because we are seeing more sophisticated technology with the advent of bots that easily scrape up tickets from across websites.

It is not just the technology but the secondary ticketing platforms that employ the unscrupulous methods in the first place. I would also throw into the mix the primary ticketing platforms, which often release tickets in a way that is not transparent for the consumer and makes it difficult for people to understand where they can buy tickets. The rush on a Friday morning, when tickets still tend to be released, means people scramble for tickets, which pushes the price up and up. It makes it very difficult for consumers to understand what the best way to buy tickets is, and there is a lot of misinformation out there on the market.

The hon. Member talked about music and other cultural events, and rightly so—I completely agree with her on that—but it is important to recognise that this is not just about music and culture. It is also about sports, although we could say sports are part of culture as well. A lot of people argue that it is all just supply and demand: “People wouldn’t pay 20 times the face value if the tickets weren’t worth that.” But there is a very good reason why many sporting activities want to keep prices down: they want to keep the fans and players of the future—in child form—coming along with their parents and growing a love for the game. Rugby, for example, is keen on enticing families to come and watch games because they know that the children who come with their families are the players and fans of the future. They are looking at longevity—something that does not always exist in the music market. It is important to remember that this is not just about fans: it is about a long-term view of what our live events industry needs.

It is not just individuals reselling tickets. The police’s Operation Podium during the 2012 Olympics uncovered the fact that lots of organised crime networks were profiting from ticket reselling, raking in millions upon millions of pounds. It is a very serious, industrial-scale business for organised crime gangs.

Ticket reselling is not just a British problem. We have seen over many years that it happens elsewhere. I have heard of train tickets in India and hospital appointments in China being bought and sold in this way. It is a multibillion-pound industry, but we have the opportunity at least to change the relevant legislation to try to make things better in this country. It has taken far too long to get to this point. We need to give the CMA more powers and we need to give more funding to National Trading Standards.

15:19

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this important debate. I am glad to hear that she is as passionate as I am about sorting out this broken market. I am happy to see the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism in his place. We have been on quite a journey together to get to this point and I very much look forward to him fixing all these wrongs in due course.

A lot has happened in the campaign to regulate the secondary ticketing market since I first introduced my private Member’s Bill on the topic back in 2010, which was before the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) suffered the problems she did in 2012. The problem would have been sorted if the then Member for Shipley had not talked out my private Member’s Bill. However, because of constant lobbying by yours truly and the growing scourge of parasitic touts becoming increasingly sophisticated and ruthless, the new Labour Government have decided to act, as we promised we would in our manifesto.

We now have the watershed opportunity to create the change we desperately need. Over many years in this place we have tried to regulate the market. We have tweaked legislation, first with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to bring in more transparency because it was said that that was what was needed. But that did not work. Then, with the successful Ban the Bots campaign, we secured an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill in 2017. However, that did not work either: we know that the use of bots and the profits of those using bots for sales are exploding. For a recent Sabrina Carpenter ticket pre-sale of just 10,000 tickets, there were 380,000 bots in the queue attempting to harvest them.

Research published last month by O2, which sells 1 million tickets per year through its priority scheme, estimates that touts cost British music fans an extra £145 million a year, but I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg. That money is taken from the back pockets of UK audiences and deposited into the bank accounts of offshore retail platforms and the touts who supply their inventory.

Despite uncontrolled touting taking place on an industrial scale, with tickets resold through sites such as Viagogo—there is that name on my lips again—prosecutions were few and far between under the last Government. Led by National Trading Standards, the precedent-setting convictions of just two groups of ticket touts worth millions of pounds each should have opened the floodgates to more action against those who flout the law and use platforms like Viagogo to put profits before fans, but sadly they have not, because resources have run dry. There has not been a single prosecution under the Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018 and nor have there been any prosecutions for using bots under the Digital Economy Act 2017, despite our securing the Ban the Bots amendment.

The details of the prosecutions are extraordinary, with touts fraudulently acquiring tens of thousands of tickets and then reselling them through websites such as Viagogo and GetMeIn—which does not exist any more—that were not compliant with UK consumer law. In both cases, it was strongly suggested that the resale platforms were complicit in the touts’ illegal activities.

Incredibly, although the touts were prosecuted and jailed, the resale platforms faced no such sanctions. They kept their cumulative 25% service fees from the illegal transactions—if we do the numbers, we see that means millions of pounds—and they continue to profit from further illicit trading. Where are all the illegal proceeds of crime? Why have they never been recovered?

