Tributes: Sir David Amess MP

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Monday 18th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, it is almost 40 years since the first meeting David and I attended on our respective roads to Westminster, entering Parliament for marginal constituencies in 1983. Here was a man who was constructive, committed, amusing and always willing to go the extra mile for you, or indeed for anyone he felt he could help. We stayed close for many decades.

Last week, at his request, I was with him on a delegation to Qatar, where his charm and mischievous sense of humour, deployed in a way only David could get away with in front of the most elevated in society, was put to wonderful effect. It was so good to be with him. On asking the Father Emir how many children he had, and receiving the reply “24”, he promptly reached for a small House of Lords picture frame as a gift and challenged him to fit all 24 into the frame. When he told the Emir, who had just received a copy of David’s book, that he could “throw it in the wastepaper basket”, that led to more laughter and marked him out as being wonderfully self-deprecating. We flew out sitting together and flew back chatting away. The mission had been one of the most successful we had been on.

His sensitivity and determination to help rehouse the 13 unaccompanied Afghan children with British family connections; his strong Catholic faith; his work as a strong supporter of Israel, yet always welcomed and respected in so many Arab countries; his ability to bring together and unite members of many a parliamentary delegation; and the quips and asides that always raised a smile, were there for all to see.

As co-founders and co-chairs of the All-Party Group for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, we were planning a celebration for our Olympic and Paralympic medallists here in the Lords, an event he was much anticipating. It was no surprise, then, to receive the following tribute from the president of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas Bach, who yesterday wrote:

“Sir David fought keenly for sport and for all it could do. He understood that the Olympic Games are the only event this can bring the entire world together in peaceful competition … He worked tirelessly to keep the games free of politics and dispute.”


David was a true friend. He proved that politics was more than the collective DNA of ministerial ambition. It is, as has been said many times, not least in this House, about public service, about challenging and changing the lives of constituents, even in the smallest possible way; and to make a difference to your constituents and the causes you felt passionately about was everything that David stood for. He was a decent, uplifting, unstintingly hard-working, kind man with a mischievous sense of humour; an outstanding parliamentarian and constituency MP; devoted husband to Julia and loving father to their children; and such a loyal friend and colleague to so many of us. At the end, he was doing what he loved best and what he was brilliant at: helping his constituents, and not least realising his long-standing ambition that Southend, for which he long campaigned, should be a city, both on earth and, God willing, in heaven.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, as I explained earlier, we have to end now because the House is going to join the House of Commons and process at 5.30 pm behind the Lord Speaker to St Margaret’s. However, I am of course aware that many other noble Lords would have liked to pay tribute to Sir David today. Those Members who have not had a chance to speak may email their speeches to Hansard by noon on Friday. Those speeches will be included in a special collection of tributes published by Hansard which will be sent to Sir David’s family. I shall now adjourn the House so we can join the procession starting at 5.30 pm from the Chamber.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

Before the Minister leaves that point, can he also ask the organising committee, when it is in the process of developing this welcome accessibility strategy, to take fully into account the points made on the Floor of the House today, and the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which I am sure will be of assistance to it in developing that strategy?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Can I come to that later? I certainly will bear that in mind.

My officials have made the Birmingham Organising Committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation aware of the issues raised by the noble Baroness. We take this very seriously, we do not want similar concerns raised about the Birmingham Games and we would be happy to continue engaging with the noble Baroness on this matter. Further, in developing this strategy, the organising committee will establish a disability forum, which will include disability specialists, charities and regional organisations, to ensure that venues and services are designed, operated and delivered so that everyone has a positive Games experience. The organising committee is happy to listen to the views of noble Lords as this strategy is developed. Once it is available, the strategy will be published on the committee’s website, and a copy will be placed in the Library.

Recognising the strength of feeling in the House, the Government also wish to place accessibility on the face of the legislation. That is why the Government have brought forward Amendments 3, 4, 10 and 11, which require the organising committee to report annually on the details of what it has done to ensure Games events are accessible to disabled people. This report will be laid before Parliament. I will come to those amendments later.

I turn to subsection (3) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, on accessibility relating to the list of designated sporting events, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We want as many people as possible to experience the Games. The organising committee is looking to maximise the audience by exploiting a range of platforms. As the Commonwealth Games is a listed event, broadcasting rights must already be offered to the qualifying free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. There is nothing to prevent free-to-air channels bidding successfully to show live coverage of group B events, as with the BBC’s live coverage of the Gold Coast Games and ITV’s forthcoming exclusive coverage of all 48 matches at this year’s Rugby World Cup. Indeed, the Commonwealth Games has been in group B since the list was compiled in 1998 and has had excellent live coverage for many years on free-to-air television. We believe that group B is the correct listing for the Games, helping to enable extensive free-to-air coverage for the nation and allowing the organising committee to agree live free-to-air coverage as it sees fit.

Further, reconsidering which group the Commonwealth Games sits in would not be appropriate at this time. The organising committee is already in the middle of a competitive commercial process with potential rights holders. These negotiations may not be concluded until next year. Any changes to the listed events regime during this process could significantly and detrimentally affect those negotiations. Finally, contrary to the drafting of this amendment, Ofcom does not hold the responsibility for amending the listed events regime; that power rests with the Secretary of State. The organising committee would be very happy to discuss its approach in all these areas with interested Peers. I hope that I have been able to further reassure noble Lords of the organising committee’s strong commitment to accessibility and to delivering a truly integrated and inclusive Games in 2022.

I turn to Amendment 5, on a charter for the Games. I make it clear that I agree with the spirit of this amendment, which highlights a range of important matters, but we do not consider it necessary to put the charter on the face of the Bill. As I have said before, the organising committee is merely the custodian of the Games for the next three years. It is the role of the Commonwealth Games Federation to set the level of expectation from a host city. That is why the federation is working with hosts of the Games to support delivery of its vision, mission and values.

