---

Ticket Touting

I shall take my reprimands like a boy. When it came to this report, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, really should be sitting with Government Members despite his impeccable Thatcherite past. He was practically a socialist compared to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I think that you, Mr. Weir already have an idea why, of all our inquiries, this was the longest drawn-out, even though it was supposed to be a one-day inquiry. I think that we have had more drafting sessions on this report than on any other. If we get away from the hyperbole of the hon. Member for Shipley, the essence of this debate is about the example of Harvey Goldsmith, which was given by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford. Was Harvey right or wrong to try to restrict sales and enforce those restrictions in the way that he did and, if he was right, should the Government, by the introduction of a voluntary code or legislation, give him a bit of a helping hand in future? That is the essential question and the hon. Member for Shipley did not pronounce on it, because his opposition is much more fundamental. He does not really want the state involved in anything, which raises a further question about whether organisations such as the OFT, which has today won a case against the banks on overdraft charges, should exist in the first place. However, that is a much wider question than the issue covered by this debate. We had a Committee that was composed of genuine music fans. We had a Chairman, the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, whose bedroom is, I imagine, a veritable shrine to Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath; I am not so close to him that I have been to his bedroom, so I can only imagine that that is the case. We had the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), who runs his own Friday night radio music programme for the elderly down there in his constituency and I do not imagine that it just consists of easy listening. I myself hope to go and see Bruce Springsteen, in a marriage of sport and music at the Emirates stadium, at the end of May, Harvey Goldsmith permitting; that is if he does not bar me from the ground and the event because we did not meet his expectations in the report. Of course, other members of the Committee are heavily involved in sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Alan Keen), who is the chair of the all-party group on football, cannot be here today, but he is still playing at the age of 70 in the same parliamentary football team as myself, the Minister and the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I will declare other interests: I am the secretary of both the all-party group on rugby union and the parliamentary rugby team. The hon. Member for Shipley is also on the Committee. He is a cricketer, who largely believes in an untrammelled free market, where everyone has a God-given right either to make a profit or, as some would say, a fast buck. Every report is a compromise; not everyone gets what they want. As a result, for instance, Mr. Goldsmith, who gave so much helpful evidence to the Committee, has actually taken the view that it is ““a plague on all your houses, and you are all a waste of space””. However, I assure him that, had he been here today and sampled the flavour of this debate, or had he been in all the sittings of our Committee and seen the exchanges, he might differ from that view and feel that some people were more on his side than not. We could have constructed a doctoral thesis out of our sittings—on perfect and imperfect markets. However, we agreed on some things, including that there were valid concerns in some areas about ticket touts and ordinary fans' access to tickets for high-profile events at fair prices. The reason was not because of the activities of the traditional ticket touts outside venues, as described by the Chairman of the Select Committee, but because of the rise of the internet, which helps the industry in terms of its marketing reach and facilities, and also gives sophisticated individuals and groups the opportunity instantaneously to snap up great swathes of tickets and then pass them on, with collusion or otherwise, to so-called secondary sellers such as eBay, Seatwave, Get Me In! and viagogo, to mention some of the bigger names, who then sell them on at highly marked-up prices. The real concern, given the rise of the internet, is that if I apply for a ticket for an event, do I have a realistic chance—one in four, one in 10—of actually getting one, or, with time and the activities of people who have no intention of going to the event, do my odds become diminishingly small? I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley understands that concern, as he used to be a bookie. Before dealing with the Government response, I wish to highlight a couple of areas where I wanted our report to be a little stronger. In paragraphs 35 and 37, we address the fundamental issue of whether a ticket is a commodity like a house—that was one of the examples that was used—or whether it is different, and whether it confers rights and responsibilities after the sale. I take the latter view. The example is followed in respect of transport tickets, such as those for airlines and rail and even down to the tube travelcard. In the end, the Committee did not favour that view. We had a vote, and it was the one occasion when the hon. Member for Shipley won. Some of the Members were so tired that they wanted to throw him a bone or two, and the result was four to three. However, had the Chairman voted—he was itching to do so—I suspect that the vote would have been a draw. I shall not invite the hon. Member for Shipley to call me a bad loser, but I think that the jury is still out on that. I would have liked much more protection for major events, on the basis of the crown jewels list. I am very glad that, in the Government response, there is an inching towards recognition that there are significant events of national importance for which some protections might be more in order. I recognise the problems that that would present for the music industry. The list would be dominated by sports events, and it would be guaranteed to drive Mr. Goldsmith apoplectic with rage, but the sports industry is rather different: it does not have the latitude to stage another cup final to cope with demand, whereas it is possible to stage another Bruce Springsteen concert. That frequently happens in the music industry. There is a qualitative difference that might give some justification for a crown jewels list, even though it may be dominated by sporting fixtures. There is a basis for that. Football has its own regulations, which were designed to address crowd disorder. When we were conducting the inquiry, we did not have people from the football industry clamouring for a great change to make tickets more freely available through internet secondary sellers so that more people could get hold of them. That situation seems to work. