Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Philip Davies

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Indeed. I will come to authorised resale later, because it is a real problem with the way that the market operates. Fans are very unclear whether the ticket they have bought through the secondary market is authorised by the original vendor—that is, the venue or one of its authorised vendors—and therefore whether they will actually be admitted in the end. That is one of the problems: even when fans are paying very inflated prices, they are not certain that the ticket they are buying is a genuine ticket that will gain them admittance to the event they have paid for.

Over the years, Members have repeatedly given evidence—

[Sir Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me make a little progress. I am still on the first sentence of my speech.

Over the years, Members have repeatedly given evidence that the secondary ticket market is not working: with tickets advertised with no declaration as to whether they are real, or of their face value; websites that only declare the face value of a ticket at the very last stage, with a clock ticking away and the fan already hooked; fake tickets being sold, leaving consumers out of pocket and completely in the lurch; tickets sold without evidence of proof of purchase, or of the seller’s title to the tickets; and websites circumventing artists and venues’ policies on the resale of tickets.

Taylor Swift tickets with a face value of £75 are presently selling on Viagogo for £6,840. If a Foo Fighters fan from the Rhondda wanted to buy a ticket to see them at Cardiff’s Principality Stadium, it would have cost them £95 direct from that stadium; on Viagogo today, that exact same ticket would cost them £395. If a child from the Rhondda who loves space and hopes to one day become an aeronautical engineer wanted to see “Tim Peake: Astronauts - The Quest to Explore Space” at Swansea Arena, they would have paid £48.75 face value; on Viagogo, they would have to find £134. This is about much more than just price gouging and ripping people off from their hard-earned money: it is robbing children of their chance to be inspired, to spark a creative idea, to see a career in our growing creative industries, or to learn from an expert. That is why I wish the Government were adopting the measure passed by the House of Lords.

Fans, the people who really create the value, are being excluded from live concerts. The UK’s secondary ticketing market is estimated to be worth £1 billion annually, but it is rife with fraud and scamming, which affects people every single day. I would not even mind if just some of the inflated price money went into the creative industries, and into training young people and providing them with a creative education, but not a single penny of it does. It is set to get worse, too: ticketing security expert Reg Walker has reported “a massive escalation” of harvesting using software. People who have long used bots to bulk-buy items such as iPhones are now turning to ticket touting because it is more profitable, and according to Reg Walker, there is a new generation of young, tech-savvy armchair touts

“smashing ticket systems to bits”.

It is a market that simply does not work, and Labour will fix it.

The Lords have given us a perfectly sensible measure. Their amendment establishes a legal requirement that secondary ticketing facilities must not permit a trade or business to list tickets without evidence of proof of purchase or evidence of title, a matter not mentioned by the Minister. It forbids a reseller from selling more tickets to an event than they can legally purchase on the primary market. It requires the face value of any ticket listed for resale, and the trader or business’s name and trading address, to be clearly visible in full on the first page on which a purchaser can view the ticket—I have had a bit of debate with the Minister about that proposal, so I will come on to the specifics later. It also requires the Government to lay before Parliament the outcomes of a review of the effect of these measures on the secondary ticketing market within nine months of Royal Assent. I cannot understand why any sane person would oppose such a measure, unless it was purely and simply for ideological reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes, the hon. Member did misunderstand the point I made. Why does it not just say “face value”, instead of “FV”, which would be perfectly simple? For that matter, why should people have to click on it? The point of the Lords amendment is very clear, and it is that people should know from the very first time they see the ticket what the face value of that ticket is. I am perfectly happy, if people want to be scammed, that they should be free to be scammed, but they should at least know from the very first point at which they seek to buy a ticket what the face value of the ticket is.

[Sir Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I will give way to the hon. Member, although I am keen to move on.

[Sir Philip Davies]

I am very grateful. As the hon. Gentleman was struggling so much with the previous intervention, I thought I would intervene and give him a way out. If he gets his way, all that will happen is that all of these tickets sold on the secondary market will be sold by spivs outside the location of an event. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that consumers will be better protected by spivs selling these tickets outside the event than by their being sold on official secondary ticket markets?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Because of the scale!

Risk-based Exclusion

Debate between Chris Bryant and Philip Davies

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The motion does not preclude those things, either. In fact, the first report produced by a Committee was by the Standards Committee when we took evidence. Interestingly, we said:

“First, we propose that the power to exclude Members from the precincts should form only one part of a wider, formalised risk mitigation process. The evidence we heard from comparable bodies, including the police, suggests that interim suspension is normally a last resort.”

Indeed, we went on to say:

“The House Service could, for example, if it were thought necessary and appropriate”—

I would add “proportionate” to that—

“move the MP’s member of staff to an office shared with other staff, or allocate the MP an office which has a higher degree of visibility.”

Of course, all those things could happen perfectly easily without the motion and could happen now.

I have just a couple more points. On arrest or charge, I find it problematic to land just on charge. That is very late—much later than in any other comparable body in the public sector or the private sector in this country. It is not comparable with the law of the land in terms of what most employers would have to do to be a reasonable employer.

It is important that it is proportionate—that is, first, to the crime itself. That is already met by the motion in one sense, as these measures are about sexual or violent offences. The panel might also want to consider whether we are talking about one instance or several allegations. Secondly, has there been one arrest or two arrests? Has the Member been arrested under caution? We get to various other stages long before charge, such as police bail. Are we saying that we should not even consider these measures when somebody is on police bail? That seems odd to me. I would think that is us falling short of our duty.

The panel should also consider the individual’s co-operation. If the individual Member is being very co-operative, that suggests that we would not need to consider taking major further measures. Then—this point was made earlier—we should think about who the person is that we are talking about. If they are a member of staff working in this building, presumably one would want to assess that the risk was higher and therefore one would need to consider further mitigatory measures.

I have two final points—

[Sir Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Oh, all right. I was going to try to make them final.

[Sir Philip Davies]

The hon. Member talks about bail. Presumably, the police bail could instil a condition that that person should not go within a certain distance of the person who has made the allegation, so this process is not needed. The police are perfectly capable of putting in those bail conditions.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

But let us say, for sake of argument—it is only for sake of argument; I am not referring to any individual case at all—that the allegation is that the Member of Parliament has in some way sexually assaulted one of their or another MP’s members of staff here. There are other members of staff in the building. So the police bail may refer to whether they can approach the person who made the allegation, but it would not be able to deal with all the other members of staff who operate in the same purlieu here on the estate. That is why taking the proportionate measure is important.

Earlier, I wanted to ask the Leader of the House a simple question about her own amendment—I know it is very technical and tiny—which says that the panel would be able to proceed during an Adjournment. Would it also be able to proceed during a Prorogation? I hope that she can answer that later.

Finally, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset is absolutely right—the Standards Committee made this point several times when this was being debated from the first set of proposals—that, in the end, a mandatory exclusion of a Member should be a decision of the whole House. That would be a relatively easy thing to add to this process. I note that he had an amendment that has not been selected; for whatever reason, I do not mind. If we are moving to exclusion, I think that it would be cleaner if we had a process where, in the main, the Member would normally be expected to—and would probably, I think—co-operate, but if they chose not to, it would be a matter for a motion of the House, which should be taken without debate and without amendment.