Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The concern is that we would simply drive people into a black market; that seems to have happened in Ireland. The CMA has said that capping prices, which is what the Opposition want, would not reduce the incentive to resell, for exactly the reasons my hon. Friend has pointed out, so through the Bill, we are taking the pragmatic step of increasing the enforcement of current regulations, while also looking at the wider picture, in the review, to see whether improvements can be made. We think that is the right balance.

In conclusion, I encourage this House to agree with the Government’s position on Lords amendment 104B, and accept the Government’s proposed amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. It is imperative that Royal Assent be achieved without further delay, so that the legislation can be implemented and the Bill’s benefits realised as quickly as possible.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move manuscript amendment (a), leave out from “House” and insert

“agrees with the Lords in their Amendment”.

I confess that I am completely perplexed as to why the Government have adopted the attitude that they have taken today. The Bill could have gone through both Houses quite easily and have steamed ahead to Royal Assent if they had simply agreed to these very minor recommendations from the House of Lords. We do something very similar to what the amendment suggests in relation to Olympics tickets, partly because the Olympics’ organisers insist on such legislation for any Olympics, but we also do something very similar for sporting events. The question of why we do not do exactly the same for music, comedy and other events is legitimate.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The Minister has only just sat down, but now he is intervening on me.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I just wanted to address one of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. He talks about the Olympics, for which there was a complete ban on resale. Is that what he is proposing?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No. If the Minister will listen for a few more minutes, I will get on to precisely what we recommend. Indeed, he may remember that in the last debate on this issue, I said very clearly that we do not intend to ban all resale. If somebody has a ticket that they bought themselves, not through a bot, but is unable to use it and wants to resell it, that should be a perfectly legitimate process, but the price should be capped at a sensible level—at something like 10% or 15% above the original cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On such ideological reasons, the Conservative party claims to be the party of Adam Smith, but if we read “The Wealth of Nations”, we see that the behaviour of the rentier class is not exactly praised by Adam Smith, and this is pure rent seeking. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is taking a ticket at £75, charging 90 times that and doing nothing to add any value at all. This is rent seeking, and ideologically it should be opposed by the Conservative party.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. Indeed, in the main the market is a good thing—it can operate to produce good and efficient outcomes in society—but in this case the market is not working, and where the market does not work, the state has to intervene.

I cannot understand why any sane person should oppose such a measure, but unfortunately the Government have. Their amendment (a) in lieu is a weak sock puppet of a concession. It does not strengthen the rules; it simply leaves them in place. It does not prevent tickets from being sold without evidence of proof of purchase or the seller’s title to the tickets. It does not limit the quantity of resale tickets to the original number limited by the seller or artist. It leaves in place the current system for showing the face value of a ticket, despite the fact that section 90(8) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in my view and in the view of everybody who has spoken to Members about this, is very opaque and open to interpretation—or, I would argue, open to deliberate misinterpretation by the secondary ticketing market.

For instance, Viagogo does not say “face value”, but has a little box that says “FV”, which is not explained anywhere on the website, and people have to click on that. If Viagogo genuinely wanted to be open and transparent, it would say “face value”, and put the price at the very beginning. StubHub is similarly advertising tickets for Taylor Swift on 21 June at £711, but nowhere on the first page does it give the face value. I note that, if someone goes on to the second page, it says $75 there, but I am told that that is not the actual cost of the ticket. Seatsnet has tickets for Murrayfield—for Taylor Swift again—selling at £1,294.79 or £1,092.15 each, and nowhere does it give the face value of the tickets. Interestingly, AEG Presents and AXS, which are managing the tickets for the concerts at Murrayfield, say that tickets are strictly not to be resold:

“Any tickets found to be purchased via re-sale on the non-official secondary market will not be valid for entry into the concerts.”

In other words, it is completely in doubt whether the tickets being sold at £711 or £1,294 are tickets that will actually gain admittance for an individual.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to Viagogo, and I have just gone on to its website. He mentioned the “FV” symbol, but when I click on it, it tells me the face value of the ticket. Did I misunderstand the point he made?

[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!

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The secondary ticket market is the spivs: it is precisely the same set of people scamming the system and the public. They are taking advantage of people’s desire to get tickets, and thereby making the market simply not work in the interests of the creators of the art, the fans, or the stadiums and venues themselves. That is why we want to take action.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the market not working. The point that has been missed hugely by Conservative Members is that a finite number of tickets are going on sale, and this finite number is being gobbled up by the spivs, speculators and whoever online. He mentions the guys outside a venue, but they can only hold so many tickets. It is the scale of this, as I heard the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) say from a sedentary position. Without the Lords amendment that has been proposed, this is being allowed on an industrial scale. Why are the Government and the Conservative party willing to see people ripped off? It is just unbelievable.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I rather agree with the idea that some Conservative Members actually want people to be ripped off, and maybe that is what we have seen for the last 14 years when we have seen taxes rise, but what we get for the taxes has diminished.

The Minister says that he wants to give more powers to the CMA to be able to enforce the action. The problem with that is that the CMA itself gave evidence that, when it tried to take Viagogo to court, it came up against inherent weaknesses in the existing consumer protection toolkit, and the Government are not adding anything to that consumer protection toolkit whatsoever. Indeed, they are deliberately voting down precisely what they said they wanted.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, the Minister will get to reply afterwards, I am sure. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] So the Minister is begging. I will give way to his begging.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I beg the hon. Member’s leave, but can I draw his attention to the comments of the CMA before the Bill Committee? One witness said exactly this in response to the point he has just raised:

“We think that many of the changes in the Bill will address those weaknesses directly by giving us civil fining powers for the first time.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 7, Q3.]

It is not right to say that the CMA is getting no more ability to oversee this regime.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, because I read that completely differently from the way the Minister does. If the Minister were right, why is it only at this stage that he has chosen to bring forward amendment (a) in lieu? Precisely as with every single step of the way on ticket touting that we have seen over the last 14 years, somebody moves an amendment in the House of Lords—quite often Lord Moynihan, wonderful man that he is—and the Government are dragged kicking and screaming to introduce sensible measures that have cross-party support, but that the Government object to for some bizarre ideological reasons.

Labour will strengthen the consumer rights legislation to protect fans from fraudulent ticket practices, restricting the resale of more tickets than permissible and ensuring anybody buying a ticket from the secondary market can see—clearly, easily, readily and absolutely unambiguously —what the original price of that ticket was and where it came from. All of this could have been done today if the Government had not rejected the Lords amendment, but supported Labour on the cross-party amendment from the Lords. However, they have put touts before fans, and profits before the public.

If Labour is given the chance to form a Government, we will also go further. We will restrict the resale of tickets at more than a small set percentage over the price the original purchaser paid for it. No more touts buying a £50 ticket and selling it on for £500; no more bulk buying of seats for Taylor Swift concerts that could go to a 13-year-old fan from Wigan, but instead go to a millionaire from the US. No more scalping of our creative industries and artists, who set reasonable prices for their tickets, only to find somebody else making money off their talent and hard work by reselling them at 10 times the price. Ministers say that the CMA will enforce more, but I doubt that anything will change as a result of anything the Government are intending to do with this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address the points that have been raised during the debate.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) presented a cap on ticket prices as his solution to this problem, but that flies in the face of the evidence given by the CMA in its report. It said that such a measure would not significantly diminish the incentive, and the misconduct would therefore continue. However, it was good to hear the hon. Gentleman finally admit that the market is a good thing—that, coming from an Opposition Member, is a revelation.

There is a common factor between what was said by the hon. Gentleman and what was said by the other contributors to the debate. He said, for instance, that face value was not made sufficiently clear on the various secondary sites, but there is a key saying clearly what face value is on the first pages of the Viagogo and StubHub websites. All those points relate to one thing and one thing only, namely enforcement, because the requirements are there in the existing legislation. We are keen to bolster enforcement. He says that we are somehow kicking and screaming to do so with this amendment, despite the fact that this Government have unilaterally brought forward this legislation. Part 3 offers huge new powers that were not added through an amendment in the Commons or the Lords; they were on the face of the Bill from day one.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The Minister knows that Taylor Swift tickets are being sold. The organisers of those concerts have said that tickets sold on unauthorised secondary ticket markets are not valid. Would he therefore encourage people to buy tickets only from authorised ticket vendors and not from those that are unauthorised, which include Viagogo?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I would certainly advise any consumer to comply with the rules set out by the primary market. It is quite clear that the primary markets can do a lot more about restricting secondary sales, and we have been quoted examples of that today, including the way the Olympics was run, the way that football matches are run and the way that Glastonbury is run. All those things have very tight controls on secondary markets, which is in the gift of the primary market.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) asked about resources, as did the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil). The CMA’s budget is £122 million, so we feel that it has the necessary resources available to it. The fines and penalties can be kept by the CMA for its enforcement activities.

The hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made similar points about the inappropriate resale of tickets—for England football matches, for example—and refunds that have not been processed properly. Only six people have been prosecuted for abuse in this sector, and we want to see more. Prosecutions for the use of bots have not been brought forward, and the amendment allows the CMA to do that. All the concrete action that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South calls for is about enforcement, not more regulations. I absolutely agree with that, and we want to ensure that there is more enforcement in this space.

It is of paramount importance that we get this Bill on to the statute book so that it can start delivering for businesses and consumers as soon as possible. I thank all who have helped to get to this place, including the Clerks, the officials in the Department and the Bill team. I thank them for their hard work on this legislation, and I hope that all Members will feel able to support our position.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Universal Postal Service Order: Rhondda

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the universal postal service order in Rhondda constituency.

It is a delight to see you in the Chair for the first time, Mr Henderson. Congratulations on your elevation—some have greatness thrust upon them. I should say that I am here as a Back Bencher, although I am quite often up against the Minister from the Front Bench. It is a different kind of arrangement today.

The universal service obligation, which is an essential part of delivering many public services up and down the land, says that there should be letter delivery six days a week, next-day delivery for first-class letters—which we all know are now quite expensive—and delivery within three days for second-class letters. I fully understand that recent years have been tough for Royal Mail. Letters are down from 14.3 billion in 2011-12 to 7.3 billion in 2022-23, and parcels are up from 2.6 billion in 2018-19 to 3.6 billion in 2022-23. It would be very easy for Royal Mail to conclude that its future lies in parcels, not in letters, but I want to say on behalf of my constituents in the Rhondda—I suspect that MPs from every constituency in the land would say the same—that the service they are getting at the moment does not meet the universal service obligation. That is a problem for individuals, our public services and our economy.