As I will come to discuss, the Government will require the organising committee to report on what it has done to ensure that its delivery of the Games promotes the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation. As such, the values of the federation provide an important foundation for the government amendment on reporting and represent a further mechanism to ensure the organising committee upholds and delivers on these important values. In promoting these values, the organising committee is wholly committed to protecting human rights, tackling corruption and promoting sustainability.

Indeed, I am pleased to confirm that the organising committee is developing a Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games social values charter, which will be published in due course. The charter will include policies on equality, human rights and anti-corruption, and objectives on legacy delivery, reflecting the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation. Such a charter will underline the committee’s commitment to delivering a Games which builds on the matters set out in noble Lords’ amendments. I know that the organising committee would again be happy to engage further with Peers on this.

As I mentioned earlier—my noble friend Lord Moynihan also mentioned this, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, alluded to it as well—the organising committee is already required to comply with the Equality Act 2010, the Bribery Act 2010, the Fraud Act 2006, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and other health and safety legislation, the Human Rights Act and the Public Services (Social Value) Act. In addition, the organising committee will include a requirement in all its contracts for suppliers to comply with its social values charter, once published. Recently, the organising committee also agreed a modern slavery statement, which will be published on its new website. I hope I have demonstrated that many of the issues in Amendment 5 are covered by existing statute or are already being proactively considered by the organising committee.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Moynihan recognises that the organising committee is already taking great strides in this area—for example, with the development of a social value charter. The requirement that I have outlined will ensure that the committee reports on what it has done to promote the values of the Commonwealth Games Federation. Therefore, we think the Government’s amendment is a good compromise on the issue. However, I am pleased to give the further reassurance to my noble friend that I shall write to the organising committee to stress the importance of ensuring that it addresses all the issues raised by noble Lords in this debate, including the accessibility guidance issued by the International Paralympic Committee, in preparing its statutory report. Going a little further in that respect speaks also to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

I am grateful also for Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which I consider is addressed by the government amendments. I think he alluded to the fact that he agrees with that, so I shall spare the House some words.

The government amendments will place a statutory requirement on the organising committee to report annually on its functions and the progress made towards delivery of the Games, and for the report to be laid before Parliament. This will ensure that there is a single source of information about what the organising committee has done to prepare, addressing the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The amendments also reflect a number of other matters that this House and the Government consider important. I want quickly to mention some of them because they refer to comments made by noble Lords.

As I explained earlier in responding to my noble friend Lord Moynihan on the charter, we will require the organising committee to report on what it has done to ensure delivery of Commonwealth Games Federation values—I gave some additional reassurance on that. As the report will be laid in Parliament, noble Lords will be able to hold the organising committee to account on those values.

On accessibility, to address points raised by noble Lords in their amendments, it will be a statutory requirement of the organising committee to report on what it has done to ensure that Games events are accessible for disabled people, whether competitors, spectators or officials. Having those annual reports will allow noble Lords and others to look at progress made before the Games. It will not just be a question of waiting for the Games to happen and seeing whether something is wrong; proactive steps can be taken.

On sustainability, the Games partners are committed to embedding sustainability. I acknowledge the interest expressed in that—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned it. The organising committee is in the process of developing a Games-wide sustainability plan. When this is published, I will place a copy in the House Library.

On legacy, as I said in the House previously, in delivering this event we must maximise the benefits for the city, the region, the country and the wider Commonwealth. There was agreement across the House that this was extremely important, which is why the Government have brought forward a requirement for the organising committee to report on the steps taken to maximise the Games benefits. However, responsibility does not sit solely with the organising committee. All Games partners will be working together to make sure that there is a lasting legacy from the Games that starts benefiting the people of Birmingham now. Games partners will develop a cross-partner legacy plan which will be published in due course and a copy will be made available.

The government amendment requires a final report to be produced by the organising committee after the Games. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan asked what we could do in that regard. I can confirm that the Government will carefully consider who will be best placed to report on the impact of the Games and how, because it is our ambition that the positive effects of the Games are lasting. Both noble Lords were right to point out that the organising committee will not be around to do it. That is a commitment from the Government.

As for keeping the public updated on Games preparations, the organising committee will launch a new website this Saturday, marking three years to go. It will include information on sports and venues, when people can sign up to volunteer at the Games and apply for tickets, and the plans I have outlined. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is satisfied that there are considerable plans and mechanisms in place to ensure that the organising committee communicates appropriately and effectively and that he will not press his amendment.

I believe that Amendments 3, 4, 10 and 11 in my name strengthen the Bill and address the House’s desire that information on Games delivery is available and accessible. In light of my reassurance to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I hope he will withdraw his amendment.

Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The partners organising the Commonwealth Games have a very different motivation. Apart from us, they include the Commonwealth Games Federation and local authorities—I think that those are most of the partners. They have a very clear motivation to make sure that these integrated Games—I repeat that, deliberately, they have the biggest para representation ever—work well. I suggest that the motivation of a Premiership football club is somewhat different.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving the Committee a comprehensive review of the importance with which the organising committee and the Government view this key area. I am only disappointed that, having said that he is doing absolutely everything that I have asked for in this amendment, and that indeed he has gone further, even to the point of saying “any other purpose”, he has not gone one step further and recognised that “any other purpose” should be very clearly defined where possible, as it is as important to the Government and the organising committee as it is for disability access and the interests of disabled sports men and women.

That said, I am sure that between now and Report we will have the opportunity to reflect on whether we can put this in the Bill in a form that will be acceptable to the Government. It will set an excellent precedent for future mega sports events not just in this country but internationally, which I think will be to the benefit of sport.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The only thing I would say to that is that I think we all agree. This is really a question of signing the importance. “Any other purpose” includes accessibility and many other things. The trouble is that that might be what my noble friend thinks is the most important thing to sign but many other noble Lords might have other priorities. The whole point of including the words,

“any other purpose connected to … the Games”,

is that it covers everything and individuals’ personal priorities are not put on the face of the Bill. I ask him to reflect on that.