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) said, we now have the Olympics 2012 legislation, which was extended from legislation for the Commonwealth games. The justification for it is to stop profiteering, and we will face further demands for such legislation in the future. How many times can the sporting industry come back to the House of Commons? It may be a precondition, for example, of our successfully winning the 2015 rugby world cup or future world cups. As it was, I decided not to advance an amendment because I preferred a 0-0 draw and to leave the question open. I am glad that the Government have filled the void to a certain extent in their response. Despite all the divisions, the Committee found that certain practices of secondary sellers were distasteful. They are not the angels that the hon. Member for Shipley portrays. Indeed, he agreed that we should urge the Government to look at three particular areas. One was the selling of free tickets, often for charity events. The second was the selling on of reserved tickets for particular groups such as the disabled and children. The third was the selling on of tickets that were reserved in allocations for ordinary grass roots members of amateur sports clubs. That is explicitly reflected in the report, and I shall address it towards the end of my remarks. I worked for The Observer before I came into the House. When I looked at the news pages on the weekend and saw a piece written by a former colleague, Gaby Hinsliff, who is the political editor, my heart jumped. I knew that the Minister was sympathetic—probably much more sympathetic than his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, was when she was in the Department of Trade and Industry—to a tougher line and to more help for the crown jewels, for example. I knew that the Secretary of State, who is a keen footballer, was more sympathetic as well, so I thought that, with the article, I would be 4-3 down at the end of our report, but that it was only half-time. I had the Chairman, potentially, and two Ministers, so the final score would be 6-4, and I had visions of the hon. Member for Shipley mounting the rostrum to collect his loser's medal. However, I worked on Sunday newspapers long enough to recognise an overwritten article when I see one, so I waited for the Government response the following day. I welcome the Government response. It does more than inch in the right direction. It recognises the concerns, but, based on some of the evidence that was given to us, I suspect that Ministers are up against a brick wall, given the attitudes of some civil servants, not least those in the former DTI, where I suspect some Ministers are simply captured, but I shall not name names. The Minister used to be a consumer affairs Minister, so he will know very well what I am talking about. In many respects, much as I welcome the tone of the Government response, I would like more substance, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide more later. Like The Observer article, there is a lot of great wrapping but I want to see the present from the Minister underneath. I would like to make a few remarks on some aspects of our report and the Government response. First, on the voluntary code, I agree that legislation should be the last resort. I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley that legislation has to be well thought through, as it can often have unforeseen outcomes, particularly if there is a blanket approach to specific abuses. However, as I said, we do have legislation to protect the 2012 Olympics. It is an irony to many people in the sporting sector in particular, and to people such as Mr. Goldsmith, that we will have protection for events such as handball, volleyball and synchronised swimming, which are far less popular than the six nations, a cup final or the Wimbledon final. The Government say that they will discuss the development of a voluntary code of principles with key stakeholders. The response states that"““STAR””—" the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers—"and the OFT are close to agreement on the draft model terms and conditions.””" That does not really take us any further than we were when we conducted the inquiry. In fact, the draft code was due to be produced by the Office of Fair Trading last August, so I would like to get a feel from the Minister on progress. If it is not possible to agree a draft code—I understand that the secondary ticketers are completely in opposition—what will be the next step? The Government have made some noises that there may need to be action down the line if they cannot get a voluntary code. I welcome that, but I would like to get a better feel for what might be intended in substance. The Chairman mentioned that one way the regulators might show some teeth is to threaten a test case if the secondary ticketers do not come to the table and properly agree a voluntary code. When I was talking to John Fingleton, the chief executive of the OFT, in front of the Committee, I used the example of the banking industry. The OFT had already taken a test case on credit card charges, and people were crying out for it to move on the banking sector on overdraft charges. There was a precedent for doing so. Paradoxically, a couple of weeks after our session, the OFT opened a test case against the banks on overdraft charges, which it won today. I will obviously claim credit for that, but as far as the OFT is concerned we have got to the position where, as the Government's response says:"““If in the event a voluntary agreement within the ticketing industry is not reached, the OFT would need to consider the appropriateness of any court action at that time, according to the principles of proportionality and””—" here's a new one—"““administrative priority.””" The OFT is saying publicly, ““Actually, this is not at the top of our agenda. We've got far more important things to do, what with the banks and the construction industry.”” That is all very well, but it does not actually say that because it would be signalling that it has no teeth, and would not use them anyway, and has no willingness to bite. That is a mistake, in terms of encouraging the industry to sign up to a code.