Let me talk through some of the issues that my constituents have faced. In the past three years, my office has dealt with a vast number of cases that have come in by email, letter and phone. We have created more than 100 individual pieces of casework relating to Royal Mail issues. All those cases share some very specific issues: sporadic arrival of mail, sometimes no mail at all received for weeks, and large bundles arriving at once. These are not people complaining that they are not getting any letters from anybody because nobody loves them; they are people saying they know a letter is due and it does not arrive, even when it has a first-class stamp on it. The most common complaint is late delivery, resulting in missed hospital appointments and fines.

These are not isolated locations in the Rhondda; the issue affects the whole of the constituency. It is a persistent problem that residents have been reporting since 2019. I have tried regularly to get to the nub of these issues with local managers. I am endlessly promised that they will be sorted, and they never are.

Of course, all my constituents are full of praise for their local postal workers, who deliver in rain and sunshine—I worry about sunshine because I have had melanoma and I know the dangers of skin cancer, so I want to make sure there is proper protection for postal workers. Many of the issues that postal workers face are the same ones that my constituents complain about.

Postal workers have told us about the following issues. There are not enough base staff to cover all rounds. Staff holidays and staff sickness come at peak times, making it impossible to maintain the USO. Management prioritises parcels over post—I know the Business and Trade Committee has looked at that closely. There is clear evidence that that is still happening, and it is problematic. Rounds are far too big and undeliverable. Vans are not large enough for parcels and the post, so postal workers have to go back to the sorting office and make multiple trips, and no overtime is offered for that.

I have met the Royal Mail management team at the sorting offices multiple times, and they always say that it is a matter of staff sicknesses and that it is all going to be sorted next time, but it never is. I have also been told anonymously that staff are paid overtime to clear the mail before I get there so that when I arrive at the sorting office, it is all perfect and there is no mail waiting to go out, but once I have gone somebody gets back in the van and it goes back into the sorting office. If that is true, it is obviously a deliberate attempt to mislead the Member of Parliament, and I am sure the Minister would want to condemn it.

I will just go through some of the specific cases we have had—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes, I can—I think it is fine.

[Gordon Henderson (in the Chair)]

As long as it is to do with the Rhondda.

[Jim Shannon]

Absolutely. I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue; he is right. Does he agree that there must be a greater obligation under the universal postal service order for availability in rural areas? I understand that that is an issue for him too. There is no substitute for a full-service post office, and those obligations should be clearly defined in law. I think the hon. Gentleman is pushing for that. If it were in law, that would be to his advantage and to everybody else’s too.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

To be honest, I just want to get it sorted in my constituency. I want Royal Mail to do the job that it is required to do by law already, and I just do not think that that is happening. I suspect that 650 MPs could give exactly the same story.

Let me give one instance. Nicola Thomas wrote to me about the delivery of letters from the local health board:

“I received an invite to book an appointment, a reminder of that invitation, and a letter saying ‘we’ve removed you from the list because we haven’t heard from you’ all in the same delivery.”

That is clearly a nonsense.

Another resident told me that all her mail takes over three weeks to arrive. She received a letter on 15 April that was dated 19 March. She is disabled. She has had numerous hospital appointment notifications that have not arrived on time. When she called the hospital to apologise for not attending, they say everyone is having the same problem, and I can confirm that. She has tried to call the clinic and sorting office. Nobody ever answers. She has tried calling the main headquarters. Nobody ever answers. Her postie told her that his boss at Clydach said that parcels take priority over letters. That is manifestly wrong. Her partner, who lives in Porth, where I also live, paid £70 to have their mail redirected, but the new tenant is still bringing letters to him. They have also tried to complain, but they can never speak to a human.

A resident in William Street in Ystrad said:

“We only get mail every 3/4 weeks, this has been an ongoing issue since last November. They’ve now stopped delivering parcels too. Royal mail have said there isn’t enough time for the post person to deliver to William street at all, with no plans to resolve the issue. I have to go to the sorting office in Ferndale if I want to receive any mail which is sometimes difficult with the restrictive opening hours.”

I agree about the restricted opening hours. We all know the saga: one of those little notes has been put through the door saying that they tried to deliver a parcel and but no one was there. Sometimes it feels as if it is the five minutes that no one was in the house that they managed to find that moment to put it through, but now they have restricted the hours when parcels can be picked up from the sorting office as well. This is not a proper service that is effective or efficient for my community.

Ethan Jenkins says:

“Postmen are now delivering for Amazon and Yodel as well as their own. They are delivering stuff daily that can be picked up at your local store still delivering toilet rolls, crates of alcohol, crates of pop. What they’re delivering shouldn’t be delivered by Royal Mail but a courier whose only job is parcels.”

This is a real issue for Royal Mail. They must ensure that letters get through.

Gaynor Harvey said:

“I think that most of us are having difficulty getting our mail delivered. I’m not sure that there’s any difference between a first class or second class stamp anymore except for the price of the stamp. Mail locally can take up to a week to get where it’s supposed to.”

Nita Bianca from Trealaw said:

“We’re lucky to get post once every 2 or 3 weeks in Trealaw. I’ve missed numerous hospital appointments due to this, and I probably would have missed a lot more if I didn’t have the NHS text reminder to tell me I have an upcoming appointment”.

Letters will always be important for the local health board, for the simple reason that lots of people in my constituency do not have internet access at home. Because of GDPR, it is difficult to send appointment invitations via email, as it cannot be guaranteed that the only person who will open that email is the person to whom it is directed. Many people simply do not have smartphones, particular the elderly who rely on NHS services in my constituency, which makes it all the more important that we ensure that letters can get through.

Significant numbers of my constituents have been caught speeding. Whether the speed limit is 20 mph, 30 mph, 40 mph or 50 mph, it does not matter; people get caught speeding or get caught in a yellow box, and they are sent a notice by the local police force or safety team. Often these notices arrive three or four weeks late, long after the date before which it is possible simply to fess up and pay half the fine. That adds to the administrative burden and the cost to individuals, and sometimes these letters get completely lost, which is problematic for public services, local government and my constituents.

My colleague, Senedd Member for the Rhondda Buffy Williams, did a report on this a few weeks ago. It emphasised two things. First, this is a significant problem for a large number of my constituents—26% of the people who responded to her survey said that they had missed NHS appointments. I do not need to underline the issue because we all know that there is a problem across the whole United Kingdom with the backlog in the NHS. If the NHS is sending out invitations to appointments and people do not get them in time, and then do not turn up, that is a hideous waste of resources in the NHS. Ensuring that Royal Mail performs its function properly is part of ensuring that we get the NHS back on—

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I think I am meant to take only one intervention in these short debates, if the hon. Member does not mind. I am not quite sure of my timing. Mr Henderson, you may want to remind me how much longer I should go on for—the Minister will always say, “Stop now”, but—[Laughter.] I heard that laughter over there.

Post matters. Letters matter. It is not just about appointments and fines but about banks. Quite often, they send out material that needs to get to the person in a timely fashion, including credit cards, bank cards and so on. That is all the more important now, because we do not have a single bank left in the Rhondda constituency, and several of the banks are now closing in Pontypridd. Any kind of physical contact with a bank might mean going down into Cardiff, which would be a considerable journey for many people in my constituency. Yet again, it is all the more important that we have a proper system.

Birthday cards also matter. It would be really nice if everybody in the Rhondda who was sent a birthday card with a first-class stamp got it on their birthday, rather than two or three weeks after. I cannot tell you how many constituents have told me how upset they have felt when no birthday cards have arrived at all, when they know that their family would always want to ensure that they arrived on time.

There are important things that Royal Mail needs to do. First, if it is true that it has been trying to obscure the problems it has locally, it should apologise, make it clear that it has done that, and not do it again. Secondly, it needs to employ enough staff to do the job properly, and it needs to value those staff, so that they feel enthused about coming into work, rather than feeling constantly battered into submission by a system that simply does not allow them the room to do their job properly. Thirdly, it needs to ensure that letters are prioritised and not treat them like second-rate citizens compared with parcels. Whatever Royal Mail’s future aspirations for the USO may be, I am not here to talk about that today. I simply want it to adhere to the USO today. That means first-class letters being delivered the next day.

I also want Royal Mail to have a proper process for complaints, so that it can log the issues that arise. If a customer cannot speak to an individual when they ring about not having any post for three weeks, and they are worried about whether there is a letter coming from the NHS, surely to goodness there must be a proper system of logging that and ensuring that it happens. Finally, I would dearly love for Royal Mail in the Rhondda to get back to the system we had maybe 10 years ago, when all of that functioned much more efficiently. That is in the interest of our public services, our constituents and our community. It would just be nice if it were easy to pick up a parcel. I note, Mr Henderson, that you are encouraging me to shut up. I shall shut up now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Thank you, Mr Henderson. On the universal service obligation, I know the general obligation was not something that the hon. Member for Rhondda focused too much on, but it is important to say that we believe the six-days-a-week service should remain. We have been very clear about that. Ofcom has the primary duty to secure its provision. Despite the fact that letter volumes have halved in the last decade, which has put further pressure on making the service viable, it is right that the Prime Minister and I make it clear that the importance of maintaining a Saturday delivery service is that it provides flexibility and convenience. We will not countenance scrapping it, not least because of the impact that would have on the greeting card, magazine and similar industries.

I will come to Rhondda specifically, but on the main point the hon. Member for Rhondda raised about the general quality of service, we understand that we have had a number of complaints. It is one of the most frequent items that comes across my desk in correspondence or meetings with fellow Members of Parliament. Ofcom obviously has the powers to investigate and take enforcement action where failures are identified. It did so when it fined Royal Mail £5.6 million earlier this year for its contravention of conditions in 2022-23. Ofcom is obviously monitoring this to make sure that the service improves.

The latest published quality of service results for quarter 3 of 2023-24 showed that Royal Mail continues to fail to meet its first and second class delivery targets. It is quite clear that the service is not at the level we want to see. I met Martin Seidenberg, chief executive of the parent group, and made that point to him clearly. He accepted that this was the case, and that things need to improve. One thing about prioritisation, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, is that—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I did not.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

To be clear, the hon. Gentleman was referring to whether Royal Mail is prioritising parcels over letters. Ofcom looked at that to see whether it was a feature of some of the problems behind the service level, and it did not identify any suggestion that Royal Mail’s senior management had directed the prioritisation of parcels. Nevertheless, I think we are all concerned about anecdotal stories at a local level that suggest it may be the case. We absolutely do not want to see that happen.

The strategy for Royal Mail that Martin Seidenberg set out gave me some comfort, although it is actions not words that we want to see. It included accelerated recruitment of permanent workers, reinforced operational management at regional and local levels, and tackling sickness and absence. Three thousand additional postal workers have been recruited, and Royal Mail has introduced new sickness and attendance policies, which it claims are playing a significant part in reducing absence.