As the CMA highlighted in 2021, this remains an unregulated market where stronger laws are desperately needed to protect audiences. As stated in the 2016 Waterson review, changes must include properly funding National Trading Standards, which, despite having a budget of only just under £15 million and so much more than just ticket abuse to look at, is the only body to have successfully prosecuted touts. Sadly, despite the mountains of evidence that campaigners such as Adam from FanFair Alliance and myself have provided the CMA with, it has carried out no such prosecutions and is in desperate need of clearer ministerial oversight. I hope that the Minister takes note of that point in particular.

We can see that legislation to outlaw resale for profit or to cap resale prices works in other countries. This is a golden opportunity to ensure that UK audiences receive similar protections and enjoy a capped, consumer-friendly and ethical resale market that works in their interests. Companies such as Viagogo pretend to be legitimate businesses, but the resales are not from fan to fan: they are absolutely dependent on touts committing criminal offences to harvest tickets on an industrial scale then resell them through the website. Citing research from FanFair Alliance just last month, which looked at all the Viagogo listings for 28 shows over the past year at Liverpool’s main mid-size venue, the 1,200-capacity O2 Academy, I can tell hon. Members that only one ticket was listed by a consumer.

This very morning, Sam Fender shows went on sale —we all know him from my region—including a gig in Newcastle’s Utilita arena. Coming from the north-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth and I do, we know that Sam’s shows are highly sought after. It is a balloted event, with four tickets per person and only for local postcodes, to try to restrict it and ensure that north-eastern fans get to go. But guess what? There is already a Dubai-based business selling 54 tickets in a single listing. On what site? Viagogo.

As I have stressed time and again, Viagogo has never been penalised in the UK, despite regularly flouting UK legislation, and it has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to mark its own homework. Listen to this: it was fined 7 million Australian dollars for misleading consumers, €20 million for breaking the law in Italy and €400,000 in France for breaking the law around rugby world cup tickets, but it has never been fined a penny here.

Capping ticket resales is a common-sense, cost-free benefit for fans across the country. In fact, cracking down on fraud, which is the most common crime in the UK, could be a net benefit for the country through the proceeds of crime. Although the two cannot be linked precisely, Ireland saw a large drop in fraud after it implemented a version of—guess what?—my private Member’s Bill. For the upcoming Oasis world tour, the only shows for which tickets are not being touted on Viagogo, StubHub and Gigsberg are the two at Croke Park in Dublin.

Although long-term impact reports are still under way, the Irish Government’s official post-enactment report on the Sale of Tickets (Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational and Sporting Events) Act 2021—essentially my private Member’s Bill—concludes:

“This is a positive endorsement of the operation of the Act and means that the objectives of the Act are being met whereby genuine fans can attend events at affordable prices.”

That is what we all seek and what artists and sporting events want to happen when they price their tickets. They know that tickets are worth more, but they do not want to rip off their own fans: they want grassroots sport and the players of the future to be able to attend.

My private Member’s Bill argued for capping resales at face value plus 10%. The 10% exists to account for booking and postage fees. I have never wanted any fans to be out of pocket, not even for the booking fees. I have only ever believed that we need to take out of the reselling of tickets any opportunity to profit, to stop them becoming a commodity that is sold to the highest bidder.

I was happy to see, therefore, Michael Rapino, the chief executive officer of Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, urge Governments in a recent interview with Bloomberg to regulate the business by capping resale. He said that resale prices are 20% above face value, and:

“You shouldn’t have a middleman that has nothing invested in the business make any money from it”—

hallelujah! I have been saying that for years.

A 20% cap, though, is still too high, because it leaves room for touts to operate by still harvesting large numbers of tickets to make large amounts of money. That extra 10%, if someone buys enough tickets, will make them a lot of money, especially if dynamic pricing is used as well. But that is recognition from the top of the industry that change is desperately needed—Michael Rapino never said anything like that before we got into government three short months ago.

Furthermore, disagreement over what constitutes face value must also be addressed, given Ticketmaster’s roll-out of dynamic pricing. In February, which was before the recent Oasis debacle, Live Nation unveiled a 36% increase in its annual revenues, to £22.7 billion, and Rapino said:

“Outside of the US, we’re in the first inning…We’re just rolling this out around the world. So that’s the great growth opportunity, obviously.”

Remember, where did they get their money? Fans—off the back of fans, regular people just wanting to see their favourite artist and to take part in the culture.

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth made all those points about what it is that makes our heart glad and what it is we want to do in our spare time. We want to see our favourite artist or attend our favourite sporting event, which is why people are so willing to press “Buy” when they see that crazy price. Something within us drives us to that, but culture and enjoyment should be accessible to all of us, no matter how deep or not deep our pockets are.

