PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Secondary Ticketing Market - 24 October 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the secondary ticketing market.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I am delighted to see so many other Members who have long campaigned on this issue, including my north-east colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and I look forward to her contribution. I also thank organisations such as the FanFair Alliance for their hard work on this matter, and the Co-operative party for its End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign.

Live sport, music and entertainment brings joy to millions of people every single week. Whether it is watching their favourite team or going to a gig, concert or play, people save up for events, wait in online or telephone queues and eagerly anticipate games and shows. I am sure that that is something just about everyone in this country has experienced, and we can all think back to our favourite game, gig, concert or play. They are memorable events that we remember for decades—moments shared with friends, family or partners that last a lifetime. Members need not worry—I will not go around the room and ask everyone about their first gig or their favourite one, or about that live sporting fixture that lives with them forever.

Growing up, my friends and I would save our pocket money or our paper round money, and we would queue up at local music shops such as Pet Sounds to get tickets to gigs, generally at the local universities. As true millennials, we got to see loads of our favourite punk bands—NOFX, Bowling for Soup, and Spunge being just a few. For those who think that punk is just a phase, I am looking forward to the Tour of the Setting Sum farewell tour by Sum 41 next week.

These are formative moments and cherished memories, but for everyone who gets to enjoy them, there are those who have missed out—those who were not able to secure tickets and make those memories. Far too often, those consumers are then left at the mercy of what is the topic of today’s debate—the secondary ticketing market. The issue profoundly affects music and sport fans, event-goers and the integrity of our live entertainment industry, but it appears to be inadequately addressed by current regulatory frameworks. People understand that they will not always get a ticket to the show, gig or game, but they feel a real sense of injustice at the scale of secondary ticketing platforms, with tickets often appearing just moments after people have attempted to purchase them. While allowing a space for those tickets to be resold is important, it is also important that that is not to the detriment of consumers.

The industry is vast, with one in five tickets ending up on secondary platforms, so the need for education and measures to protect consumers is becoming increasingly clear. Recent findings from O2 show that consumers lose an estimated £145 million each year due to inflated resale prices, which are pricing many out of the events and experiences they love. A study by ITV News and the FanFair Alliance found that over two thirds of resale tickets for 174 festivals and outdoor events were being offered by just three traders, who collectively sought to profit by almost £1 million.

Earlier this year, it was reported that two prolific touts were jailed after buying tickets for high-profile gigs and reselling them on secondary sites for up to 500% of their original cost, with the scheme being worth more than £6.5 million. Worryingly, with technology, the issue is becoming more and more prevalent. In just six weeks, O2 prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform, with those tickets almost guaranteed to end up on resale sites and other people losing out. I will touch a little later on the practice of ticket harvesting, and while some progress has been made to prevent it, new technologies and techniques continue to circumvent the measures in place.

With that as a backdrop, is it any wonder that research from the FanFair Alliance found that 80% of respondents believe that secondary ticketing services are unfairly exploiting fans? Practices such as drip-feeding, surge pricing and strategic holdbacks create a precarious environment for consumers, and concerns have been raised about practices that manipulate supply and demand, driving up prices and creating artificial scarcity. Shockingly, between 30% and 50% of tickets may be withheld from public sale, leading to heightened frustration among genuine fans who simply want to attend events. As the cost of attending events increases, it is ultimately fans who are missing out. We cannot allow a situation where genuine fans are priced out of culture, art and entertainment because of these practices. We are already at a stage where too many fans opt out of trying to attend events, dispirited by the existing landscape, with little chance of seeing their team, group or artist at what would be the normal asking price. Again, at the heart of this is people—consumers—who are missing out. Due to enhanced costs, they cannot attend the gig or event they have dreamed of.