Royal Mail recently delivered its best-performing Christmas period in four years, with more than 99% of items posted before the last recommended posting dates arriving by Christmas eve. It is encouraging that following an agreement with the Communication Workers Union, results are beginning to improve, with sickness absence reportedly down by about 25% by the end of December compared with 2022, and only 0.2% of the daily 54,000 walks could not be resourced on any given day by the end of December. Royal Mail advises that its most recent performance data from the start of 2024 is much stronger, particularly the service levels for first class mail, reflecting some of the changes that have been made.

As I say, it is actions we want, not words. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be satisfied until he sees changes on the ground.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I wonder whether the Minister could do me a favour. Could he ask Royal Mail to provide data for my area every month on how they are doing with the USO and how much they are meeting? I have tried to get that information myself, but I find it difficult. I am sure it would be more effective if he asked.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will take that away, and I am very happy to look at it, because I believe in holding Royal Mail’s feet to the fire. There may be an advantage if we look at that at constituency level.

I note the hon. Gentleman’s point that mail is sporadic and there is often no mail or it arrives late, resulting in missed appointments or fines and all those things. These are very serious issues, so I can understand his frustration. He said that he has had considerable contact with Royal Mail about those service issues, as is right—he is a very diligent Member of Parliament, and we urge other colleagues to do the same. Royal Mail reports that service in the area was disrupted due to sickness absence in some parts of his area being higher than average, and it was not a good picture across the board anyway. The time taken to recruit staff has also contributed to gaps in the service.

Royal Mail has acknowledged that it has not been able to deliver a consistently high level of service to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I understand that the issues have centred around the Ferndale and Mid Rhondda delivery offices. In Ferndale I understand that last month there were six members of staff absent and that some customers may have experienced disruption to their deliveries. Royal Mail has now advised that absence levels have since been reduced, with fewer members of staff currently absent through sickness. In Mid Rhondda, there are currently three staff absent on sick leave and Royal Mail is currently recruiting an additional postal worker.

Royal Mail reports that it is currently delivering to all addresses served by both delivery offices six days a week when there is mail to deliver, and if postal workers cannot deliver on a given day, mail will be prioritised the next working day. We are assured that it is actively working on measures to restore service levels, and while it tries to tackle the local service issues, no address will go without a mail delivery for more than two days. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will update me regularly if that proves not to be the case.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman was due to visit one or both of those delivery offices in March, but that was postponed. He is looking at me very quizzically; maybe that was not the case. Royal Mail will be in touch with him to try to arrange a new date, if he would like to visit again. We would definitely urge Royal Mail to do that when constituency Members of Parliament are not happy.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about complaints. If he googles the Royal Mail customer service centre, which I am sure he has, there is a phone number and an online form to fill in. There is also an independent dispute resolution service—the postal redress service—which can try to resolve disputes. Citizens Advice can also provide assistance to constituents and constituency Members of Parliament to resolve these issues. He could also write to Ofcom to ensure that it is aware of the service difficulties he is experiencing. On his point about whether Royal Mail is obscuring the level of service, moving mail to a van outside and bringing it back in, that would be totally unacceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence of that, will he please raise it with me or directly with Royal Mail?

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the lack of banks and available cash on high streets. We have legislated for that, and post offices play an important part. I also look after them, as he will be aware. Banking hubs might feature in the towns and villages in his constituency in the coming months and years. I have also just replied to his letter on counterfeit stamps, which he should receive. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he has received a copy.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Can I try again?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Yes, of course.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

It suddenly occurred to me that there might be a general election later this year. One part of what the Post Office is required to provide is the freepost delivery. How confident is the Minister that the Royal Mail will be able to deliver that in a timely fashion to the right constituents in the right places across the whole of the country?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is a matter close to both our hearts and those of others in the room today. Speaking from my own perspective, as someone who is not easily convinced or easily has the wool pulled over his eyes with reassurances, I was impressed by Martin Seidenberg, but people will be convinced only when services improve. I have set out some of the ways that they should improve. There is a personnel issue, as well as some management ones. There have been some steps forward, as I set out earlier. That should help to secure the improvements that the hon. Gentleman and I want to see.

As I said before, it is not words but actions that we want to see. I am happy to hear from Members across the House to ensure that service levels are where we want them to be. We are committed to ensuring that we have a financially sustainable and efficient universal postal service for all users in all constituencies. I would like to ensure that Members of this House are able to bring concerns to me whenever they or their constituents are disappointed with local services. I ask the hon. Gentleman please to ensure that I am aware of the difficulties that he sees on an ongoing basis. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Gentleman has slightly jumped the gun, as the next question on the Order Paper relates to trade envoys. May I say how proud we are of the cross-party trade envoy programme, which I think he will hear about in a moment? We think they do an excellent, good value-for-money job for the United Kingdom in promoting trade in a number of key markets.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

6. What the travel costs of parliamentary trade envoys were in each of the last three years.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)]

The Prime Minister’s trade envoys provide invaluable support in progressing the UK’s trade and investment agenda in 61 markets across the world. The travel costs incurred by the Prime Minister’s trade envoys were: £63,566 for the financial year 2021-22; £226,014 for 2022-23; and £232,325 for 2023-24. These costs were for flights, for accommodation when the official British residence was unavailable and for other sundry expenses.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

There is a great deal of murkiness about the trade envoys. I note that, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the Minister point blank refused to deny that at least one trade envoy has explicitly asked for the exclusive use of a house while acting as a trade envoy. The Minister has point blank refused to publish the breakdown of all the trade envoys and their costs for absolutely spurious reasons. If a Select Committee visits South Korea, for instance, all the details of the costs are published, but not if a trade envoy goes. How can we possibly judge whether the £750,000 that has been spent so far in the past three years has been well spent? Is there any accountability whatsoever, or is this really just a means of providing sinecures for people who are liked in Government?

[Greg Hands]

Well, there is a lot of bluster there and not a few accusations. The hon. Gentleman may wish to try to stack these things up a bit. It is a cross-party programme, not a Government-only programme. Many Labour MPs, Labour peers and others are members of the programme. Gifts and hospitality are already published in departmental registers. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, two qualifications for this cross-party role are diplomacy and discretion, which might explain why not everybody has been asked to do it.

Volunteers

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Ms Nokes, there could not possibly be a better way of spending this afternoon than taking part in a debate under your Chair. As you pointed out to me earlier, it is not just a privilege, but a massive privilege to be sitting here taking part in this debate with you in the Chair. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for bringing us to this debate.

However, I am scandalised by every single one of the contributions so far, because the largest number of volunteers who are out today are probably volunteering for political parties, and they have not even got a mention yet. They are the people who go out in sun and rain, in foul weather and fine. They sometimes get spat at—I have been shot at on one occasion. They get abuse, and sometimes they get people giving them a thumbs up, but they do it because they believe in the political system and in democracy. We all know that not one of us would ever be here if it were not for the contributions of volunteers in our political parties up and down the country. They will be far too busy today, but I put on record on behalf of us all, I am sure, our tribute to the volunteers in our political parties who do it for no other reward than the things that they believe in and trying to make a better world and a better country, in their individual ways.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I think we have all had the same briefing note from the Scouts, so I will not repeat anything; that would seem rather otiose, and you might rule me out of order, Ms Nokes. I disagree, however, with the Members who said that they are not going to list all the volunteers in their constituency, because I will refer to some from mine. I represent one of the poorest constituencies in the land and, one could argue, in Europe, according to some socioeconomic indicators.

The truth is that there are politicians who believe that private is always good and everything should be left to the market, and that public is bad and we should try to shrink the state. There are also those who believe that private is always bad because it is based on profit, and they want everything to be done by the state. I have never subscribed to either of those views—it is horses for courses—but I believe that the third sector is absolutely essential in making either of the other two sectors work. In fact, most of what we would consider as the welfare state—schools, hospitals and so on—sprang out of the churches and the voluntary sector originally. The NHS simply would not be able to function in most parts of the country without the support of volunteers. I do not necessarily mean people fundraising for scanners, running events locally or whatever, but all the additional bits that make the recuperative process possible for so many patients. Once they have had what they get from the NHS, they need that extra bit from the voluntary sector. If I look at my patch, organisations such as Valleys Kids have probably made more of a difference than any other organisation to the life opportunities of some of the kids in the most difficult families and parts of the country.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes, Bath calls!

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Member agree that the charitable sector is so good at making the most out of every penny and doubling and tripling the amount invested by capturing the volunteering effort? However, they need a bit of seed funding and not to always be under threat of that funding being cut.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. One of the difficulties comes when they end up with a memorandum of understanding, or some kind of contract with the local authority, or the local health board as we have in Wales—it is a different structure from England. They are then effectively part of the state sector, which makes them less flexible and less able to adapt to situations around them. That has been a worrying trend over the past 20 to 25 years. Maintaining that sustainability for them is the real challenge. That is one of the problems facing Valleys Kids at the moment: trying to make sure that they have a strong financial future.

There is also Sporting Marvels. Sometimes we refer to “charities”, which is quite a strict definition. But actually, lots of people volunteer for things that are not charities, but that, none the less, have a charitable end result, such as all the sporting bodies in my patch. That includes people who turn up as coaches on a Saturday and a Sunday morning for the football teams or for Ferndale rugby club. I will not go through all the rugby clubs in the Rhondda, but I am a patron of Ferndale rugby club, which has its presentation dinner in a few weeks.

So many of these organisations do not get any financial support from the state. Many do not even get charitable status and, for them, it is an even more complicated process. As has already been alluded to, the rules about what people can do—quite understandably, if they are working with children and so on—are onerous, complicated and difficult. Having done work on acquired brain injury, I am conscious that we want any coach working in football, rugby or cycling to have a full understanding of how the new rules and protocols work and when they should take a child off if they have had a concussion. All these things make people think twice about whether they should be engaged in volunteering. That is why the state sometimes has a role in trying to make sure that the process is as simple as possible and that the charities and all the different organisations have access to good, easy and readily understandable advice.

I will mention one other organisation, the Rhondda Polar Bears, of which I am also a patron. The charity teaches kids with a variety of different disabilities how to swim. I will probably see them later this evening at Ystrad sports centre, if I get back to the Rhondda in time.

[Richard Foord]

Given that the shadow Minister is a trustee of a charity, does he recognise that it can be beneficial for employers, including those in the private sector, to release staff for work in the voluntary sector?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes—the next word of my speech was going to be “trustees”. That is a very important point. Obviously, school governors, magistrates or reservists in the armed forces have specific rules about what they can expect from their employers. Many employers are absolutely delighted to be able to support the work of their staff, although it is obviously much more difficult for those working in small companies. However, the point is made about trustees as well.