I am so glad that the Government immediately agreed to include dynamic pricing in their autumn review of ticket resales. I will continue to engage actively with them on this issue and the wider issues in the secondary ticketing market. We must take action to protect fans, venues, artists and athletes. Existing legislation is not good enough. For years we have said, “If we could only enforce what we have,” but we have tried that and it is just not working. I have been campaigning on this issue for more than 15 years. I have worked closely with industry experts and I presented Parliament with the solution back in 2010, with my private Member’s Bill—it is still the only solution. I therefore look forward to this Government making it, or a revision of it, law very soon.

15:33

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing such an important debate. She invited us to share the details of our first gig. Mine was when I was taken to hear Soul II Soul at the Notting Hill carnival when I was little, which was cool. In fact, on the day I was due to be born, my mum decided to see Nina Simone instead, which is also cool. Unfortunately, I have not lived up to that musical heritage, because I have been to see three out of seven members of S Club 7 and two fifths of 5ive. To be honest, that day inflation pricing was not the issue; it was whether we were going to get our money back at all—after we had seen them.

In all seriousness, buying tickets under false pretences and selling them on at hugely inflated prices means that fans face a choice: they either stump up or they miss out. It is therefore not hyperbole to say that ticket touts are ripping the heart out of live music.

Cracking down on ticket touting is important to music venues, too. Driving prices for gigs higher and higher means that genuine fans cannot access live music, and that has implications for small grassroots music venues as well as big arenas. I can proudly say that my constituency of Ipswich boasts a phenomenally impressive music scene, but if fans are consistently frozen out of live music and the arts more broadly and see them as something they can no longer afford or access, it is grassroots venues and entertainers that will suffer the most.

Although our most famous grassroots music venue, The Smokehouse, right in the heart of our town, has nurtured the next generation of local talent, it has been close to closure. During the covid-19 pandemic, the financial pressures became so overbearing that it had to be saved by £12,000 of crowdfunding from local residents and grants from the local Ipswich borough council and Arts Council England. Research from the Music Venue Trust earlier this year shows that two grassroots music venues close every week, leaving holes in the cultural fabric of the cities and towns they once brought so much joy to.

Our county of Suffolk is famous for being the home of Ed Sheeran—apologies—who is a phenomenal success. We are proud of the strides we have made in Ipswich over the past few years. I give a big shout-out to all those behind the Brighten the Corners music festival, who have an insatiable thirst for going bigger and better every single year. Yet with 2024 set to be the worst year on record for grassroots music venue closures, I cannot help but wonder whether Suffolk’s next Ed Sheeran will be denied their chance to shine.

It is high time to face up to these challenges. That is why I am proud, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, that our movement has been campaigning hard to ensure grassroots music venues have the opportunity to be owned and operated by the community. Community-owned assets can keep their profits local, reinvesting any money made into the project and its successes. Because such assets are rooted in their communities, they provide not just a physical space for gigs but other opportunities for communities too. Some community-owned music venues provide training and development for young people, teaching them about music technology, sound design and stage management, and setting them up for proper careers. We should actively support that groundbreaking model for the live music sector as a route to keep our beloved venues open.

At its heart, our work to crack down on ticket touts is about fairness and protecting consumers and fans. Scams and rip-offs are becoming increasingly common and normalised. That affects not just the live music industry but everything from football to car insurance. The odds are increasingly stacked against ordinary people and the grassroots industry in favour not just of big corporations, which are far more shielded from the problems I have outlined, but of ticket touts and scammers. We must fix that.

I welcome the new Labour Government’s commitment to make arts and culture more accessible to ordinary people, from tackling ticket touts to broadening the curriculum in schools and expanding access to the arts across the board. Finding a way to stop prolific ticket touts and their often illegal practices is a first step in the right direction, but it must be a springboard for change, spurring on further action to make arts and culture truly affordable and accessible for consumers.

I thank the many Members in the Chamber who have been campaigning on this issue for many years, and the fantastic organisations that have been mentioned. With the new Labour Government’s commitment to take action on this issue, we have a real opportunity to put fans back at the heart of live music.

15:38

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this debate so that we can discuss subjects that resonate deeply with our constituents. I wholeheartedly align with her position, which reflects my commitment as a longstanding Co-operative party member. The values we uphold—community, fairness and inclusivity—are essential as we confront the pressing issue of ticket touting.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her hard work over the past 15 years, which has been nothing short of phenomenal. I am sure the Minister is hearing the collective enthusiasm for cracking down on this practice.

The impact of unfair ticket pricing on ordinary individuals cannot be overstated. There are many barriers to accessing cultural experiences for communities in Leigh and Atherton. One of the most significant is affordability. Many are excluded from our vibrant cultural sector due to soaring ticket prices, which have become an obstacle rather than a gateway to enjoyment. If we are to make culture accessible, we must start with fair pricing practices.

