Proceeding contribution from Philip Davies (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 October 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Canterbury City Council Bill.
Canterbury City Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I know that he is a great champion of his constituency, and he knows his local area better than I do—indeed, better than anybody else in the House. I certainly do not dispute his point. My point is that the provision seriously strays from those in the other Bills. If Canterbury decides to regulate touting, that will drive a coach and horses through the whole secondary ticketing market. Our Select Committee decided to hold an inquiry into the subject, and it found that it was a legitimate market. I repeat that the Government, too, found that it was a legitimate market. It is one thing for people to sell their wares on the street, or to sell balloons outside shops, as we have heard, but tickets are quite another thing. If somebody buys a ticket to an event, it is theirs and they can do what they will with it. If they wish to sell it on to somebody else, so that that person can visit the attraction in question—the cathedral, in the case of Canterbury—that is a matter for them. I do not understand why Canterbury needs to interfere in the secondary ticket market; that seems to be a million miles away from the purpose of the other measures in the Bill. I do not know about the issues relating to Canterbury cathedral, but if somebody buys a ticket to go to the cathedral, decides at the last minute, quite legitimately, that they cannot go, and sells the ticket on to somebody else, I do not see what business it is of the local council, or of the House for that matter. That is a completely different issue from that of pedlars. Many people, including tourists, may perfectly legitimately have bought a ticket to an event that they can no longer attend. Why on earth should they lose out because Canterbury city council has decided of its own volition that it will start sticking its nose into the secondary ticket market? I do not see the purpose of including that element in the Bill, whatever the merits of the provisions relating to peddling in Canterbury. I do not know whether they are a good or a bad thing; I am happy to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on that subject. However, it is a totally different matter when we start interfering in ticket-touting.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 481 c990-1
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Canterbury City Council Touting Street trading Canterbury
- Legislation
- Canterbury City Council Bill 2007-08 to 2012-13
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:15:43 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504400
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504400
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_504400