I was actually going to make a slightly different point about trustees. For all I know, it may be easy to find lots of trustees who know how to deal with the banking system or charitable law or whatever in Surrey; it is more difficult in some of the areas that most need that support. That is why organisations such as the NCVO and the Prince’s Trust have been really important in providing mentoring and support in areas such as mine in the south Wales valleys, where we would love to have more trustees. We often end up getting the same people to be the trustees of all the different charities and organisations, such as the Rhondda Arts Festival, which is coming up at the end of June. I am a trustee of that as well. Although I do not have any financial interest in that, I should declare it none the less.

There are also the individuals. Stan Power is no longer with us, but he was a veteran—he served. He took it upon himself for many years, as a member of the Royal British Legion, to make sure that anybody with whom he came into contact who had ever been in the armed forces in the Rhondda knew of every single type of support that they were entitled to claim for. He did that entirely off his own bat, but obviously with the support of the Royal British Legion. He was an absolutely wonderful man who made life-changing possibilities for dozens and dozens of people in my constituency. The more we can enable a few more of those people in every constituency in the land, the better.

I want to refer to a charity that works across the whole country, because it exemplifies the kind of problems we have at the moment, as alluded to by others, and that is Headway. The Minister knows about Headway, which is a charity that works with people who have had an acquired brain injury.

One of the great things we have done in recent years, because of the Government’s brave decision in some cases to create major trauma centres, is that we have saved the lives of many more people when they have been in an accident, many of them with brain injuries. However, getting them the quality of life that we would be able to bring them if they had full rehabilitation is very difficult. All the different therapies in hospitals are very stretched, which is often why we rely for rehab on charities such as Headway, up and down the country.

Most constituencies will have a Headway group. Headway has 1,100 volunteers helping with rehabilitation, 500 more working at setting up branches and 400 working in the retail shops. That is an important part of the network that enables people to get back a quality of life, which is important for the whole of our economy. This is not a partisan attack, but unfortunately the Government do not know how many people in the UK are living with an acquired brain injury—it is just not a known fact. We reckon it is somewhere in the region of 1.4 million, and the charitable sector probably has a better idea than others.

Headway, however, is struggling financially. Many of its branches are worrying about whether they will be able to continue, partly because of a lack of volunteers, but mostly because of a lack of finance. Rehabilitation and the kit needed is often expensive. I hope that at some point we have a major review of how charities end up with their funding, and how we can ensure that they are sustainable into the future.

Several Members have referred to the fact that volunteering is good for people. We can certainly see that in Headway. Often, the person who takes someone to their Headway group will have had a brain injury 10 years ago, was looked after and had rehab, was re-socialised, found a family of people, and then volunteered, volunteered a bit more and a bit more, got a few days’ work, and now is the full-time staff employee. That is rehabilitation and volunteering at its absolute best. We could repeat that of every other kind of charity that we have been talking about.

Volunteering is good for people. It makes them feel useful. It allows them to gain skills, especially because they might have to retrain in areas where they did not have the skills at all in the past. It re-socialises people and makes them feel happier. I note the point made about people in their retirement—I am 62 and some in the room are slightly older than I am, and perhaps thinking about what to do in retirement—and volunteering is an important part of still feeling that we have something to contribute. Often, important skills can be fed back into the community by older people.

There are problems. The significant collapse in the number of volunteers has been referred to, from one in four people of working age to one in six in the past few years, and that is problematic. In 2022, 40% of charities reported that a lack of volunteers meant that they could not progress, could not grow or could not even commit to the projects that they were already engaged in. Some areas, as I said, have found that particularly difficult, because of the financial barriers. If someone is struggling financially and economically to put food on the table for their kids, then the cost of the bus or train fare—even if it is only £2.90, £4.60 or whatever—is prohibitive. Many people will feel reluctant to ask the charity for the money, so they end up not volunteering at all. I would love it if there were some form of bank where all that need could be met. Perhaps that is a project for someone for the future—a particular charitable venture.

Local authorities have been facing enormous financial struggles. In my own patch, Rhondda Cynon Taf has found it difficult to maintain its financial commitments, let alone increase them in line with inflation, as has been needed over the past few years. That has meant that lots of charities have struggled. On top of that, people are not using charity shops so much, which has also had a knock-on effect on their income.

As I think has already been referred to, the Scouts have something in the region of 100,000 young people on waiting lists. Would it not be brilliant if we could get every single one of them into the Scouts? I am a scout from many years ago—I have a few badges, which I will not go into. We would love it if we could have more troops in the Rhondda, because there are kids who would like to do it. The same goes for the Sea Cadets and a whole series of other organisations. Those organisations give kids a sense of purpose and an idea of themselves; they provide a set of extracurricular of activities that offer a different form of learning. They give them confidence. In many ways, they are very similar to some of the creative industries. I would dearly love for the Scouts to be able to recruit far more volunteers.

I have a few final points. The first is about philanthropy. I sometimes look to other countries. On Tuesday night, I had dinner with Edward Burtynsky, a Canadian photographer and an absolutely wonderful artist. He said that in Canada, it is axiomatic that, if someone becomes a billionaire, they will become a massive philanthropist, set up a charity and give to a wide variety of different charities. That has not become the norm in the UK in the same way as it has in America, Canada and some other countries. There is still room for us to explore how we can incentivise that even more, so that it is part of our national psyche.

The second point is about companies. Several hon. Members have referred to the importance of companies being passionate about their local communities. They know that they derive their wealth from those communities, and if they want to incentivise their staff, they will want to play an important part in their local communities. Some companies have been financially strapped, because of energy costs and things like that. The more we can praise those companies that make a radical difference in their local communities, the better. Perhaps we need to think of new ways of badging and thanking them for the extraordinary things they have done.

My final point is about the role of the state in all this. At this particular moment in British politics, I sometimes feel quite depressed, because it feels as if so many parts of what we relied on in our past just do not work as well as they used to. Some people will say, “Let’s try to recreate the social fabric of the 1950s,” but I do not think that that works. The world has moved on: the internet, social media and so on have completely changed things. However, I do want to return to that sense of public engagement—the sense that we achieve far more by our common endeavour than we do by going it alone. I could make the party political point that, if we press the reset button in a general election, perhaps some of that will be achieved. But what is even more important—and politicians and the state play a role in this—is ensuring that the whole country feels engaged in the national project, and that the whole of the local community feels engaged in the local project. We cannot do that without people volunteering for the common good.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I agree that some of the examples are shocking. The key question is what measures we will put in place to address them. Ireland, for example, completely banned secondary sales, yet the prices seen on the internet are equivalent to what the hon. Lady describes, so there is no perfect solution that has already been tried. However, we are very happy to look at the evidence, look at what might be done, and do something that is effective, rather than crowd-pleasing. That is what we are committed to doing.

The reality is that some organisers are simply much more successful than others at preventing large-scale unauthorised resales. The ticket market is clearly evolving rapidly. Our review will therefore consider evidence from businesses and platforms operating in ticketing and resale markets, as well as venues, artists, enforcers and consumers. The Government intend the review to take place over nine months, after which we will consider any appropriate further action. [Hon. Members: “You won’t be there.”] Members who are commenting from a sedentary position should beware of overconfidence.

I very much hope that hon. Members will support the Government’s position today. I especially hope that Members in both Houses will note our movement in two important areas: the Secretary of State’s approval of CMA guidance for the new digital markets regime, and secondary ticketing. These changes are considered and balanced, and I urge Members in the other place to consider their position on the other amendments that our motions today seek to reject. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have listened carefully to the arguments presented, and in response, we have made a series of significant changes where we recognise that improvements could be made. It is important that we now reach full consensus on the Bill’s final form, so that it reaches the statute book without further delay.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

First, I pay tribute to my much-loved neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who led for Labour during the last round of proceedings on the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who led for us when the Bill was introduced.

Might I say a few words about the Minister? I do love the Minister. Members sitting on the Government Back Benches will not have been able to see the little wry smile playing on his face as he made his speech. Unfortunately, Hansard is not able to record that element of the way he presented his case. I will let the House into a secret: there are two versions of the Minister, or rather the Member. There is the Back-Bench Member, who I passionately agree with on nearly everything, and then there is the Government Minister, who has the Back-Bench Member sitting inside him somewhere, but has managed to lose him while taking on corporate and shared responsibility on the Government Front Benches. I bet that if he were in the Parliament that follows the next general election, and we debated these matters all over again, he would be articulating what I am about to say almost word for word, but today, he has articulated the Government position.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Of course I will, to the right hon. Gentleman—another gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect, and with whom I occasionally disagree.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I just wonder whether the transformation that the hon. Gentleman describes, which occurs when somebody moves from the Back Benches to the Front Bench, applies equally to the Opposition and the Government.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman knows more about bobbing between the Back Benches and the Front Bench than most Members of Parliament in history, I think. It is obviously a problem; I do believe in shared responsibility of Government—we want Governments to act as a single body, and not irresponsibly—so I understand, but none the less, it is perfectly appropriate to tease the Minister when he has such a wry smile on his lips.

This Bill is a classic instance of how the Tory chaos of the past few years has been bad for Britain. It is long overdue, as the Minister said: it started in the Commons more than a year ago, on 25 April 2023, and it is so delayed that the carry-over motion had to be carried over. I cannot remember that happening for many years, but the Government had to do it last week. The Bill used to strike the right balance between the needs of different parts of the market, but the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) was absolutely right to say that many stakeholders are certainly not happy with where the Government have landed. Intense lobbying of Downing Street from some parts of the market has led to the Government tabling amendments that would fatally undermine the Bill’s purpose and make it impossible for the CMA to do the job that we want it to do, namely, ensure fair competition in digital markets in the interests of consumers, investors and wider society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

How would a tribunal consider the appropriateness of a CMA intervention without considering the detail and merit of it?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The point is that either the change is necessary because a new and different measure is being adopted by the Government, in which case it is a lower threshold and therefore inappropriate, or the change makes no difference whatsoever, in which case it is unnecessary. The normal standards for deciding whether an amendment is appropriate would lead us to ask, “Is it necessary, or does it provide a good remedy?” I do not think that either is the case, which is why Labour does not support the Government’s wording.

The second set of amendments, Lords amendments 12 and 13, deal with countervailing benefits. Just to prove that Labour Members speaking from the Dispatch Box are very consistent with one another, my next sentence was effectively said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd in a previous debate: the countervailing benefits exemption allows the Competition and Markets Authority to close an investigation of a breach of a conduct requirement if a firm can demonstrate that its anti-competitive conduct produces benefits that outweigh the harm and are therefore indispensable. On Report in the Commons, the Government significantly reduced the threshold for that exemption, removing the word “indispensable” and merely requiring that

“those benefits could not be realised without the conduct”.