Even cinema tickets, which were once a modest indulgence, have become unaffordable for many families. In response we have seen some remarkable achievements. Leigh Film Society is a fantastic Co-operative-inspired organisation that strives to screen films that are socially inclusive and affordable, prioritising accessibility for all. Run entirely by dedicated volunteers, that initiative recognises the inaccessibility of cinema tickets and is committed to broadening cultural access in our community. They now have a deal with the National Theatre whereby they can screen National Theatre Live. Bringing that to Leigh is incredible for our constituents.

The demand for live music in the UK is thriving. We must ensure that it remains accessible to everyone. Significant reforms in ticket pricing are essential. The Music Venue Trust is championing the cause of grassroots venues and advocating for a fair distribution of funding within the cultural sector. These venues are not just places for entertainment; they are community hubs that foster creativity and bring people together. While this debate is centred on ticket touting, we must not lose sight of the need to protect and enhance grassroots venues, which play a crucial role in communities like Leigh and Atherton. By supporting such venues, we can ensure that the cultural landscape remains diverse and vibrant.

I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth in her calls to reform ticket pricing practices. Together, we can create an environment where ordinary people can participate in our rich cultural life without fear of being priced out. Let us commit to supporting grassroots groups and organisations that enrich our communities.

15:42

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for obtaining the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for all the work she has done on this matter. The issues I want to address are dynamic ticket or surge pricing and the queuing system for major, once-in-a-lifetime concerts, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth referenced in her opening remark and which other Members have spoken about.

I have a deep-rooted connection to the music industry. In my younger days, I worked as a promoter and DJ in Liverpool. I was a music journalist and did press for bands when Britpop was at its height, and I have been privileged to spend many years surrounded by some of our nation’s best musicians. If we are sharing stories about our first gigs, for mine I queued up—in simpler times—outside the Empire Theatre when I was eight with my dad to buy tickets for Cliff Richard. We were allowed to get six. When we got to the show and he came on stage, I burst into tears and asked my mum where the man with the leg and the lip was; I thought I was going to see Elvis, who had been dead seven years.

Music is not just entertainment. It brings people together. It lifts the soul, and lifetimes of relationships are formed because of people’s shared love of music. Live performances are a huge part of that. The ticket prices surge and the queuing system recently made headline news with the Oasis reunion concerts. Tickets were sold by the primary ticketing company well beyond the price they were advertised at. A reunion that was greeted with such joy quickly turned into misery for many, as people realised when they got to the checkout that the price they had budgeted for—a price that they felt they could afford—was no longer the price. Instead, a price that was two, three or even four times more was quoted. After hours and hours of waiting, with their hearts racing and the timer ticking down, they had a few minutes to decide whether or not they wanted the tickets to see their favourite band—a band they would have only a once-in-a-lifetime chance of seeing.

The writer and musician John Robb recently wrote:

“The ticket buying systems and companies are…exploiting people’s excitement in the worst possible way.”

When prices are inflated with little or no transparency, that becomes a barrier that shuts out fans who work hard, save up and simply want to see their favourite bands live. Based on recent testimonies of several musicians such as Paul Heaton, it is not just the fans who are kept in the dark but often the artists too. Many artists are disconnected from the commercial side of their business and do not always have the knowledge to protect their fans before it is too late. Greater transparency on surge pricing is essential both for artists and for fans. It is not fair for fans to queue up for hours expecting a face-value ticket price, only to be met with an over-inflated bill when it is time to pay.

Exacerbating the situation with the Oasis reunion was the queuing system, about which we all heard countless stories. One of my constituents got up at the crack of dawn to get in the queue for Oasis tickets, and at 9 am she was number 7,000 in the queue on the website. She was made up, thinking she was definitely going to get the tickets. When she got to the purchase page, she spent half an hour trying to place available tickets into her basket. Finally, the system kicked her out when she tried to pay, and she was put at number 180,000 in the queue. She waited all day until the news came that no tickets were left. Similar stories were all over people’s WhatsApp groups and social media feeds that day, so it was not a one-off IT glitch or problem. It is just not fair.

We cannot ignore the wider issue of the secondary market. Tickets are being sold at exorbitant prices, further driving up costs for consumers. The recommendations made by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2021, particularly around speculative selling, remain unaddressed. These issues deserve serious consideration, as they place further strain on fans who are already facing inflated prices at the primary level.

In closing, I welcome the measures introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act to give the Competition and Markets Authority a few more powers to tackle the secondary market, but it needs more, as recommended in the private Member’s Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South. We must also act on dynamic pricing and the queuing lottery. We need a system that works for fans, artists and venues alike. Transparency must be at the heart of dynamic pricing, and we must address the broader issues within the ticketing ecosystem. Live music should be a shared experience and affordable for all. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Government on this issue.