[Lord Moynihan]

I do not want to get into too great a debate with my noble friend on this subject. Suffice it to say that this is not a personal preference; it is an amendment tabled for the consideration of the whole Committee and, ultimately, the House. If the House felt that it was of significance—if that were the view of the House; not my personal preference—that would be the opportunity for it to be considered outside the generic phrase “any other purpose” and put on the face of the Bill. Not only would it then be capable of being implemented—the Minister has set out very ably and in significant detail how it can be implemented—but it could go further, sending a signal of the importance that we attach to disability access and to disabled athletes, and sending a further signal to future holders of Commonwealth Games and mega sporting events. However, for the time being, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and I look forward to further discussions with the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and to my noble friend for raising this issue. As far as I was concerned, the question was whether this issue was appropriate for the Bill rather than some of the more general questions that have been asked in connection with it.

I will not go through my entire argument but, to be succinct, we do not think this is the right Bill to create a new regulatory regime to regulate betting on the Games, which would be administered by the organising committee. We know that sports betting is a popular entertainment, and preventing competitions being manipulated is essential for upholding public trust in betting and the integrity of sport. However, we have an effective regulator in the Gambling Commission, which also has a dedicated sports betting intelligence unit to uphold betting integrity, and it often receives information from gambling operators about, for example, suspicious betting patterns and suspected criminal betting. We do not think that removing that from the commission for the Games is correct or in line with what the Bill is about. I have mentioned before the operational requirements to produce a good Games.

I understand that there were wider questions. My noble friend asked about the Sports Business Council. That was established as a forum to engage with sport as an economic sector and it met several times over the course of 2017 and 2018. Since then the Sports Minister has changed at least once—perhaps twice, I cannot remember—and the other joint chair, Richard Scudamore, has also moved on. However, the department will renew that engagement in due course with the aim of providing the best platform for the sport and physical activity sectors to grow. This is one of the issues that we will certainly pursue through the policy channels in DCMS, and my noble friend is very welcome to continue along that line.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about a sports betting right—in other words, a return to sport for the use of their intellectual property rights. I know that some of our sports are interested in exploring this, particularly those with high-profile professional competitions. Again, however, this is not something that the Government are actively pursuing at the moment, and it is certainly not in the scope of the Bill. At the moment we think that the current risk-based regimes for what type of bets operators can offer is proportionate and effective. There are issues such as the fact that limiting bets would not remove all possibility of manipulating a competition. Anyway, sport is international, and overseas operators not offering services to British customers would not be subject to Gambling Commission rules. I am very happy to continue discussions on this outside the Chamber, and I am sure the Sports Minister will be as well. However, I do not think the Bill is the right place for this suggestion, and I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Moynihan]

I am grateful to my noble friend. This was a probing amendment, but it was an important one. We are talking about something in the order of £13 billion of total betting on sport, excluding horseracing and greyhound racing. Governments around the world are increasingly looking favourably on the sport betting rights approach. Under French law, organisers of sports competitions have commercial exploitation rights over their competitions and not only they but the events they organise benefit. Through that, the sportsmen and women who participate may benefit too. However, I fully accept that the complexity of this would be significant and, given the time it would take for the House to get it right for the Commonwealth Games, it is unlikely to be deliverable.

With gratitude to the Minister for saying that he will continue to look at this, and having clarified that the work that has been done has not been lost but is being actively pursued in the department, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

This short amendment requests that the Government focus on visa and immigration rules for elite tournaments, not least given the possibility that this event will be under a different visa system from the current one, if the Brexit negotiations head in a somewhat more predictable direction than they have to date.

The focus of this amendment is to simplify the visa process for spectators holding tickets to sporting events due to be hosted in the United Kingdom, but specifically the Commonwealth Games, and to make it easier for athletes to get visas and/or work permits to compete in elite tournaments such as the Commonwealth Games. It would give a power to require the allocation of a certain number of visa and/or work permits to athletes, sports clubs, teams, associations or leagues.

I add one rider: we need to be very careful in our approach to visa and immigration rules and human rights issues. At the World Cup in Russia, a significant number of young boys were boarding a flight in Nigeria with a visa. I am trying to think of a polite word, given my anger towards the people who would do this, but those around them felt that the easiest way to get them into Russia was to acquire a one-way ticket from Nigeria under a simplified visa system. Fortunately, that plane was stopped, but in any visa and immigration relaxation for tournaments, we must pay attention to the human rights dimension in countries coming to compete at our Commonwealth Games. With that unfortunate reality one of the consequences of a more relaxed visa system, I beg to move.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Let me say straightaway that my earlier remarks about human rights and the Games partners having agreed with the Commonwealth Games Federation to abide by a human rights plan bear testament to the fact that we take this matter seriously.

My noble friend’s amendment would provide an expedited process for the administration of visas for spectators and athletes at the 2022 Games. We share his desire to ensure a smooth process for these applications, but I am confident that, through our work with UK Visas and Immigration and its experience from other mega sporting events, the amendment is unnecessary. We have significant experience of managing visa processes for major sporting events using existing legislation—for example, the rugby and cricket World Cups, the World Athletics Championships, Glasgow 2014 and, of course, London 2012, where there were about three times the number of athletes and officials from about three times the number of countries.

We will have robust plans in place for the Games for each category in my noble friend’s amendment without the need for new primary legislation. Let me take them in turn. For athletes, as part of the hosting requirements for the Games, the UK Government have already committed to the Commonwealth Games Federation that we will ensure that entry to the UK will be facilitated for those persons in possession of a valid passport and Commonwealth Games accreditation to carry out their Games functions in accordance with the United Kingdom’s visa system and requirements. That was in the bid commitment.

It is of course also important to ensure that a balance is struck—that we meet the operational requirements of staging an event of this nature while, none the less, protecting the integrity of our borders appropriately. For spectators, under current rules, individuals can apply for a standard visitor visa if they want to visit the UK for leisure. In line with the approach taken for other major sporting events we have hosted, we do not consider it proportionate to put in place a bespoke process for spectators. Nevertheless, we will work closely with UK Visas and Immigration to ensure that visas are processed promptly for the Games. We understand the significance of the extra requirements, based on our experience of other sporting events.