What do consumers have to navigate at the moment? As I have said, ticket harvesting, surge pricing and a concerning transparency deficit. Ticket harvesting—where individuals or groups use automated software and bots to acquire large quantities of tickets during primary sale—is preventing fans from accessing culture at an industrial scale. As mentioned earlier, O2 indicated that it prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform in just six weeks. Similarly, FanFair found platforms where people bragged about the extent of their exploits. Members of a Discord group were able to purchase up to 1,700 tickets to an upcoming tour next year, with the tickets then being sold at enhanced prices, and fans paying the price. Those alarming statistics highlight the scale of the problem.

We have all heard what this can lead to. Whether it is tickets to major concerts, Eurovision or other events, I am sure everyone has seen and heard the stories. The latest hot tickets go live, and within minutes they are listed on secondary platforms at significantly inflated prices. To give one example, after the swift sell-out of Eurovision tickets in 2023, tickets resold for upwards of £9,000—more than 20 times their initial price. That kind of price gouging creates an environment where only the wealthiest fans can afford to attend popular events, alienating loyal supporters and pricing them out of culture.

Turning now to transparency in the market, consumers deserve clear and accurate information regarding who is selling tickets, how many are available and the pricing structures involved. One of the most pressing issues is the information gap that exists on secondary ticketing platforms. When consumers purchase tickets, they often receive insufficient details regarding their authenticity, the identity of the seller and the potential risks involved. Enhanced transparency is crucial to enable fans to make informed decisions. At the moment, it is unclear what exactly the secondary ticket market is, with research showing that 62% of music fans purchasing from resale platforms do not realise they are buying from individual sellers, creating confusion for many. In the best-case scenarios, we hear of fans having to meet people in car parks for handovers of tickets; at worst, the tickets do not exist.

Greater transparency would play a pivotal role in educating consumers about the risks of ticketing, and especially the practice of speculative selling, where tickets are listed that do not exist or are not available. That practice can lead to dire consequences, with fans thinking they have secured tickets, only to find that they have been misled. Investigations have uncovered instances where tickets worth more than £1 million were speculatively advertised online. Despite consumers being assured that protections are in place, it appears that some sellers remain able to circumvent protections, with the consumer paying the price and experiencing the double whammy of missing out and losing out financially.

Fans, whether at sports events, gigs or other events, should be at the heart of events, yet current practices lead to disillusion among fans and a disconnect with those they support and the sector more widely. Inflated prices leave loyal fans priced out of attending live events they once enjoyed, with the prohibitive cost of attending eroding the connection between fans and artists. Trust among fans is another casualty; when fans feel they are being exploited, their trust in both the industry and the teams or artists involved is eroded. Anger at missing out can be directed at those acts or teams, with allegations that they are complicit in a system that excludes ordinary fans, when this is largely through no fault of their own.

We have seen many recent examples where fans have expressed upset at the initial difficulty of getting a ticket and then at the surge pricing and instant relisting on secondary platforms. When tickets are resold at an inflated price, that does not benefit the artist or the venue. Instead, the profits are siphoned off, removing crucial funding from cultural communities. We know that artists rely on ticket sales as a significant portion of their income, especially in an era when traditional revenue streams such as album sales have dwindled due to streaming services. The success of a tour can hinge on the ability to sell tickets at a fair price, and unfair practices undermine the economic viability of live performances. So this is about protecting not just consumers, but entertainment more widely and making it more accessible.

So what is currently in place to protect consumers and the sector? Well, there is regulation and enforcement from a number of organisations: the Competition and Markets Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, trading standards and, in some cases, the police. The CMA published a comprehensive report in 2021 that outlined recommendations aimed at curbing detrimental practices in the ticketing market. Among them was a call for stronger measures against ticket resellers who exploit fans with excessive prices. The CMA’s investigation revealed that a significant portion of tickets listed were being sold at inflated prices on secondary platforms.

The previous Government were hesitant to implement all the CMA’s recommendations, which included further proposals. However, there have been recent changes in regulations in this area, with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and we have taken a significant step forward. There has been an expansion of the CMA’s investigation and enforcement powers, allowing for direct action against non-compliant reselling platforms. Additionally, the Act will enable the CMA to enforce existing rules, addressing a long-standing concern over the lack of transparency and ensuring that consumers have access to clear and accurate information. The previous Government could have gone further, but held back from embracing some of the reforms, which could have further strengthened consumer protections. I am pleased that the new Labour Government have already confirmed that a new consultation will take place and that we will revisit the recommendations.