15:48

[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.

15:54

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), and I hope she enjoys her nostalgic tour through all the concerts she plans to go to. For what it is worth, as we are sharing, one of my first gigs was Faithless, which I am quite proud of, although it does not quite stack up when I say that my second one was Tom Jones. Still, I enjoyed both hugely.

I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) talk about her parents becoming victims. There is some joke about Sting and getting the Police involved, but I will leave that for the moment.

I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her dedication and her expertise on this issue. We all know, as I have learned in the last five years, that we have to plod and plod in this place to keep getting heard. The fact that we are having another debate and that there will be a consultation is all credit to her.

Like the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), I too have seen three of S Club 7. My sighting was at a stag do with my brother in Newport. I hope that the hon. Member was not there—if he was, I hope he does not share the pictures.

As the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) noted, grassroots venues are so important. The UK is a centre for the creative industries, and that is the testbed; that is why we have world-class talent coming out, and we certainly do not want to lose that.

The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) brings a huge amount of expertise. I think she said she was a DJ, so I am looking forward to her doing the cross-party celebration of “Mistletoe and Wine”—there is a good Cliff Richard reference.

The issue of secondary ticketing and dynamic ticket pricing has affected many of our constituents, as we have heard today. It certainly seems that when Oasis came up with their masterplan to reform, the ticket promoters did not foresee the issue of dynamic pricing causing so many headlines and unfortunately detracting from the exciting news of Oasis reforming.

It is important to separate the secondary ticket market from the specific issue of dynamic ticket pricing. Unlike the primary market, in which tickets are sold at their original face value and the price is set by the artists, event organisers or box office, the secondary ticket market relates to tickets resold after their original sale. Prices for these tickets are often inflated and sometimes go for at least double the face value. We have heard the term price gouging, which particularly applies here.

Dynamic ticket pricing is, as the Minister will be aware, a pricing strategy used by a lot of sectors, including hotels, taxis and airlines, to name but a few. Dynamic ticket pricing can bring significant benefits for consumers when prices are lowered—for example, early bird tickets or late tickets, as we heard from the hon. Member for Chelmsford.

I appreciate that the Competition and Markets Authority has published a call for evidence on the use of dynamic ticket pricing for Oasis. I hope the Minister will agree that in the case of Oasis ticket sales the issue seems to be that fans may not have been provided with the necessary information up front and had not been given any clear information about what was going on. Above all, transparency is really important.

I hope the Minister will touch on how drip-pricing is slightly different and how that affects the live events sector. As we have heard, that relates to hidden costs. A customer should be able to see the full price they are paying up front and not have hidden unnecessary costs.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Evans]

The hon. Lady has upgraded me, but of course—on that basis.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The shadow Minister—sorry. He pointed out that with dynamic pricing the price can go up but also come down. That might happen when it is Uber, airline prices or hotel rooms, but at yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse we heard from experts in the room, FanFair Alliance and Reg Walker, that that never happens with regard to ticketing. They never come down. The only way is up.

[Dr Evans]

I bow to the hon. Lady’s expertise. I hope that will be teased out when we know the terms of reference for the consultation. These are exactly the problems that we need to look at. We can all see that there can be a benefit for the market if dynamic pricing is used for cheaper theatre tickets, but if it is not used in the correct way, how do we enforce that? “How” is the hardest part. We have heard a lot about the problem, but how we solve it, with advancing technology, is what is really going to make the difference.

That takes me back to the point about the need to have information up front, so that people are not misled in the sales process. Clarity is key. I know the Minister is keen to quote the example of Dua Lipa, but I did my own research on ticket face value. My team and I came across a ticket on Viagogo that was priced at £250 but marked up to £5,167.

We can clearly see that that profit is not going where it should, which is upsetting for fans and frustrating for venues and, perhaps most importantly, angers the artists. Through no fault of their own, they are then labelled as a problem because they are pulled into the secondary market. As many hon. Members will know, and as we have heard, there was particular frustration about the use of computer-powered software. As we heard from the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth, we all welcomed the last Government taking action to strengthen the law on ticket information requirements and introducing a criminal offence for the use of automated software to buy more tickets online.

I often think that it is wise to learn from other hon. Members in this place. With that in mind, I looked to see what the Minister had previously said on the topic, given his long-standing interest. I noticed that in April, when the then Government announced a review into the market, he castigated them and said:

“The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]

He continued by saying that Labour

“will bring these measures in and go further”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]

So I have to admit that it is a surprise to see that the new Government’s plan, which they thought about for 14 years, is to introduce a consultation. In our exchange in the Chamber last week, the Minister quoted Bucks Fizz. He said,

“the previous Government had embraced Bucks Fizz…

‘Don’t let your indecision take you from behind.’”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 966.]