It sounds the same, but it is different—subtly but importantly different. The Lords amendments would remove that paragraph and alter the next line so that it reads

“the conduct is indispensable and proportionate to the realisation of those benefits”.

I will make two points in this area. First, as I think everybody accepts, the “indispensable” standard is a well-understood concept in UK competition law: it is used in the Competition Act 1998, which I do not believe to be as outmoded as some Members have suggested. Secondly, the courts would interpret Parliament’s deliberate move away from an existing, well-understood standard as intending to create a new, lower threshold, which again will inevitably allow the big tech firms greater scope to launch complex legal challenges.

If the Government really do not see any distinction between the two thresholds, the most obvious compromise would be to reinstate the word “indispensable” alongside the Bill’s new wording and to clarify, today at the Dispatch Box and in the Bill’s explanatory notes, that the “indispensable” standard and the new form of words inserted by the Government have an identical meaning. Otherwise, there is a risk that the courts will seek to explore further whether Parliament has deliberately created a new threshold and standard.

I simply say to the Minister that I remember, when he was on the Back Benches and we had lengthy discussions about the powers of Companies House, that he was very keen on making sure that Companies House had the powers it needed to do proper investigations. He regularly made the point that lots of people have very deep legal pockets, and that does not necessarily mean that the consumer always wins out. I would argue that it is the same in this case.

Lords amendments 26 to 28 to clause 89 and Lords amendments 31 and 32 to clause 103 relate to appeals. The Bill originally had judicial review as the appeal standard for all CMA decisions under part 1, but in the Commons the Government moved to merits appeals for penalty decisions. I accept that this is only about penalty decisions, but I none the less believe that it is dangerous because, while the new regime is intended to be collaborative, it is ultimately the threat of fines that will incentivise big tech firms to comply with the CMA’s decisions. If there is no prospect of a fine, whether large or small, those large tech firms may well decide to be less collaborative.

There is the even greater danger that merits appeals on penalty decisions bleed back across the Bill into regulatory decisions, giving big tech firms greater scope to frustrate and challenge the CMA’s decisions. While it is correct that the courts are generally able to distinguish between judicial review and merits elements of appeals—that point has been made in previous debates by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)—it does not eliminate the concern about the two bleeding into each other, especially if the two streams take place together in the same case. If the Government are unable to reinstate judicial review appeals across part 1, as we would prefer, a clarificatory amendment should be inserted in the Bill to provide certainty that appeals on penalties cannot impact on other regulatory decisions to eliminate scope for speculative challenges.

It is worth bearing in mind that the chief executive of the CMA has made it clear that the authority wants the judicial review standard to apply. She welcomed effective judicial scrutiny of its decisions, but said:

“We think that the JR standard achieves that.”

She went on to say that her experience of merits appeals was that they result in

“very protracted litigation”,

making it

“a lot harder to reach constructive, collaborative outcomes”,

because

“all eyes are on that litigation process.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 7, 8, Q4.]

Let me come on to the matter of ticket touting, and Lords amendment 104. I start by thanking Lord Moynihan—a Conservative peer, of course—for tabling this amendment and for his significant work across many years. When I have not agreed with every sentence from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on this subject, I have sometimes felt the scratches on my back from her very elegant fingernails, but she has also done enormous work, and I think she is much to be praised for it. There are many others in the House of whom that is true as well, including all those sitting next to her on the back row, who I am sure will catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I start from a very simple principle: the value of a ticket—whether for the rugby, the football or a gig at the O2—is created by the artists, the promoters and, above all, the fans. Yes, the secondary ticketing market can help all three, because sometimes people buy more tickets than they need or are unable to attend for whatever reason, but the abuse of the secondary market can lead to artists, promoters and fans all losing out, and abuse is rife.

I will take an example of a case that has already been through the courts. It is that of Lynda Chenery, Mark Woods, Maria Chenery-Woods and Paul Douglas, who bought and resold concert tickets worth £6.5 million. They bought them on primary sites, including Ticketmaster, before reselling them on secondary ticketing platforms, such as Viagogo, at inflated prices. They used endless tricks, including sending customers ripped envelopes to imply that the tickets had been lost in transit or using fraud juice, which involved the use of Tipp-Ex correcting fluid or more sophisticated digital methods, to amend tickets. They held their customers in open derision. Having scammed one person into paying £535 for a ticket for the Harry Potter west end show, they referred to him in an email as “another idiot”. These people are despicable parasites preying on fans, and we need to go far further to address this issue.

This practice prices many fans out of the market and adds no value whatsoever to the creative process, at a time when creators are in desperate need of making a living out of their craft. In 2016, one ticket for Adele at the O2 arena in London was listed on GetMeIn for £24,840, which is 290 times the face value of the ticket. Nobody in the Rhondda would be to afford such a ticket. Incidentally, Wimbledon faces exactly the same set of problems.

Viagogo is today selling two tickets for Pink at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff on 11 June for £498 each. I think the fans could perfectly legitimately start shouting:

“What about us?

What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”

It is not obvious what the original price was for those tickets. On Viagogo, people can get one ticket for Peter Kay at the O2 on 4 May for £302, or tickets for “The Book of Mormon”—it has been in the theatre for several years, and is a wonderful, hilarious show—on 4 May at £420 each. In a way, the one that upsets me the most is that tickets for the ballet “The Winter’s Tale” at the Royal Opera House on 3 May—a Friday night—are £1,006 each, but people can buy those tickets from the Royal Opera House for £140, because there is taxpayer involvement in supporting the Royal Opera House.

We could say the same of StubHub, on which two standing tickets for Doja Cat in Glasgow on 11 June with a face value of £162 are selling at £1,002. This is a pernicious industry. It is parasitical, it does nothing for the creative industries in this country and we must tackle it.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I feel the fingernails.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I waited until my hon. Friend got to the end of all those disgraceful, abhorrent examples. Will he clarify for me a fallacy that the touts often put around about me and my hon. Friends—they will say the same about him? They say that we want to stop people being able to resell their tickets when they cannot go—they have bought them in good faith and genuinely cannot go. Will he clarify that that is not what any of us seeks to do? I of course want people to be able to resell their tickets, but at face value. Does he agree?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I completely agree, and that is Labour party policy. I am used to fallacies being written about me, and I have seen many written about my hon. Friend as well. I am sure we will all get over it. Incidentally, that is why, as I shall come on to say later, it is very important that we have a free press that is able to say what it wants, free from the intervention of state owners from other countries.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for somebody who has bought a couple of tickets for Saturday night and who suddenly finds that they are ill, that they have to go to a family engagement or that they have bought tickets for the wrong night to be able to sell them on at face value, or perhaps for a little bit more simply to cover the cost of administration and things like that. However, this is a market that is not working. It is an example of market failure, not an example of market success.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I feel more fingernails.

[Barbara Keeley]

My fingernails are nothing like as bad. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is actually worse than just the prices he quoted, of which he gave some really good and powerful examples, because of the selling of tickets that do not actually exist—fraudulent tickets? I have heard from a number of venues about the selling of tickets that should go to carers or young people. People are turning up at events such as those at the O2 and other venues with these tickets and being turned away, often when they have travelled to London and paid for hotels. So there is all the disappointment and the financial loss of that on top of the ticket prices.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I completely agree, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are terrible instances of all sorts of different scams, and—this is the honest truth—remarkably few prosecutions. Whether the number is two, four or five, it should be in the hundreds. [Interruption.] Six—half a dozen—great!

The truth is that we all know instances from our constituencies of people who have faced precisely these problems. I have had constituents say to me, “I feel too embarrassed to own up to having bought these tickets.” I remember going past the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, or Arms Park in the old days, and we all despised the ticket touts, just as we did outside a Kate Bush concert or whatever. Sometimes, however, we were just so desperate that we bought the tickets, and they of course turned out to be fraudulent or non-existent, or they were allocated to specific kinds of people that did not include us. All those points are worth making, and I would add this one: all local authorities have trading standards offices but many are now so depleted because of the state of local government finances that it is very difficult for anybody to get proper recompense and a deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It was your idea.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Well, we have moved on and it is about time the Government moved on—in fact I look forward to the day when the Minister moves on from Government Benches to here on the Opposition Benches. The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic, and I am glad the Minister is laughing at himself for even presenting the suggestion today.

Let me end with an area of agreement. We were glad that the Government, under pressure, tabled Lords amendment 117 on mergers involving newspaper enterprises and foreign powers along the lines of measures that we and others, including a large number of Conservative MPs and peers, had called for. Of course the UK must remain an open economy; we welcome foreign investment in many sectors in the UK. But we agree that in this limited area, the state ownership of UK newspaper and media companies must be a matter for concern, which is why we support the Lords amendment. We will need to make sure in future years that it is adequate to the situation we find, not least bearing in mind many of the comments made earlier by Members on both sides of the House regarding the rather fluid world we are moving into, where newspapers are a rather outdated concept and social media and other forms of online media are far more significant. We will keep that under review, therefore, but we welcome the amendment the Government have tabled.

This long-delayed Bill could go forward with strong, unanimous support if the Government abandoned their tilt towards the few potentially monopolistic companies and set aside their objections to the Lords amendments. Those objections are either completely otiose or they are dangerous. The Minister says they make no difference, I say they do, but on either grounds they should go, so we support their lordships in their amendments.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

May I start by saying that this was and still is a good Bill? It does an enormous number of very important things and I am glad to see that it has broad acceptance and agreement on both sides of the House, although with some minor points of disagreement. It contains many of the measures that I personally called for in my Government-commissioned review of competition policy called “Power to the people” a little while ago, and it definitely updates and makes some much-needed changes to our competition and consumer laws. However, I share some of the concerns raised today about the Government’s opposition to four of the amendments that have come back from the Lords.

I do not have worries about the Lords amendments themselves because, as we have just heard from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), they mainly seek to restore the effect of clauses that were in the Bill when it originally came to this House. What worries me is that the wrong people are clapping. The changes that the Government have made, in many cases by seeking to resist Lords amendments, seem to many people to be on the side of the big tech firms rather than on the side of consumers, of sharper competition, of more consumer choice and of standing up for the man and woman in the street. I therefore earnestly hope that the Minister will be able to channel his historical zeal for these things in his closing remarks and reassure me, and I am sure others as well, that that is not the Government’s intention and that they remain committed to those things—that the fire still burns brightly in his eyes to make them happen.