I hope noble Lords will be reassured that we are already working with the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration to ensure that a robust plan will be in place for the prompt processing of visas for Birmingham. I am very willing to meet my noble friend or other interested Peers to discuss our approach. With that reassurance and the UK Government’s commitment in the bid to facilitate the entry to the UK of Commonwealth Games-accredited persons, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I just add that similar provisions were included in the London Olympics Act and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games Act. Speaking personally, the affirmative procedure is applicable because the range of matters caught both in trading and advertising is very broad; it is not limited to activities connected to the Games. This is exactly the sort of parliamentary process that should require the affirmative resolution, and that is why we used it for the London Olympic Games and the Glasgow Commonwealth Games.

Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2—the third paragraph that has been spoken to—is of equal significance. It is about property damaged during the exercise of the lawful function under the Bill. There is a right to be compensated and provision for consequential loss, but these are not administrative details. There will be important issues such as who is responsible for payment of compensation, what the appeal route is—does it go to court?—and what the grounds for appeal are, on law or on fact. These are really important issues for people living in the vicinity of the Games, who will be impacted by the use of these powers. Therefore, the question for the Committee is whether the affirmative procedure is applicable and appropriate. Having studied it at length both on the Delegated Powers Committee and subsequently, I firmly believe that this is a classic case where the affirmative procedure should be followed. We are talking about the rights of individuals and the impact of the Games on those individuals.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, as we come to the last group, I do not think we will have a massive falling out on this subject—it would destroy the overall very satisfactory progress that we have all made in this Committee. I thank noble Lords for their contributions during the afternoon. They were admirably succinct and provide an excellent example for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who will join us on Report.

We have listened with interest to the points that noble Lords have made in debating the parliamentary procedure for the regulation-making powers for advertising and trading, and in debating the amendments tabled by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, has requested that the draft affirmative procedure should apply to the regulations concerning advertising and trading. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan seek the same, unless the Secretary of State considers that, due to urgency, it is necessary for the negative procedure to apply. The regulations will specify the Games locations and the periods when restrictions will be in place and will make provision about the “vicinity” of Games locations.

Noble Lords also seek to apply the draft affirmative procedure to the regulations, under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, concerning the payment of compensation in certain circumstances following enforcement action. We have carefully considered the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We are very grateful to the members of that committee, including my noble friend Lord Moynihan, and will respond to them in writing before Report.

Although it is right that the regulations should be placed before Parliament—I appreciate noble Lords’ interest in debating these regulations, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan explained why they are important —there are a number of reasons, which some noble Lords might not have appreciated, why the negative procedure provides a suitable level of scrutiny.

I appreciate the consideration of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan that there might be certain circumstances where regulations may need to be made as a matter of urgency due to operational requirements and therefore the negative procedure may be more suitable, but we still consider that all the regulations, whether urgent or not, should be subject to the negative procedure.

Noble Lords will be aware that the affirmative procedure was, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, used for the regulation-making powers for the Olympics and the Glasgow Games, but it is also true that the delegated powers in the Bill are not as broad as their predecessors and there is more detail in the Bill. For example, we have included definitions of trading and advertising in the Bill, whereas in London this was specified in the regulations. Unlike for London, we have defined “Games location” in the Bill. The advertising and trading offences will be able to apply only in, and in the vicinity of, a Games location. In contrast, the London Act 2006 provided that the regulations shall specify or provide criteria for determining the places in respect of which the regulations will apply. London did not stipulate any trading exceptions, whereas in this Bill we have included a number of exceptions and a power to provide more exceptions in the regulations. Existing exceptions cannot be removed, so there will be no broadening of the offence.

I assure noble Lords that a proportionate approach will be taken to these delegated powers, and it is in all our interests that advertising and trading restrictions apply only when and where necessary. This is not about imposing a blanket advertising ban or restricting all outdoor trading across Birmingham or the West Midlands. A Games location will be specified in regulations only where it is necessary for the advertising and/or trading restrictions to apply in, or in the vicinity of, that Games location to deliver a successful Games.

Defining “vicinity” is not as simple as providing a set distance from a Games location in relation to which the offence applies, as location-specific consideration needs to be given to spectator routes and nearby transport hubs. We have also sought to ensure that the periods for restrictions will be in place only when necessary. However, as a—dare I say it?—backstop, we have specified a maximum of 38 days for such restrictions, and we expect this to be much less in many cases; for example, for Games locations in use for only a few days.

In relation to paragraph 16 of Schedule 2, the schedule includes a power to bring forward regulations about compensation to supplement paragraph 15, which makes provision about a person’s entitlement to compensation in certain circumstances. Here, we consider that the negative procedure is appropriate. I would argue to my noble friend Lord Moynihan that these regulations will set out the administrative processes that need to be followed—for example, to whom a claim for compensation should be made, the timeframes for claims, the appeal processes and so on. This type of procedural detail is well suited to regulations and will enable government to ensure further discussion with relevant enforcement agencies in advance. In the London Act, how much compensation could be paid was included in regulations, but we have included it in this Bill.

I have listened carefully to the points raised and I respect the recommendations of the DPRRC, on which I will reflect further over the coming days. However, given the extra detail in the Bill, the maximum time limit of 38 days—come what may—and the lack of any Henry VIII powers at all, we believe that the negative power is not unreasonable. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to reflect on my arguments and, in the meantime, to withdraw his amendment.

Theatre Tickets: London

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Thursday 28th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I completely agree with the noble Baroness. As I said, the Arts Council specifically is looking at trying to increase the diversity not only of audiences but of people who work in the industry. For example, we will imminently announce the Youth Performance Partnerships, a scheme for five regional hubs for performance and drama. It will reach up to 10,000 young people over the next three academic years.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse. Given the lead this House has taken in delivering effective consumer protection legislation against unscrupulous ticket touts, will my noble friend the Minister do everything possible to promote face-value exchanges for ticketing to address the continuing blatant disregard of the law by companies such as Viagogo?

Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations will be an important addition in our efforts to stamp out unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market. I know that the activities of the secondary ticketing market are of interest to many noble Lords, including those here today. The Government recognise that the process of distributing and buying tickets can often be a cause for public frustration and concern. Many of us have experienced the frustration of waiting for tickets to go on sale for our favourite events, our fingers hovering over the keyboard in the final countdown, only to find that all the tickets seem to have been mysteriously snapped up in seconds.

What is even more frustrating is seeing tickets reappear on secondary sites almost instantaneously, often at a huge mark-up in price. There is evidence that this is largely caused by the use of software or bots to automate the ticket purchasing process on the primary market to circumvent limits on the maximum number of tickets that can be purchased. This issue was specifically addressed by Professor Waterson in his independent review of consumer rights provisions relating to online ticket sales, which reported in May 2016. His view, which the Government share, was that ticket sellers should adopt strategies to prevent automated ticket purchasing by bots, although he also noted that there was some uncertainty over the existing legal position on their use. This instrument clarifies the law in this area by making it a criminal offence to purchase more tickets than the maximum permitted for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in the United Kingdom where the purchase is made electronically through the use of software designed for this purpose and where the intent is to obtain financial gain.

While the regulations apply to events in the United Kingdom, they cover activity to obtain tickets in any jurisdiction. The intended offence will be summary only, with a maximum punishment of an unlimited fine in England and Wales, and an exceptional summary maximum in Scotland, as magistrates’ courts in Scotland do not have the power to impose unlimited fines. The relevant section of the Digital Economy Act 2017 was not commenced in Northern Ireland because of the ongoing suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive, but it is the intention for it to be commenced and for this instrument to apply to events in Northern Ireland once legislative consent is able to be secured.

These regulations will, we hope, significantly improve the current situation, in which so many tickets for an event can disappear within seconds of their going on sale. They should be seen alongside other measures to address unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market, such as the ticket information requirements set out in the recently strengthened Consumer Rights Act 2015; the enforcement work of National Trading Standards, the Competition and Markets Authority and the advertising industry’s own regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority; and the adoption by event organisers and ticketing agencies of innovative technological solutions such as blockchain and ticketless tickets. I hope noble Lords will agree that these regulations are a necessary additional tool in helping fans improve their chances of securing tickets at reasonable prices.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make a few comments, which I hope the Minister will respond to at the conclusion of our short debate. I very much welcome this important step in continuing the fight against abuse in the ticketing market, in particular the secondary ticketing market. Only earlier today I received representations from a man whose wife and eight year-old daughter received tickets from viagogo, only to discover, having paid a significant amount of money, that once again viagogo has flouted the law and the tickets are illegal. They are due to go to the event tomorrow evening, and the eight year-old girl is desperately looking forward to it. It is appalling that this sort of crime continues to occur. The advice he has been given is that his wife should go to the window next door and buy another set of tickets which might—but only “might”—be available that evening and claim the money back in time. There was no response to the many calls he made to viagogo. That is just one example and those of us who are interested in this subject know that there are many others, on a day-by-day basis, in particular involving viagogo and others in the secondary market.

I am very grateful to the Minister and I know he is very supportive of the work that has been done on this. The principal concern for us this evening is to focus on enforcement. It has been brought to the attention of the All-Party Group on Ticket Abuse, of which I am co-chair, that the current legislation could be interpreted in such a way that only the police have an enforcement power under this instrument. While it is desirable for the police to have that power, the majority of enforcement in respect of ticket legislation is undertaken by trading standards, specifically the National Trading Standards cybercrime unit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions. It is clear that this is an issue that is close to the heart, or at least the interests, of many of us. I will respond to some of the specific issues that have been raised, although the statutory instrument itself is very narrow. Most of the issues that have been raised are outside its purview. Nevertheless, they are interesting and deserve an answer.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I have spent many happy hours debating the subject with him. Sometimes I have come off best although normally I have come off worst, but we are pleased that he is pleased with this statutory instrument: it is a beginning. I pay tribute to his knowledge and expertise in this; he certainly helped to improve the Digital Economy Act last year.

The noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Griffiths and Lord Faulkner, among others, talked a lot about enforcement. Of course, I recognise the need for proper enforcement and therefore I welcome the Competition and Markets Authority’s recent announcement, as part of its enforcement investigation, that it had secured commitments from three of the largest ticketing platforms on additional information to be provided about tickets being resold through their platforms, and that it has notified another, more recalcitrant secondary ticketing platform of its intention to pursue court action if it does not fall into line and address the CMA’s concerns satisfactorily.

As I think was mentioned, we are giving approximately £15 million annually to National Trading Standards for national and cross-boundary enforcement. I welcome, therefore, its announcement at the end of last year that its officers had conducted raids at a number of properties across the UK, resulting in four people being arrested on suspicion of breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. In addition, the Advertising Standards Authority has recently taken action against the four main secondary ticketing websites, banning the misleading presentation of pricing information on their websites. If the sites fail to comply with this requirement properly, the Advertising Standards Authority will ask trading standards to take further enforcement action on this matter. I think this enforcement work demonstrates that the matter is being taken seriously by the enforcement bodies and that we are prepared to go after those who flout the law or abuse the ticketing market.

I recognise the issue that my noble friend Lord Moynihan raised of the bots themselves, as opposed to the platforms, being based abroad. Of course, that is an issue that is common to many online crimes: if they are not within our jurisdiction, we have to co-operate with our partners abroad. We will do that where it is possible to do so and, of course, as I said before, if they have entities in this country then we will pursue them through enforcement action. I believe there is a Swiss site I referred to earlier for which that is being contemplated at the moment.

Lastly, and this applies also to online gambling, if foreign sites or people are committing offences, one of the ways of looking at that is through the payment mechanisms. Payment providers do not like dealing with people who are committing crime, so that is an issue we could look at. My noble friend Lord Moynihan referred specifically to viagogo, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about what my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries said about viagogo.