I am pleased to see him being decisive by choosing to do exactly what the last Government did. He is so decisive, in fact, that when he was asked this week, he said:

“That is why we will be launching a consultation on the secondary ticket market soon—the piece of paper in front of me actually says ‘in the autumn’, but I am never quite sure when that is, so I am going with ‘soon’.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 969.]

I ask the Minister not to look back in anger at the last Government—after all, the Conservatives were caught beneath a landslide by a Labour champagne supernova. He is in the Government, and it is the Government’s job to get this right.

I have several questions for the Minister. When will the Government launch their consultation, not the one by the CMA? What is the scope of the consultation and what are its terms of reference—for example, will it include the role of search engines that signpost customers to touts, which is a real problem? When does it aim to conclude? Wider still, how does the private Member’s Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) fit into this? Is it a Government handout Bill and does it have Government support?

Finally, no one in the House wants to see the public or the artist ripped off, as the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) pointed out, so can the Minister clarify how the following fits into Labour’s vision for tackling the secondary market? The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, stated that

“a Labour government will cap resale prices so fans can see the acts that they love at a fair price.”

Is that Labour policy? What is a “fair price” and for whom, and how does that translate into artists being paid for their talents? Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will forensically analyse the successes and weaknesses of the legislation that has been implemented in Ireland and is coming forward in Australia, with no fear or favour, to ensure that we get a fit with whatever is brought forward.

In closing, live events make a significant contribution to the UK economy, as many Ministers will know from their summers of concerts and sporting events. Indeed, it is tempting to mention the Prime Minister’s favourite country pop singer and her recent Eras tour, which provided an economic boost to this country of almost £1 billion. The Conservatives want the live events sector to continue to thrive, and to ensure that the ticket market is fair for consumers and well-priced. As the Opposition are looking forward to seeing the consultation, one could say that we are ready for it. I hope the Minister will announce further details not only “soon” but imminently.

16:04

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

It is a great delight to see you in your seat, Mr Rosindell, not least because we have been knocking around these parts as MPs for about the same time. It pays to hang on in there, doesn’t it? It is a great delight to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this debate. This is an innovation that I have started in the last few debates that we have had here: I am going to try to answer the questions that hon. Members have put to the Minister as much as I possibly can.

[Dr Evans]

Hear, hear!

[Chris Bryant]

Hang on. In the words of Shania Twain, “That don’t impress me much”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked what we can do under the current legislation. It is a frustration, certainly for this Minister—I am not sure that previous Ministers felt it—that although several different bodies could bring forward prosecutions, the number of prosecutions has been so few. I fully understand why trading standards has struggled, because for the last 14 years, local authorities have had difficult budgets and sometimes it has not had the resources that it needs to take forward these issues.

It is not for me to directly tell trading standards or the CMA when to take action— we believe in the separation of powers, so that would be completely inappropriate —but the more that the prosecuting authorities feel able to act in this sphere, the better. If they want to come to me and say that they do not have the powers or the resources that they need, I am happy to hear that and we can act on that basis, but it is frustrating that I cannot tell them to act in individual cases.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I will try to answer all the questions. I will come on to his questions later.

One key matter that we will have to get right—if and when we bring forward legislation in this field—is enforcement, because there is no point bringing forward new lews if we cannot enforce them. We made manifesto commitments during the general election that we are absolutely determined to implement. As for when they will be implemented in legislation, we have had one King’s Speech; there will be another one coming along. I do not want to tell the Leader of the House precisely who will have what Bills at what time, because I might not stay in my post if I keep doing that, but if there is a Bill at some point, we will have to ensure that we sort out the enforcement issue. That is one element on which we will be consulting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth said that this issue is not at the top of the list of Government priorities. Whenever I post about it on X, people say, “Bryant, get on with doing the things that really matter to your constituents.” Well, this is one of those issues. The Government can do more than one thing at the same time. This is part of a panoply of measures that we need to implement to ensure that we put fans back at the heart of music, live events and sport. It is part of a wider Government strategy to rejig the economy so that it works for all of us. As my hon. Friend quoted:

“What is a club in any case?...It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging”.

It is fundamentally about the fans. They are the people who have created the value, and it is despicable that they are not able to benefit from it.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) made the point that things have got worse since 2012. I think she is right, which is why it was a bit cheeky of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), to pretend that they had not been in government for 14 years, and to actually praise the previous Government for taking no action in this area. We are determined to take the necessary action, and I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford and her party will support those measures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) used the word “parasite” at one point. On the “Today” programme, someone was saying that leeches have had great difficulty reproducing of late, but that they have discovered a new way. I do not want to overstate this metaphor, but we could argue that what we see in the secondary market is a form of leeching off the creative endeavours and the fan-led passion of so many others.