I start by saying that the Government have already done some of that work with amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 38—they have replaced the Lansley amendment with a version of their own—dealing with the amount of time that the Secretary of State can take in dealing with guidance put forward by the CMA to make sure it is not unduly delayed. That is extremely welcome and a very good measure, and I enthusiastically support it. However, we have already heard about two other things in particular. One is the role of judicial review in dealing with penalties. I share the concern that in moving away from a judicial review standard for penalties to a full merits review we may get bleed-across—that clever lawyers working for big tech firms may effectively be able to broaden the scope through clever use of legal techniques to prolong their attempts to walk backwards slowly and prevent justice from being done. I therefore devoutly hope that my good friend the Minister will be able to clarify that he expects to be able to show to us—either from the Dispatch Box now, or in guidance or another kind of clarification in due course—that it will not be possible for bleed-across to happen and he will be able to take any steps that may be needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

We are making marvellous progress and ending up with changes being confirmed on the Floor of the House in a way I do not think I have seen before, so let us keep going.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I am sure this will be an equally constructive intervention, of course.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Would it not be even more helpful if the Minister were to say he would change the explanatory memorandums as well?

[John Penrose]

I am sure the Minister will grab that opportunity in his closing remarks, if he so wishes. At least he has taken the opportunity to stand up and give us public reassurances on the record about the standard that is intended. It is clear that it is no lower than it originally was, which is an important change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Hodgson]

It absolutely is. It is not a level playing field at all. I was going to come to the bots, and the fact that nobody has yet been put behind bars for having used bots, even though they are illegal, and are the tool that touts use to harvest tickets, so that they can scam the rest of the population and all our constituents. I am happy to stand here and crowd-please—I will do it until my dying breath—because that is what we are here to do. We should do the right thing for the public, and they are calling for us to regulate this market.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I do not want my hon. Friend’s dying breath. Did she notice that the lovely Minister did not even present a single argument against any of the elements in the Lords amendment? He did not make the argument on why the Government do not support it, even though it is a patently obvious and sensible measure.

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is a good observation. To hazard a guess, the Minister probably agrees with the Lords amendment. He is a decent chap, and I think he sees the right in it, but he is sitting on the Government Benches. He is always welcome to come and join us on these Benches—it is quite a popular thing to do lately. If he wants to come over here, we will sort this out. It would be great if he was part of that, which is probably deep down what he would like to do.

All the websites that we are talking about are based outside the UK. They employ, essentially, no British staff—maybe a handful at most, but it is hard to check. They all masquerade as marketplaces where fans can buy and resell with other fans, but we know that is not true. All are dominated by large-scale online touts committing criminal offences to harvest tickets in bulk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said in his excellent intervention. That has led to a highly lucrative resale market worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

This is not small fry anymore. Face-value tickets are syphoned away from genuine fans and sold back to them at highly inflated prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said in her excellent speech that the number of touts has gone from hundreds to many, many thousands. It is getting out of proportion. This is best summed up by Chris Allison, the former deputy assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police. Following a four-year investigation of touts post the Olympics—those tickets were protected in law, as I mentioned earlier—he stated:

“Touts are part of organised criminal networks often involved in other crimes”.

In recent years, enforcement bodies such as the CMA, National Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Authority have tried, with varying degrees of success, to intervene in this broken market, either to prosecute the touts who are unlawfully defrauding music and sports lovers, or to force the ticket resale websites to comply with consumer protection legislation. And, oh my, the CMA has tried so hard to force those websites to comply, using the measures that it has to hand, which are not enough. It has even asked for further measures; as we heard in the last debate on this subject, the Government rejected that.

This has become an increasingly complex situation to sort out. That is why the Labour party is seeking to follow the examples of countries such as Ireland, France and Australia by capping the price at which tickets can be resold. Let me draw the House’s attention to my private Member’s Bill in 2011, which sought to do just that: cap resale at face value plus 10%, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), said. That would allow someone reselling tickets to reclaim extra costs, such as booking fees.

Contrary to what has been written about me over many years, I do not want to stop any fans from reselling their tickets if they can no longer go to the event. I just want the industrial-scale, parasitic scalping to stop. However, until we get to that point—and while the Conservatives are still in government—it is important that current legislation is made as effective as possible. They could ensure that now. The small measures that we are talking about do not go as far as we plan to go, but they would be a start in preventing consumer harm and making it harder for bad actors to thrive.

I support Lords amendment 104, introduced by my friend and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse Lord Moynihan, with the assistance of Lord Clement-Jones, Baroness Jones and others. We have Lord Moynihan to thank for the amendments to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that got through small measures that we hoped would be the panacea for all the problems in the secondary market, but nine years later, that Act has not fixed this broken market. That is why we need this amendment.

In the amendment, proposed new section 92A(1) of the 2015 Act would compel touts to provide proof of purchase to the ticketing facility, or evidence of title to the tickets offered for resale. That is common sense, pragmatic and cost-free. The provision would target traders and businesses only, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, would eliminate the speculative selling that is endemic on platforms such as Viagogo, and the emotional devastation and physical risk that comes with it. I have seen numerous cases of what she spoke about: people being turned away, after having travelled from one end of the country to the other at great expense, and having booked overnight accommodation. They find that they cannot get into the theatre, the O2, the concert or whatever it may be, because they have invalid tickets.

Someone wrote to me recently who got in touch with Viagogo before the event because they feared that they had an invalid ticket. They were told to try their luck on the door, regardless of the fact that it was an invalid ticket. They knew that they would be turned away at the door with this Taylor Swift ticket, but were told, “Just try your luck. If you can’t get in, we’ll give you a refund.” They would have to fight for it first, and it would take six months if they were lucky. This person was also told, “Why not sell it on? List it again, and we won’t charge you a fee.” It is outrageous that she was supposed to pass it on. I have emails between her and Viagogo to back this up. She was being encouraged to sell on a ticket that she knew was invalid, causing more victims. Those are the sorts of practices that these websites use.

In August 2022, an ITV investigation based on data from FanFair Alliance found that two thirds of festival tickets on Viagogo were fraudulently listed by just three individuals. These resellers are relatively few in number but account for 90% to 95% of the tickets sold on platforms such as Viagogo. Let us think about that: just three major touts were selling 90% to 95% of festival tickets. Other platforms, such as Gigsberg, are 100% reliant on businesses and traders, many of whom my APPG and the CMA believe are acting illegally.

Subsection (2) of proposed new section 92A would crack down on the industrial harvesting of tickets by preventing resellers from selling more tickets to an event than they can legally purchase from the primary market. That is just common sense, surely. This was first recommended by the CMA in August 2021, almost three years ago. It made the proposal after a six-year enforcement investigation that concluded, as I said, that the CMA needed “stronger laws” to tackle illegal ticket resale. This change would make it easier for genuine fans to access tickets instead of professional touts looking to make a parasitical profit.

Despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, using bots and other malicious software is illegal, touts do so without fear of prosecution, as no one has yet been prosecuted for using bots for the industrial harvesting of tickets. Artists such as Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift have repeatedly stated that they do not wish for their tickets to be touted. Artists get upset when their loyal fans blame them for not protecting them from touts, even though they do try. Both Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran have gone to great lengths to try to protect their fans from the touts.

Subsections (3) and (4) of proposed new section 92A force touts to clearly state the face value of any ticket listed for resale—again, surely that information should be provided—and to ensure

“the trader or business’s name and trading address are clearly visible, in full, on the first page the ticket is viewable on.”

The information

“must not be hidden behind an icon, a drop down menu or other device”,

which is what actually happens. The Consumer Rights Act states explicitly—these are Lord Moynihan’s reforms, which were added to the 2015 Act—that platforms must legally provide buyers with seat locations, face-value prices and restrictions, for example. They should be provided

“in a clear and comprehensible manner”

and

“before the buyer is bound by the contract for the sale of the ticket.”

Before they purchase, consumers have a right to know what they are buying, and who they are buying it from. That is in current law, but Viagogo has a track record of hiding face value behind what we call “hover text”, or small, tiny icons marked “FV”, so you have to know what you are looking for to find it. It obscures trader identities behind a tiny star icon, and only reveals a trader’s identity after the user enters their credit card details and has gone through the CAPTCHA process, so the user has often committed to buying before they know who they are buying from and what the face value is. That is in straight contravention of the 2015 Act.

On 99.9% of other websites, CAPTCHA is used to protect consumers. On Viagogo, it is used to protect the identity of its commercial suppliers—in other words, touts. Details of any ticket restrictions—for example, the information that resale is only allowed at face value—are provided in an unclear and incomprehensible manner, and are often buried in the middle of other small print, and then negated by claims about Viagogo’s “guarantee”—that is a very loose term if you are on Viagogo’s website.

Those practices are purposely misleading for most, but even more so for those who are visually impaired, tourists who do not speak fluent English, or older people without niche technical skills, who could be buying tickets for a grandchild’s birthday. I have had lots of grandparents in touch with me. As someone said—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South—they then feel stupid. I have had such a number of emails from people saying, “This is my fault. I was stupid. I should have known better. I should have checked.” We should not allow companies to exist that do this in such a big way. They say, “Buyer beware”; that is Viagogo’s motto, I think. It is probably hidden on its website. What is happening is not right, and it is up to us to protect consumers; that is what Parliament is for. We should not allow this to happen on such a scale.

Furthermore, experts involved with the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse have found that large numbers of sellers are based abroad, or have links to forms of organised crime all the way up to convicted drug dealers, money launderers and bank robbers. The secondary ticketing market is not full of “classic entrepreneurs” as a former Chancellor and former Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), would have us believe. They are serious criminals. If Members want to see when he said that, it was in 2011 when he was helping to talk out my private Member’s Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have families struggling to buy tickets for their children who are desperate to go and see x band or y band, and then they find themselves ripped off and unable to have that treat, which was massively looked forward to.

I give huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her years of dedicated campaigning in this area. Her work has helped to bring this issue to the forefront of debate, and to make it clear that legal change is necessary to protect our cultural industries and consumers from the touts. We on the Opposition Benches have a clear policy to stamp out ticket touting so that no one is able to charge a large mark-up on resold tickets.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Is it not important to emphasise that this issue needs legislation? Lots of venues have tried their level best to get it right. For instance, the O2 Arena only endorses the use of its reseller, AXS, which is only allowed to sell tickets at 10% above the original price—precisely what we are saying should be available to everybody else—but the venue cannot stop other companies effectively nicking all the tickets because of the use of bots. That is why we need legislation.

[Ms Brown]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have tried to nip this in the bud by bringing it to the public’s attention, putting pressure on individuals and encouraging action to be taken, but we need legislation to stamp it out.