As a proud Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I am delighted that the party has launched a new consumer campaign on this issue. The End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign highlights the fact that, whether it is dynamic pricing way above face value or fans being frozen out of culture, the party movement has always had consumers at the heart of it, standing up for consumers and helping to deliver everything from the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. I really welcome the latest campaign, alongside a petition that has already been signed by thousands calling for strong powers to stop fans being taken advantage of and to protect them from being exploited by touts and resale sites.

I know that the Government are setting up the consultation as we speak and that it will involve not only DCMS but the Department for Business and Trade. I hope that it provides a real opportunity to look at all options to take action that can fundamentally transform the ticketing landscape for fans, artists and the integrity of the market and to enhance consumer protection, ensure fair access to tickets and mitigate the current issues faced.

Campaigners have raised concerns about whether the current regulatory framework is being enforced. Following high-profile cases, the CMA has opened investigations, but the problem is far more prevalent. Will the Minister comment on how we can better use current legislation to provide protections to consumers? The Co-operative party has been campaigning for much tougher enforcement action against platforms hosting ticket touts. Where websites continuously exploit fans, could the use of fines and the removal of websites entirely be considered to strengthen the protection of fans?

Much as the Co-operative party has long been a movement for the consumer, access to arts and culture is a Labour value. It is why our trade union movement adopted the bread and roses slogan from the American suffrage movement. Life should not be just about the basics—food, housing and wages—but about the roses too. For too many at the moment, culture is becoming inaccessible because of a trade that relies on the exploitation of enjoyment, buying up excessive numbers of tickets before real fans have a chance, and reselling them at extortionate prices. I am sure that the Minister agrees that culture enriches lives, that it should be open to people and that fans should not be priced out due to a secondary ticket market. Can he reassure me that that will be at the heart of what we do as part of the consultation?

To conclude, although this matter may not be at the top of the list of things impacting on people across the country, it is important in demonstrating our values. Culture should be available to all and not just the privileged few. Live entertainment should not be in the purview only of those who are able and willing to pay extortionate prices. People already save up for the cost price to access events; they should not be made to pay multiples of that. A system that allows ticket harvesting, surge pricing and tickets being resold at multiple times their original value excludes people from the enjoyment of a gig, sporting event or show. Those actions freeze people out of enjoyment and take away their chance of having the special, memorable moments that live entertainment can bring, whether that is music or sport.

As the great Newcastle United manager Bobby Robson once said of football and our beloved Newcastle United,

“What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It’s not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city. It’s a small boy clambering up stadium steps for the very first time, gripping his father’s hand, gawping at that hallowed stretch of turf beneath and, without being able to do a thing about it, falling in love.”

Everyone deserves that opportunity to fall in love. I hope we can work to protect fans and end the ticket rip-off.

I thank the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this important debate. She said secondary ticketing might not be at the top of everyone’s list, but it is incredibly important. It is one of those things that we do not know anything about until we become victims of it. I became a victim of it: I bought tickets to a concert in good faith. I then thought my parents might like to come along so I bought a second set of tickets. When we got to the venue, it turned out that my parents’ tickets had been duplicated. The other people had already got into the venue, so their tickets were invalid. The venue sorted it out and thankfully my parents got to see the concert, as did I. But that was 12 years ago at Sting’s Back to Bass tour at the Hammersmith Apollo in 2012, and frankly very little has changed since then. If anything, I would say the situation has got worse for consumers because we are seeing more sophisticated technology with the advent of bots that easily scrape up tickets from across websites.