I will give some more examples. “Vampire” is my favourite of Olivia Rodrigo’s songs. We can get tickets for her concert in Manchester on 1 July next year on StubHub for £1,506, with a face value of £200. If we go to Viagogo, the price is £2,573 for exactly the same event—almost identical tickets, just a few rows in. That ticket’s face value, which we find only once we have gone two thirds of the way through the process with Viagogo, is £50. That is a shocking 5,146% increase. We can buy tickets for James Blunt—everybody knows I am not a great fan of his and he is no great fan of mine—that have a face value of £105 for £327 on StubHub.

It is not just about music: the England versus South Africa autumn international rugby tickets for 16 November, with a face value of £145, cost £889 on Viagogo. We should tell the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who I think is the world’s greatest Bruce Springsteen fan, that tickets with a face value of £150 are selling on Gigsberg for £1,044.08. Tickets for the world darts championship being held at Alexandra Palace on 30 December this year, with a face value of £55, are £248 on Gigsberg. I could go on, because this is an endless daily source of—frankly—racketeering based on a fundamental unfairness, and that is what we want to put right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and I have talked about several issues in relation to the creative industries in his constituency. He made the point about Ed Sheeran, whom I think has made Framlingham castle more famous for him than for Queen Mary, which is quite an accomplishment after so many hundreds of years. That is also part of our tourism industry, as people want to go to Framlingham castle to see the place that “Castle on the Hill” was written about, so we need to capitalise on that. But we cannot if none of the money ends up going back into the creative industries or even into the local economy, and simply goes off into a black hole.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I do not want this debate to end without mentioning Ed Sheeran and how much he has done to try to tackle the scourge of ticket touting. Lots of other artists, such as Iron Maiden, Arctic Monkeys, Mumford & Sons and many others have tried, but Ed Sheeran went above and beyond by cancelling tickets when they had been resold. Taylor Swift never did that because she did not want to break the hearts of all her fans, but Ed Sheeran has been a real warrior in that regard.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely; that is a well-made point. Indeed, several other artists are moving in the same direction and I encourage more artists to go down that route. In the end, we need to get to a place where the face value is the face value and where other people are not racketeering on the back of that. Sometimes, the artist gets it in the neck because people think they have enabled it to happen, but that is profoundly unfair.

Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South also referred to Sam Fender. I am afraid that when Sam Fender was on at St James’s Park, I was watching P!nk at the Stadium of Light. Interestingly, having two massive gigs on at the same time had a dramatic effect on the local economy in the north-east, which is really important. There are issues for the whole visitor economy that need to be looked at, and I had an interesting conversation with all the local authorities and the new mayor, thinking about how we can make sure that the visitor economy works for everybody when such big events are going on at the same time. Part of that has to be about making sure that the money that is currently going out of the door and never ending up in the local economy does end up there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley)—she is a great friend and we have known each other a long time—spoke about going to see Cliff Richard. I once saw Cliff Richard live, but it was at a wedding and we did not have to pay. He did not sing “Congratulations”, which we thought was going to come along at any moment. My hon. Friend made a point about sudden changes in prices just as we get to the checkout. Of course, we would be absolutely furious if that happened in Sainsbury’s, Tesco or Morrisons. Why should we be any less furious when it happens on a website?

I was looking at tickets on StubHub earlier, when suddenly it said, “Your price is locked in.” Well, I thought that was the price. What do they mean when they say it is locked in? This is crazy; it is a deliberate attempt to make us stick and keep on buying the ticket, even when we have realised that we are buying something for 5,146% of its original face-value price, because that is the point at which we learn that that is the face value. This is completely wrong; it is not the market working in the interests of humanity, but humanity having to serve the market in an inappropriate way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) made some really significant points. Many of us are making identical points, but that strengthens the argument that we need to take action in this space, and we are absolutely determined to do so. We will do it in a responsible way, and we want to make sure that every single element of the legislation that we eventually bring forward works, does what it says on the tin and is able to be enforced. That is why we will launch a consultation in the very near future, and I very much hope that many hon. Members will want to take part in the discussion about precisely how that consultation ends up being framed.

I think this debate is the second or third outing the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and I have had against each other. One cannot just blame one’s partner for one’s musical choices. That is like the moment in Genesis when Adam says,

“The woman beguiled me and I did eat”

after eating the forbidden fruit. I am not sure that Jason Donovan is the forbidden fruit, but if the hon. Member likes Jason Donovan, he should just own up to it. It is fine; we will not think any the less of him for going to see Jason Donovan all the time.