I like the fact that in Labour’s proposed legislation there will be an upper limit on the number of tickets that an individual can resell, in order to make organised ticket touting an unprofitable practice. People who honestly buy tickets and then find that they cannot attend should absolutely be allowed to sell their tickets on—that is in the consumer’s interest and the best interests of our constituents—but culture and sports fans should no longer be gouged and exploited. Thankfully, there is a Lords amendment before us today that would ensure that very thing. It was put forward by none other than the Conservative Lord Moynihan. It would go some way to implementing these protections, but despite that the Government seem determined to oppose change and go no further in protecting consumers from ticket touts, even though they acknowledge that the problem persists.

Frankly, I know that my constituents will want to understand why the Government appear determined to stand in the way of greater protections even when they are being put forward by one of their very own noble Lords. Why are the Government ignoring the voices of fan organisations and creatives who want a fair, properly regulated market in event tickets? I think the Minister might have a job of work to do in convincing my constituents that this is about sound regulation rather than the failed free market ideology of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). We in this House must not forget the importance of protecting Britons from unfair practices, and we must always remember to put them first.

We know that this is far from the only area where poor regulation of our cultural and media markets poses serious risks to consumers and communities alike, so I want to say a few words about the large number of Lords amendments on the state ownership of our newspapers. I thank my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues for demonstrating leadership and pressing for action on this issue, and I welcome the Government’s amendments in the other place following those calls. It is important that there is now something like cross-party consensus on this, because we live in a world where distrust is stronger and misinformation thrives.

I know that many of us share the fear that genuine, honest journalism is becoming a rare commodity, and the impacts of that are massive right across our society. Failure to promote a trustworthy media landscape fuels conspiracy theories and extremism, and it distracts attention from the genuine, massive challenges that face us as a country and as a world. We should all fear becoming a society that is riven by division, because all our communities lose out from that. I believe that only scammers, extremists and tyrants ultimately benefit.

I am not saying that foreign state ownership of UK newspapers would lead directly to those media outlets spewing division, hate and lies, but I am seriously worried about the further impact it would have on public trust in our media. We all need to recognise the greater potential for interference in our democracy from foreign states if they own media outlets directly.

We cannot just act to block foreign state takeovers of papers—our agenda needs to be wider than that. We need to support impartial and independent public interest journalism through the BBC, including the fabulous World Service, which is so important and currently in significant financial difficulty. We need, obviously, to continue acting to improve the regulation of online social media spaces where, as we know, trust is near extinct and where so much harm is done to the most vulnerable in our communities. Amendments against foreign ownership of newspapers are only a tiny part of the solution, but they are a step forward. I welcome the action taken on this issue in the other place, which has improved the Bill.

Finally, I will speak to some of the wider amendments made in the other place to better protect consumers from scams and exploitation. As we know, the abuse of subscription services by hiding cancellation options affects people in every part of our country. People are steadily losing money, month after month, to services that they do not want but do not know how to cancel. Citizens Advice estimates that £300 million a year is being spent on unwanted subscriptions. Obviously this is of even more concern where people are not completely digitally literate, so I hope the Minister might tell us more about what work is being done to monitor and update the digital inclusion strategy. It is a bit of a shock that there has been no update for about 10 years. According to Age UK, nearly 6 million older people, including many of my constituents, cannot use the internet.

One constituent recently told me about how they missed a hospital appointment because they lost the message telling them about it. We all know that this is all too common, and that it creates unnecessary and unfair barriers to accessing so many of our public services and just taking part in everyday life.

Frankly, the examples I have seen show that anybody can be impacted, because it is often massively harder to cancel a subscription agreement than to enter one. That is just blatant and egregious, and it is difficult for any of us to navigate. Additional protections in law simply cannot come soon enough, and there is widespread recognition that greater clarity is needed in regulations. Regulators will obviously need to be more active in holding the providers of subscription services to account where they use exploitative tactics against consumers. The test is whether the Bill will deliver that.

I welcome the debate in the other place on how this will be implemented in law and, slightly unusually, I give credit to the Minister in the other place for rightly engaging with probing amendments and for seeking to maintain stronger protections for consumers. I hope the Minister here today will say more about where the Bill ultimately stands. Will the regulator have the clarity and confidence it needs to start enforcing against exploitative practices, or will we be back here in a few years after the regulations have been tested and found sadly wanting?

I argue that the lack of a clear prohibition on creating fake reviews was an omission from the original Bill. Shadow Ministers and Opposition colleagues have called for greater clarity on that since Second Reading, almost a year ago, so I welcome the measures that have now been included. In our everyday lives, when we look for goods and services online, many of us have little alternative but to rely on reviews. Fake reviews are clearly a massive threat to genuine competition, and they are effectively an open door for scammers and cowboys to rip people off further. Again, I hope the Minister might say a little more on the final position.

There was significant debate in the other place on probing amendments that questioned whether stronger provisions were needed, particularly on the responsibilities of platforms and internet service providers that host fake reviews. Is the Minister absolutely confident that those platforms are clear about the actions they must take to stop their services being abused by fake review scammers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points raised in this fruitful, constructive debate. I reassure the shadow Minister that I have lost none of my mojo or ambition to ensure a fair and level playing field for businesses. That is a vital part of this legislation. At times I may smile when I am at the Dispatch Box and there are a couple of reasons for that; not only am I generally a happy guy but I am pleased to see this groundbreaking legislation being brought into effect. It is probably one of only two major pieces of legislation around the world that does what it does. We should welcome that and the fair and level playing field that will result from it.

I do not accept what the shadow Minister says about the Government having caved in and weakened some of the Bill’s provisions. It is fair to say that some of the platforms would like us to have changed the Bill radically from how it was when it was presented to Parliament. We think we have very much held the line on its provisions and how it will ensure that consumers and smaller businesses get a better deal. We do not accept that it will bring about “bleed back”, as he puts it, between the on-the-merits provisions of penalties and other regulatory decisions. We have been clear on that and our legal advice is of the same mind.

Secondary ticketing is a key part of the debate, having been raised by various Members. We absolutely see that there is good practice in some primary markets, where there is control as to resales. We should learn from best practice, such as ID requirements on the resale of tickets. That is within the gift of those in the primary markets, so we are keen to develop the review to ensure that we look at both the primary and secondary markets, as the Opposition called for in an amendment tabled earlier in the Bill’s progress.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Cheshire cat for giving way. Does he oppose the Lords amendment on ticket touts because of the proposed new subsection stating that there needs to be “proof of purchase” for secondary ticket marketing, or because details of the “face value” of the ticket have to be provided? It is difficult to determine why the Minister opposes the Lords amendment other than because it is an inconvenience to government.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We believe that those measures, such as on the face value of the ticket, are already covered by the current legislation and enforcement. The Government have certainly gone a lot further than previous regimes have: we strengthened the terms and guidance in 2017; we banned ticketing bots—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that but did not seem to understand that it had been outlawed in 2018; and we improved enforcement action by the regulators, as we have seen six successful prosecutions under the new regime. I remind him that where other jurisdictions have supposedly gone further in banning resale, such as in Ireland, no prosecutions have taken place. We are trying to ensure that we have a balance and that our provisions work well.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will address the hon. Lady’s points in a moment, as I am keen to respond to some of them.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

If the Minister goes to the Viagogo website and tries to buy a ticket, he will see on the first page that it says the ticket is £420 or whatever. Can he see the original value of the ticket? No. Can he see whether it is a validly purchased ticket? No. That is the problem that the amendment would solve. It would be simple for the Government to agree to the amendment and then we can get the Bill through.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We believe those provisions are already there. I have quite happily used Viagogo on many occasions, as other people have when reselling tickets. Of course we will keep looking at the primary and secondary markets, and at the interaction between the two, so that we can develop the right way to regulate the market, in a future Parliament.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

As my hon. Friend says, the Post Office leadership oversaw wrongful convictions. That is one of the reasons why we have had multiple changes, and this is just the latest to ensure that we get the right leadership in place. [Interruption.] I know that some Opposition Members are dealing with this properly, but we can see from the heckling that many of them came here thinking that they could score political points, and I am not allowing that to happen.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many Members are of course angry and impatient about trying to get compensation and exoneration for all of the postmasters as soon as possible. If we are all honest, we as a whole Parliament should have been much more impatient much earlier. There are some rare exceptions to that, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who spoke earlier, and obviously Members on the Government side of the House as well. May I just clarify something about the process of Mr Staunton’s dismissal? As I understand it, he found out about it from Sky News. I think the Secretary of State just added a piece of information, which is that she then rang Sky News, before ringing him I think, to try and get them to stop running it. So she knew that this had already been leaked to Sky News, presumably from somebody in her Department. What investigation did she go through to find out who leaked it, and is that person still in post, because otherwise one might just worry that it might have been she herself who leaked it?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I knew that someone would ask that question. I in fact have evidence to show that I asked Sky News not to run the story. Of course I did not leak it—because if I had, that would have created legal risk if Mr Staunton had found out on the news before I had had a chance to speak to him. We have no idea how Sky News found out the information—several thousand people work in the Department for Business and Trade, and many more work at the Post Office and UK Government Investments. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is heckling, but the point I am making is that leaks are incredibly damaging and harmful; they create legal risk for the Department. I did not do so; I made multiple efforts with at least two media outlets to make sure that they did not create problems for Mr Staunton, and it is one of the reasons why it was very disappointing to see what he did in The Sunday Times at the weekend.

Gender Recognition

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is a good one. This is one of the things that came to light as we looked at Government policy across the board and it is an example of how the law needs updating. The reason that we have this is not that the Government supported self-ID but that before the same-sex marriage law came into being we wanted people to be able to change their legal documents so that they could get married. Now that we have a law that has fixed that, we should again look at some of the measures we put in place earlier, and that is why my hon. Friend is right to raise this. It is a Home Office issue, but I will raise it with the Home Secretary and see what we can do to repair it.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will say this as gently as I can. As a gay man, I feel less safe today than I did three years or five years ago. Why? Sometimes it is because of the rhetoric used in the public debate, including by the Minister. [Interruption.] I am afraid we are not able to have a debate. Let us have a debate; I would be very happy to debate. I am just making the point that many of us feel less safe today, and when people over there on the Government Benches cheer, as they just did, it chills me to the bone—it genuinely does.

I will ask the Minister two very simple questions. First, how many people does she think today’s decision will affect—a precise number? Secondly, she will know that there are lots of people in the UK who have entered into a same-sex civil partnership or marriage and would like that to be recognised in other countries around the world, so that they can live their lives there, wherever it may be. What has she done since being in power to ensure that more countries recognise same-sex civil partnerships and marriages?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I, too, will speak very gently. The hon. Gentleman says that my rhetoric chills him to the bone. I would be really keen to hear what exactly it is that I have said, either in this statement or previously, that is so chilling. I will tell him what chilled me. In May 2021, against official advice—I stress that officials said, “You should not have this meeting”—I met a young lady called Keira Bell, a lesbian, who told me of the horrific experience she had had at the Tavistock clinic. It was an eye-opening experience. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) talked about “transing away the gay” in his speech in Westminster Hall. We are seeing, I would say, almost an epidemic of young gay children being told that they are trans and being put on a medical pathway for irreversible decisions, and they are regretting it.