It is not just the technology but the secondary ticketing platforms that employ the unscrupulous methods in the first place. I would also throw into the mix the primary ticketing platforms, which often release tickets in a way that is not transparent for the consumer and makes it difficult for people to understand where they can buy tickets. The rush on a Friday morning, when tickets still tend to be released, means people scramble for tickets, which pushes the price up and up. It makes it very difficult for consumers to understand what the best way to buy tickets is, and there is a lot of misinformation out there on the market.

The hon. Member talked about music and other cultural events, and rightly so—I completely agree with her on that—but it is important to recognise that this is not just about music and culture. It is also about sports, although we could say sports are part of culture as well. A lot of people argue that it is all just supply and demand: “People wouldn’t pay 20 times the face value if the tickets weren’t worth that.” But there is a very good reason why many sporting activities want to keep prices down: they want to keep the fans and players of the future—in child form—coming along with their parents and growing a love for the game. Rugby, for example, is keen on enticing families to come and watch games because they know that the children who come with their families are the players and fans of the future. They are looking at longevity—something that does not always exist in the music market. It is important to remember that this is not just about fans: it is about a long-term view of what our live events industry needs.

It is not just individuals reselling tickets. The police’s Operation Podium during the 2012 Olympics uncovered the fact that lots of organised crime networks were profiting from ticket reselling, raking in millions upon millions of pounds. It is a very serious, industrial-scale business for organised crime gangs.

Ticket reselling is not just a British problem. We have seen over many years that it happens elsewhere. I have heard of train tickets in India and hospital appointments in China being bought and sold in this way. It is a multibillion-pound industry, but we have the opportunity at least to change the relevant legislation to try to make things better in this country. It has taken far too long to get to this point. We need to give the CMA more powers and we need to give more funding to National Trading Standards.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this important debate. I am glad to hear that she is as passionate as I am about sorting out this broken market. I am happy to see the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism in his place. We have been on quite a journey together to get to this point and I very much look forward to him fixing all these wrongs in due course.

A lot has happened in the campaign to regulate the secondary ticketing market since I first introduced my private Member’s Bill on the topic back in 2010, which was before the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) suffered the problems she did in 2012. The problem would have been sorted if the then Member for Shipley had not talked out my private Member’s Bill. However, because of constant lobbying by yours truly and the growing scourge of parasitic touts becoming increasingly sophisticated and ruthless, the new Labour Government have decided to act, as we promised we would in our manifesto.

We now have the watershed opportunity to create the change we desperately need. Over many years in this place we have tried to regulate the market. We have tweaked legislation, first with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to bring in more transparency because it was said that that was what was needed. But that did not work. Then, with the successful Ban the Bots campaign, we secured an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill in 2017. However, that did not work either: we know that the use of bots and the profits of those using bots for sales are exploding. For a recent Sabrina Carpenter ticket pre-sale of just 10,000 tickets, there were 380,000 bots in the queue attempting to harvest them.

Research published last month by O2, which sells 1 million tickets per year through its priority scheme, estimates that touts cost British music fans an extra £145 million a year, but I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg. That money is taken from the back pockets of UK audiences and deposited into the bank accounts of offshore retail platforms and the touts who supply their inventory.

Despite uncontrolled touting taking place on an industrial scale, with tickets resold through sites such as Viagogo—there is that name on my lips again—prosecutions were few and far between under the last Government. Led by National Trading Standards, the precedent-setting convictions of just two groups of ticket touts worth millions of pounds each should have opened the floodgates to more action against those who flout the law and use platforms like Viagogo to put profits before fans, but sadly they have not, because resources have run dry. There has not been a single prosecution under the Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018 and nor have there been any prosecutions for using bots under the Digital Economy Act 2017, despite our securing the Ban the Bots amendment.

The details of the prosecutions are extraordinary, with touts fraudulently acquiring tens of thousands of tickets and then reselling them through websites such as Viagogo and GetMeIn—which does not exist any more—that were not compliant with UK consumer law. In both cases, it was strongly suggested that the resale platforms were complicit in the touts’ illegal activities.