The hon. Member basically read out the list of things from the last debate that I said we wanted to do, so I am delighted that he agrees with me or that we agree with him. When it comes to the legislation and the consultation process, I very much hope that he will want to feed in. If there are things that we need to amend, just to make sure that we have got them right, we will do that.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth started off extremely badly, because he basically dissed Tom Jones, who is from Pontypridd—it’s not unusual, but I do not think it is very well advised. He asked a series of questions. He asked, “When?” I have already said that it will be soon. It will be in the autumn, and I reckon that the autumn is already upon us, so it will be soon or imminent—he can choose any word he likes, but it will be soon. Patience is a virtue.

The hon. Member asked whether the private Member’s Bill being advanced by one of my colleagues is a handout Bill. No, it is not a handout Bill; it is a Bill advanced by a private Member. He also asked whether there will be a cap on prices. We already said during the general election that that is our intended direction of travel. It is a moot point precisely what level that cap should be set at, because I do not want to completely ban people from selling tickets. If someone has bought four tickets but suddenly only two people can go, because somebody is ill or they have to change the dates, it is perfectly legitimate that they should be able to sell the tickets on. They might also want to be able to recoup not only the cost of the tickets themselves but some additional costs. That is one of the things we want to consult on, and what would be a suitable cap. I note the point that has been made about a level of 20%, which some people think is too high. Some people think that 10% would be too high; some people think that it would be too low. We need to make sure we get the level right. And of course we will analyse the situation in Ireland.

As we have all been announcing what gigs we have been to this year, let me say that, in addition to P!nk, who I have been to see three times now:

“What about us?

What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”

I went to see Depeche Mode in Cologne—the Germans just couldn’t get enough. And on Saturday night, I went to see Bronski Beat, on the 40th anniversary of the album “Age of Consent” coming out. That goes to the heart of why music can be so important: there must be hundreds of thousands of people in this country who remember when “Age of Consent” came out 40 years ago and how it completely transformed their understanding of themselves and who they could be in life. Being able to go to a live gig to celebrate that with lots of other people is completely transformative, and that is what I want to be available for as many people in this country as possible at a sensible, safe and sane price, rather than people being excluded because some people have much deeper pockets than others.

For me, to use a Welsh term—if it is okay with the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for me to use a Welsh term and to refer to Welsh artists—this is about chwarae teg, or fair play. Fair play is all I am looking for in this market. First, we need transparency on price along the whole process. When a ticket comes up in the secondary market, people should be able to know what the face value of that ticket is from the beginning and what the deal is. Secondly, we need genuine equality at that 9 o’clock moment when everybody goes online to start bidding for tickets. The hoovering-up of tickets brings the word “hoover” into disrepute. It was striking that all the Coldplay tickets had gone in 40 minutes and yet, even before all of them had gone, tickets were being sold for £2,916 on the secondary market. That is clear evidence that something is awry with the way the system works.

Also, where there is an excessive increase in the secondary market, as we have referred to, that is just wholly inappropriate. It prices people out and, as many Members have said, it does not mean that any of the money goes back into the creative industries or the local economy, which is highly problematic.

I want openness in dynamic pricing. People should be able to understand from the very beginning if that is the process they are entering into. Originally, we were going to consult only on what precise measures we should bring forward in relation to the secondary market, but we are now looking at dynamic pricing. As several Members have said, there are versions of dynamic pricing that do work, and we do not want to ban those. I would argue that the early-bird tickets available for the Rhondda arts festival in my constituency—I suppose I should declare an interest—are a perfectly legitimate part of the whole equation. They sometimes bring money into venues early on, and we do not want to ban that.

We are not looking at dynamic pricing in the whole of the economy, but simply in relation to live events. Because that was not a manifesto commitment before the general election, we will be doing a call for evidence. If people have evidence of where the dynamic pricing model is not working and is counterproductive to the market, please get in touch.

I praise some of the action taken by some of the artists in the industry, which has been referred to. It looks like that is everything—no, there is one thing more I want to say.

[Dr Evans]

So close.

[Chris Bryant]

And yet so far. Change is coming. I say to all the people I have referred to—Gigsberg, Viagogo, StubHub, Ticketmaster and all the rest—that change is coming, so they should start getting ready for it, because that is what we are determined to deliver.

16:22

[Emma Foody]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I look forward to working with him to take forward this crucial issue. I thank all hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson); and everyone else. The amount of concern and shared endeavour on this matter is hugely welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the secondary ticketing market.

16:23

Sitting adjourned.