This is what I am doing for young LGBT children: I am making sure that they do not find themselves being sterilised because they are being exploited by people who do not understand what these issues are. I am saying this on the advice of clinicians and academics, because clinicians from the Tavistock clinic have been whistleblowing, talking about what these issues are. The hon. Gentleman says that he is traumatised; we are traumatised by what is happening to young children, and we will run away from this issue no longer.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Around 3,000 entities have not properly registered at this point in time. Enforcement action is being taken on them: some 100,000 communications already have gone out to those particular entities, and a number of fines have been issued—about half a million pounds in fines so far. We do not accept those numbers. We are happy to have a conversation with whoever has concerns about the legislation so far. We do not want legislation that cannot be properly enforced and implemented. It is important that we compare like-for-like to ensure this legislation is fit for purpose.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I may have misheard, but I think the Minister said that enforcement activity is going on against 100,000 companies—he will correct me when I sit down—and that there have been half a million pounds-worth of fines. That would be £5 a company, would it not?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It would be if the hon. Gentleman’s numbers were right, but that is not what I said. Three thousand entities are not currently registered, to our knowledge. Many of those will have already ceased to exist or will have disposed of the property they owned. We are trying to find out the exact numbers. That is about the enforcement action. We have had 100,000 communications with those 3,000 entities, and half a million pounds of fines so far, but those fines can rise exponentially if they continue not to comply properly with the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to rise in support of Lords amendments 146 and 147, which introduce the power to strike out SLAPPs claims in relation to instances of economic crime. SLAPPs—strategic litigation against public participation claims—are described as

“legal actions typically brought…with the intention of harassing, intimidating and financially or psychologically exhausting opponents via improper use of the legal system.”

In essence, people who have such a claim brought against them are threatened into silence. They are a tool of intimidation and censorship, often used by wealthy individuals such as Russian oligarchs or by corporations against individuals such as journalists who rarely have the financial means to fight back.

SLAPPs are not brought with the intention of participants having their day in court; they are based on the power of inequality of arms and are intended to stifle free speech, with the allegations never seeing the light of day. For the purposes of this Bill, SLAPPs claims are defined as one where the claimant’s behaviour in relation to the matters concerned has or intends to have the effect of restraining the defendant’s freedom of speech, and that any disclosures they seek to restrain have to do with economic crime or would be made in the public interest to fight economic crime.

These amendments seek to give people more protection when facing a SLAPP claim in relation to economic crime only. They will be able to use a new early dismissal mechanism and, where a case does proceed, they will have the umbrella of a new cost protection regime. This matters because costs can be prohibitive when fighting legal cases, and indeed the financial risks are intended to deter people from fighting back. However, we cannot let people who seek to silence and intimidate win.

We should be concerned that, in 2022, the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe found that the UK was the top European destination for cross-border litigation, with 15 of 62 known transnational cases over a decade being filed here. Who knows, there may be more. One of the reasons we are in this position is that the UK has no anti-SLAPP legislation, and I therefore welcome the measures that are being introduced here.

Although the Bill concentrates on economic crime only, I encourage Ministers to make it the first step in bringing a stop to SLAPPs altogether. SLAPPs are not just a threat to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, they seek to stop so many other disclosures that are in the public interest.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing, I am committed to protecting and empowering people who speak out. I have been pushing for legislative change to ensure that people feel able, safe and supported to make disclosures that are in the public interest. Whistleblowers, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, are pivotal in the fight against economic crime and fraud, with almost half of all fraud detected by whistleblowers. Because economic crime is often well hidden and difficult to trace, discovering it requires insiders to speak out and share their knowledge.

Take, for example, the £178 billion Danske Bank money laundering scheme, which was exposed only as a result of a whistleblower who had worked in the bank’s trading unit and who raised concerns about breaches of anti-money laundering procedures in its Estonian branch. His internal reports ignored, he turned to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Once allegations made the news headlines, Danske Bank itself ordered an investigation that confirmed the whistleblower’s claims.

Although a worker may seek protection at an employment tribunal, journalists, who are often the target of SLAPPs, are not recognised as whistleblowers under UK law, and they are therefore afforded no protection. Yet due to the investigative nature of their work, they are among the most likely to acquire inside information and evidence of wrongdoing. At the moment our whistleblowing legislation, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, applies only to workers and is meant to protect them from unfair dismissal or detriment at work that may result from their whistleblowing. Whistleblowers such as journalists, who fall outside our current laws and are prey to SLAPPs, will find support with these amendments where their disclosure relates to economic crime.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with everything the hon. Lady has said about SLAPPs and the importance of journalists effectively acting as an additional regulator, but they need the information. Does she also support the amendments that would ensure trusts cannot be a means of hiding information from journalists and others who might want to be able to reveal it?

[Mary Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point forward. As we know, this is about investigative journalists who want to get in there and get the information. Transparency is in the name of the Bill, which may answer his question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The Government are insisting that we should keep the real ownership of trusts secret, and the problem journalists have is that there is not a proper exemption to enable them to find out the ownership that lies behind a trust.

[Mary Robinson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. The important thing is that journalists do not find themselves called before the courts through SLAPPs and this type of litigation, and that is the point we are trying to make here. I am sure the Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman.

As has been said, SLAPPs are used to silence and cover up. To effectively root out economic crime, it is right that we address their use, but I think the Government can go further still by reforming the UK’s whistleblowing laws. In doing so, we could encourage more people to come forward with evidence of economic crime, secure in the knowledge that the system is on their side. We must have a system that recognises any person as a potential whistleblower, not just an employee, as our current legislation does. We must have a system that values whistleblowers, not one that ignores or punishes them. We must have a system that makes whistleblowers feel supported and valued.

I know the Government are currently reviewing the UK’s whistleblowing framework, and I will continue to push for the reform we need. Meanwhile, these amendments are an important step forward, and I am pleased to support them.

UK Concussion Guidelines for Grassroots Sport

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on UK concussion guidelines for grassroots sport.

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

The UK concussion guidelines for grassroots sport mark an important step in making sport safer for millions of people. Taking part in sport has many benefits. It is great for people’s physical and mental health, and it brings friends and communities together. We want to protect that and encourage more people to enjoy being active and play a sport.

As I set out in my written ministerial statement published today, the vast majority of people participate in sport safely, but head injuries do occur. We want to reduce the risks associated with concussion and make sport even safer for everyone. Research has shown the importance of fast, effective, tailored treatment, and we are issuing this expert guidance to help people spot and treat head injuries. Our guidance is a tool for the thousands of people who enjoy sport at the grassroots level. Whether it is used in a local leisure centre during a swimming lesson or in the second innings of a village cricket match, this landmark guidance has the chance to make a real difference to people across the UK.

The guidance was developed by a world-leading panel of medical experts, and I am grateful to the whole expert group for giving so freely of their time while drafting the guidance. I pay tribute to the efforts of the group and to the valuable input of the Sport and Recreation Alliance, which has worked tirelessly to produce this excellent guidance. All that builds on the world-leading work conducted in Scotland by raising UK-wide awareness of the issue of concussion and making sport safer for all who take part. Fundamental to the guidance is an overriding simple message:

“If in doubt, sit them out.”

Finally, this guidance is an essential but first step. The Government remain committed to working with the industry to help to make sport safe and enjoyable for everybody, including on technological solutions and the prevention of concussion.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Chris Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for granting this urgent question.

Sport is indeed good for us, but as we have seen from countless footballing legends and rugby league and union players, repeated sporting concussions and sub-concussive events can lead to depression, anxiety, suicide and early-onset dementia. I have seen tough men weep and heard from sporting stars with no memory of their victories and triumphs. I am therefore delighted that the Government have worked hard to produce these guidelines. I pay tribute to Professor James Calder and the team, to the Minister and to Dawn Astle, Alix Popham, Steve Thompson and Peter Robinson, who have campaigned for all this to happen.

However, I do have some concerns. These guidelines rightly say:

“If in doubt, sit them out.”

That is what to do after a brain injury on the pitch, but what are we going to do about preventing brain injuries in the first place? Should we not look at further limiting youngsters heading the ball in football and curtailing rugby training sessions that include tackling? Why is there no reference to multiple concussions? Surely a young person who suffers two or more concussions in a 12-month period must be referred to a specialist. Why is there no recommendation that medical approval be sought before a return to play? That is weaker than the Scottish guidance. How do the guidelines align with existing ones, such as in boxing and equestrianism?

What about elite sport? The sporting bodies have shown a shocking disregard for the health of their own professional players for far too many years. If they do not act, should we not legislate for a duty of brain injury care? How can we ensure we get reliable statistics on brain injury in sport when nearly one in five rugby league players say that they deliberately did not report a concussion last year lest they be not allowed to play?

How do we get schools to understand concussion and brain injury better? Would it not be better to say “brain injury” rather than “concussion” because that is what it actually is? How can we ensure far greater co-ordination of research into concussion in sport, for instance through saliva tests and new generations of mouthguards, and especially into concussion in women’s sport? Are we sure that we have enough rehabilitation services for those with more serious injuries?

Brain injury is a hidden epidemic. We cannot normally see it. Let us do everything we can to prevent brain injuries, spot them, understand them, treat them and give people back the best possible quality of life.

[Stuart Andrew]

First of all, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all his work in this area. He has been a passionate advocate and campaigner, and I welcome all the further work that he is doing with those across Government. He is right to mention many campaigners who have been working hard in this area.

Prevention is important, which is why the guidelines will go out through all sports’ national governing bodies. We want them to go out to schools, so that teachers and medical professionals all have them. The advice in the guidance has been led by senior medical experts—I am not a medical expert so I am relying on their advice. I note the hon. Gentleman’s point that it perhaps looks weaker than Scotland’s guidance, but the professor involved with the Scottish guidelines has been instrumental in these, and has learned a lot of lessons from their publication.

The hon. Gentleman has raised with me the terminology of “brain injury” or “concussion”. The reason “concussion has been used is that it is more broadly understood among the grassroots organisations. We are trying to reach millions of people through the guidelines. I assure him that they are just the first step, as I said in my opening comments. I will continue to raise this issue with all the national governing bodies—I had a summit with them just last week to talk about it. We will ensure that sport is held to account to look after all players who take part.