As I said, the enforcement agencies are committed to investigating breaches of consumer law and we welcome the CMA’s announcement last month that it had secured commitments from three of the top sites, and notified a fourth that it will pursue court action. We should also welcome the Advertising Standards Authority’s announcement at the end of May that it has referred viagogo to National Trading Standards for non-compliance with its rulings. We also welcome FIFA’s decision to file a complaint against viagogo and to protect fans by warning that it will cancel any World Cup tickets identified as having been purchased through the Switzerland-based website. My honourable friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries was clear that her advice to fans is not to buy tickets for the World Cup from viagogo.

[Lord Moynihan]

Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Government are of the view that trading standards do not lack powers in connection with bots under current legislation?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not think they lack powers with regard to bots that are based in this country, but the noble Lord’s point, I believe, was that the actual ticket-purchasing software that is based abroad is in the same position. The offence applies to bots if the activity takes place. It is the enforcement that is more difficult. The offence applies as long as it is to buy tickets for events in the UK.

Data Protection Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quaking in my boots when addressing an amendment from my noble friend, first, because he is a helpful man and, secondly, because I am getting quite used to it, to be quite honest, particularly after the Digital Economy Bill.

As we heard, my noble friend’s amendment would restrict the provision in the Bill that allows anti-doping bodies to process sensitive personal data without consent to just UK Anti-Doping. It would permit other bodies to process sensitive data only if allowed by the Secretary of State. This House agrees, I think, how important sport is and that it can only continue to be successful if it is, and is seen to be, clean. It should therefore come as no surprise when I say that the Government remain fully committed to combating doping and protecting the integrity of sport. We are at one with the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, on that.

At the moment, a large number of organisations, both domestic and international, work to prevent and eliminate doping in sport in this country in accordance with agreed international standards. UKAD, as the UK’s national anti-doping organisation, plays a vital role. But we must recognise that other bodies, some of which have been mentioned, also have important roles to play, including in particular sports’ national governing bodies. The amendment would see UKAD as the only body with automatic responsibility for processing sensitive data for the purposes of preventing doping in the UK. Other bodies would have a role only if named by the Secretary of State.

I am not convinced that this is a positive change for a number of reasons. First, it is not immediately clear to me why such an amendment is needed. UKAD’s role, and that of other sporting bodies, is set out in the national anti-doping policy, and this arrangement is largely seen to be effective, not just here in the UK but internationally. But we can never be complacent, and that is why my honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Tracey Crouch, has already commissioned a review of UKAD. That review is looking closely at UKAD’s functions, efficiency and effectiveness and has consulted widely. The findings of this review will be published early next year and will inform the revision of the UK national anti-doping policy, which will also take account of the recently published review of the criminalisation of doping. As part of this policy revision process, the Government will consult all relevant stakeholders, and will no doubt welcome discussions with my noble friend Lord Moynihan.

In addition, the arrangement outlined in my noble friend’s amendment would appear to present a number of risks. As he mentioned, the World Anti-Doping Code and the UNESCO convention set a clear framework that allows major events organisers and international federations to conduct their own anti-doping activities. Their ability to test cannot, without risking a breach of the convention, be contingent on them having obtained prior authorisation by a national Government.

Sports bodies change regularly as new sports are recognised and new bodies gain funding and manage competitions. A new round of designations would be required every time a new sporting body came into being or organised competitions or an old body changed its name. Under the system proposed by my noble friend, even a short delay in doing so could allow a drugs cheat to escape sanction by challenging the validity of the data processing undertaken by a sports body weeks, months or even years prior. That is not least because the Secretary of State’s decision to designate a body would itself be subject to judicial review. This could turn a relatively straightforward process of designation into a lengthy process of review, consultation and litigation. Similarly, if international bodies wanted to hold competitions in this country, they would, on the face of it, need to be officially designated by the Secretary of State. In a competitive marketplace, this could discourage organisers of major events from bringing their events to the UK.

To summarise, the Government believe that my noble friend’s amendment will put the UK’s status as a leading destination for clean sport at risk. It will create uncertainty in the sporting world and will be out of step with the recognised international framework that is already in place. It is widely understood that UKAD is the recognised body in the UK with responsibility for enforcing anti-doping rules. But the Bill must not be used as a tool to limit interventions by internationally recognised sporting bodies, such as the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union. They, like UKAD, should be allowed to set and enforce anti-doping rules in sports. The fact that these bodies are not governed entirely by UKAD’s rules does not make their need to process data without consent for anti-doping purposes any less important. We are clear on that, the World Anti-Doping Code is clear on that, and the bodies themselves are clear on that.

Indeed, I have a statement from four of our leading sports bodies: the Football Association, the Rugby Football Union, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and the British Horseracing Authority. They are not speaking with different voices. This is a joint quote, which they have authorised me to announce. They say:

“We welcome further discussion with all parties on this issue but do not believe that this Amendment, that has not been discussed with or subject to any consultation with our organisations, is the right way to proceed today”.


In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who asked about the horseracing authority, I am afraid he should direct his question to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, because it is his amendment that would change the current system. Therefore, while I understand the desire of my noble friend to assist in the fight against doping, which we all support, I do not believe that the Bill is the proper vehicle to achieve it; nor do I believe that my noble friend’s amendment would in fact achieve it.

Let me be clear: if my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, want to keep talking about anti-doping in general, I am very happy to do so, as is my honourable friend the Minister for Sport; I have already said that. But the Government have spent a great deal of time working with UKAD and sports bodies to design paragraph 23 of Schedule 1, and I have heard nothing in the debates in Committee and today that would suggest that we should alter our view before the review of UKAD is complete. On that basis, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I will respond to the Minister first. I was disappointed that he did not respond to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I also touched on, namely, that it was important, if at all possible, to take away this amendment and consider it in greater detail so that the Government could bring it back at Third Reading. The Government have decided not to do so, and in so doing they have argued the following points.

The first was that there has been inadequate consultation—for example, no discussion between the BHA and myself. If I may respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I had a conference call with, I think, four BHA people last Friday to discuss in detail the consequences of the proposed amendment. It was a constructive and helpful discussion. It was very important to them that they did not come under the umbrella of UKAD, and they would not. Amendment 31 says very specifically that the references are,

“to be read as references to … UKAD … , its successor bodies or a body designated by the Secretary of State”.

They asked me whether that would be a cumbersome process, and I said, “Certainly not”. The Secretary of State could respond to a letter pretty much immediately by saying, “Continue the good work that you’re doing”. That would be absolutely fine under the amendments I have tabled to Schedule 1.

This would apply to any organising group that exercises authority in anti-doping in this country outside UKAD, which covers the wide majority. Indeed, UKAD can test any athlete in this country, if it so wishes, at any level of competition. But there are organisations which will operate outside UKAD, for example the international federations and the International Olympic Committee. The other organisations which the noble Lord mentioned operate within UKAD in any event. Organisations such as the Football Association and the Rugby Football Union have a relationship with it to continue its good work, not least because those are Olympic sports, so they are covered in any event by the phrase,

“a body designated by the Secretary of State”.

I want further to assist my noble friend the Minister by suggesting that, instead of simply leaving it at that, every single point that he made could be covered by the regulations that he is being asked to bring forward under the Bill. There would be no uncertainty; there would be complete clarity, and we would have the opportunity to address those points in detail prior to that secondary legislation coming forward.

Why was it important to amend a general catch-all clause on sport to deal with these issues? It was important so that the BHA knew its position and could continue the good work with minimum bureaucracy, simply by a letter recognising that it continues the good work. I have heard nobody—not from the Bill team, which I met, not the policy advisers from DCMS and not the BHA, which I had a long conference call with last Friday—mention that there is anybody who seeks to change the way in which the BHA does excellent work in this area. It would simply be recognised on the face of the secondary legislation and so it should be—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Does my noble friend not accept, then, that if the situation is exactly the same as now, he is proposing a new process which will possibly be subject to litigation and achieve exactly the same status that we have today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan]

First, there is no evidence whatever that it is subject to litigation. If the Secretary of State—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am sorry to interrupt again. Of course there has not been any litigation because the system that my noble friend proposes has not been put in place.

[Lord Moynihan]

But there are no grounds for litigation. If the BHA is doing good work in anti-doping then, in the context of this paragraph, all that is being done is for that to be recognised within the legislation and by the Secretary of State in designating the BHA to continue its good work. Who would wish to litigate on that? Nobody is changing any relationship between the BHA, and those who work within it, and the excellent anti-doping policy that it currently runs. I am sure the Government would not want to change that.

The reason why this should be on the face of the Bill and in the secondary legislation—the regulations—is that this is of serious importance. We are asking athletes to give up a lot of personal data, and we should protect them when giving up personal data. It is important and right for an anti-doping policy that they should do so, but its importance should be recognised and my noble friend the Minister did not even mention it in his response. It is about the data management.

I conclude by saying simply this, and I will happily give way to my noble friend the Minister. If he is prepared, as I hope he is, to follow the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I fully support, on improving the wording of the amendment, I stand absolutely ready to find consensus with all governing bodies, the Government, the Bill team and everybody else who is interested in the subject, including all Members of your Lordships’ House, in order to find an improved amendment. I think the amendment works perfectly satisfactorily, and I have just tried to explain that to my noble friend and the House, but I am sure it could be improved by further discussions. Is my noble friend the Minister willing to take it away and bring it back at Third Reading? If he is, I will happily give way.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I have to be very clear about what we are doing, particularly as this is the first group on our first day on Report. To be absolutely clear, I am not content to return to this issue at Third Reading of the Data Protection Bill because we have heard nothing that would suggest to us that paragraph 23 would benefit from further consideration at this time. I have to repeat that the wording on the face of the Bill was drawn up—this is a quote from the governing bodies that I mentioned—

“in close consultation with the sports governing bodies and the Sport and Recreation Alliance and we support the original wording as the right way forward”.

[Lord Moynihan]

I hear what the Minister said. We have had many discussions with different members of governing bodies and others who have argued that this provision could be improved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I sat opposite UKAD and governing bodies last Monday, so what the right hand in some of these governing bodies is doing is clearly not what the left hand is doing. I think this amendment is a significant improvement that protects the rights of individual athletes. That is what we should be doing in this Bill because it is about data management. Regretfully, because I hoped that the Minister would take this away and come back with a consensus on something better, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Sport: Women on Governing Bodies

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Thursday 6th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, Sport England is developing its future leadership programme, which will be launched later this year. Women are a priority group identified by Sport England for the scheme. It will identify suitable female candidates who will be given the chance to develop their leadership potential in sports organisations and succeed in senior leadership roles.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Women’s Sport and Fitness. I congratulate the Government on the progress which has been made on this issue, but does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should give equal priority to those from BME and disability backgrounds to become members of British governing bodies of sport? At present they are severely and unacceptably underrepresented.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The figure of 30% for women is one thing, but the Sporting Future strategy also outlines the requirement for diversity in all areas and expects the sports national governing bodies to produce diversity programmes which should be published annually in order to report on progress.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Ashton of Hyde

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for adding his name to this government amendment.

For many years this House has rightly been concerned about the operation of the secondary ticketing market. In 2015, as well as placing new rules in the Consumer Rights Act, noble Lords acknowledged the complexity of online ticketing by requiring a review of consumer protection measures relating to online secondary ticketing. Professor Michael Waterson conducted that review, which was published last year, and two weeks ago the Government published their response, accepting his recommendations in full. The report was warmly welcomed by both Houses, by industry and by consumer representatives, so we should not rush to lightly dismiss the specific recommendations it makes.

Since the review was published, the Competition and Markets Authority has launched an enforcement investigation into suspected breaches of consumer protection law in the online secondary ticket market. The Government have also encouraged the event ticketing industry to set up a project group to take forward the review’s recommendations, and have facilitated the sector’s participation in the joint industry-government Cyber-security Information Sharing Partnership. In addition, we will ensure that resources are made available to National Trading Standards and Trading Standards Scotland to support the upcoming enforcement work on secondary ticketing. We are also working with industry to raise consumer understanding of the ticketing market.

Government Amendment 33ZL forms a key element of our response to the Waterson review, and is intended to address an issue within the ticketing market about which there is widespread support for further action, including from Professor Waterson. The amendment will provide the power for government to introduce a criminal offence to address the use of bots to purchase tickets for a recreational, sporting or cultural event in excess of the maximum specified. The intended offence will apply only to tickets for events in the UK, although it will cover activity to obtain tickets that occurs outside the UK. We believe that the amendment is needed to clarify the law and put beyond doubt the illegality of this practice and the need to report it.

Further, with the new offence on the statute book, the Government will work with industry to enforce it. An offence is only worth having if criminal acts are reported. We have industry groups in place that are now willing and able to take action in partnership with our law enforcement agencies. I hope that this amendment will find favour with the House, and I beg to move.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33ZLZA, 33ZLZB, and 33ZLZC, which stand in my name.

I immediately thank the Minister for responding to a long-running campaign on the question of bots. I will say nothing further on that except that I am looking forward to the secondary legislation. His and the Government’s decision to bring forward action against bots is important and necessary. These are the modern-day ticket touts which sweep the market by using software when the likes of noble Lords and their families are trying to obtain tickets to go to an event. That is unethical and should be illegal, and I welcome the Government’s action on that. We need to make sure that we have good secondary legislation, and we look forward to it coming before the House.

On Amendment 33ZLZC, I will simply say that the reason I tabled this amendment is that it is important to respond to what the Minister said about the lack of enforcement. One way of dealing with the lack of enforcement in this area is to give event organisers the right to enforce the Act through civil action in the courts. This has the benefit of reducing the resources call on the police and/or trading standards, and it should be welcomed. It has certainly been called for by governing bodies of sport and promoters so that they can take action—because it is not in their interest, either, for people to be turned away because they have bought through the secondary market tickets that are counterfeit or illegal. I am unlikely to press that amendment to a vote, but I will be interested to see what the Minister says in response, because it seems to be a helpful suggestion by the governing bodies of sport to respond to this heinous issue.

The most important amendment that I am speaking to is Amendment 33ZLZA, which is fairly straightforward and common sense. Ed Sheeran’s manager appeared before the DCMS Select Committee last week, in the absence of one of the four major secondary market platforms, viagogo, which just did not show. He made the clear and important point that neither Ed Sheeran nor any of the top artists, nor any of the major sports events, all of which are heavily in demand, want to see their tickets counterfeited and people turned away at the door.

We did work on the Consumer Rights Bill to make sure that you got a ticket number, a row number, and a seat number, and to make sure that there were clear terms of reference on the face of the ticket. That should have been achieved and should be deliverable. We fought for but failed to get the ticket number—at the time we got the seat number, the row number and the block. The tickets for Ed Sheeran at the front do not have a block, a seat number or a row, because they are for the standing areas at the front of the concert. But if you have come down a long way and have brought your family down for this one event, you may be turned away at the door because you have no way of checking as a consumer that a ticket is valid.

The only way you can do it is to make sure that there is a unique reference number, which was originally printed on the ticket but has to be on the secondary market platform. It is not an unreasonable request—it does not say that the Horsham Dramatic Society has to put a unique reference number on the ticket. It simply says that where there originally was one, and where Ed Sheeran’s management team wanted one to protect loyal fans of Ed Sheeran who turn up, they should have the ability either to go online or to phone up and say, “Does this reference number accurately relate to a proper ticket and not a counterfeit ticket?”.

A number of these mass, modern-day touts sweep the market and say, as they do online for Ed Sheeran, “Your seat number is between 1 and 20”, and therefore they think that they have answered the question about the seat number. But the one thing they do not want is the honest supporter of a sporting event or a music fan having the ability to check whether their ticket is valid. This is the one amendment that would achieve that—and there would be no cost or difficulty. As far as the promoter of a sporting or music event is concerned, they are putting the seat number, the row number, the date and the event on the ticket. If there is an original, unique reference number, why not put that on as well to allow the true fan to check that it is not a counterfeit ticket before he spends a lot of money travelling to London with his family, for the sake of argument, to go to the O2?

The Minister said that he was concerned about this on three very simple grounds—but I think that there are answers to all three points. First, we obviously welcome the Waterson report, but Waterson stated, as did my noble friend, that he does not support any further significant changes to legislation at this time. However, by his own definition, these amendments are not significant. They do not ban or impose controls on the price; they merely tidy up gaps in the Consumer Rights Act regime, which Waterson endorses. So I believe it would be reasonable to suggest that the Government do, too, with their proposals for greater enforcement.

Secondly, the CMA review is under way but it is not about what might happen in this House tonight or in another place next week. The review and its inquiries are about the enforcement of existing legislation; they are not about possible changes in the future. If there were problems in the future, no doubt the CMA would consider having a further review. It is interesting that it would, by implication, support the measure this evening because it states:

“We also think that it is essential that those consumers who buy tickets from the secondary market are made aware if there is a risk that they will be turned away at the door”.


So, by implication, the CMA is in any event supportive of this proposal. However, that is not the point; the point is that, under statute and under its terms of reference, it is looking at existing legislation and not at new legislation.

Thirdly, when we debated this issue before, the European Union directive was much quoted as a reason for not being able to move forward—because we would be outside the scope of the European Union directive on consumer rights. I wrote to Brussels—not a usual habit of mine—in the following terms:

“Whether it would be in accordance with the EU Consumer Rights Directive for both primary and secondary market ticket sellers to have to provide a unique reference number on the tickets so that event organisers could track sales of tickets”.


The response was:

“Providing a unique reference number on the tickets is not regulated under the Consumer Rights Directive; therefore the Directive does not prevent this practice. National legislation could be relevant to this regard”.


Therefore, on all three grounds, I believe that common sense should prevail. We should look after the interests of the many people who are being ripped off by modern-day ticket touts and enable those individuals to have the right to enjoy a concert because they love either the music they want to listen to or the sporting event that they want to go to.