Incredibly, although the touts were prosecuted and jailed, the resale platforms faced no such sanctions. They kept their cumulative 25% service fees from the illegal transactions—if we do the numbers, we see that means millions of pounds—and they continue to profit from further illicit trading. Where are all the illegal proceeds of crime? Why have they never been recovered?

As the CMA highlighted in 2021, this remains an unregulated market where stronger laws are desperately needed to protect audiences. As stated in the 2016 Waterson review, changes must include properly funding National Trading Standards, which, despite having a budget of only just under £15 million and so much more than just ticket abuse to look at, is the only body to have successfully prosecuted touts. Sadly, despite the mountains of evidence that campaigners such as Adam from FanFair Alliance and myself have provided the CMA with, it has carried out no such prosecutions and is in desperate need of clearer ministerial oversight. I hope that the Minister takes note of that point in particular.

We can see that legislation to outlaw resale for profit or to cap resale prices works in other countries. This is a golden opportunity to ensure that UK audiences receive similar protections and enjoy a capped, consumer-friendly and ethical resale market that works in their interests. Companies such as Viagogo pretend to be legitimate businesses, but the resales are not from fan to fan: they are absolutely dependent on touts committing criminal offences to harvest tickets on an industrial scale then resell them through the website. Citing research from FanFair Alliance just last month, which looked at all the Viagogo listings for 28 shows over the past year at Liverpool’s main mid-size venue, the 1,200-capacity O2 Academy, I can tell hon. Members that only one ticket was listed by a consumer.

This very morning, Sam Fender shows went on sale —we all know him from my region—including a gig in Newcastle’s Utilita arena. Coming from the north-east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth and I do, we know that Sam’s shows are highly sought after. It is a balloted event, with four tickets per person and only for local postcodes, to try to restrict it and ensure that north-eastern fans get to go. But guess what? There is already a Dubai-based business selling 54 tickets in a single listing. On what site? Viagogo.

As I have stressed time and again, Viagogo has never been penalised in the UK, despite regularly flouting UK legislation, and it has shown repeatedly that it cannot be trusted to mark its own homework. Listen to this: it was fined 7 million Australian dollars for misleading consumers, €20 million for breaking the law in Italy and €400,000 in France for breaking the law around rugby world cup tickets, but it has never been fined a penny here.

Capping ticket resales is a common-sense, cost-free benefit for fans across the country. In fact, cracking down on fraud, which is the most common crime in the UK, could be a net benefit for the country through the proceeds of crime. Although the two cannot be linked precisely, Ireland saw a large drop in fraud after it implemented a version of—guess what?—my private Member’s Bill. For the upcoming Oasis world tour, the only shows for which tickets are not being touted on Viagogo, StubHub and Gigsberg are the two at Croke Park in Dublin.

Although long-term impact reports are still under way, the Irish Government’s official post-enactment report on the Sale of Tickets (Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational and Sporting Events) Act 2021—essentially my private Member’s Bill—concludes:

“This is a positive endorsement of the operation of the Act and means that the objectives of the Act are being met whereby genuine fans can attend events at affordable prices.”

That is what we all seek and what artists and sporting events want to happen when they price their tickets. They know that tickets are worth more, but they do not want to rip off their own fans: they want grassroots sport and the players of the future to be able to attend.

My private Member’s Bill argued for capping resales at face value plus 10%. The 10% exists to account for booking and postage fees. I have never wanted any fans to be out of pocket, not even for the booking fees. I have only ever believed that we need to take out of the reselling of tickets any opportunity to profit, to stop them becoming a commodity that is sold to the highest bidder.

I was happy to see, therefore, Michael Rapino, the chief executive officer of Live Nation, which owns Ticketmaster, urge Governments in a recent interview with Bloomberg to regulate the business by capping resale. He said that resale prices are 20% above face value, and:

“You shouldn’t have a middleman that has nothing invested in the business make any money from it”—

hallelujah! I have been saying that for years.

A 20% cap, though, is still too high, because it leaves room for touts to operate by still harvesting large numbers of tickets to make large amounts of money. That extra 10%, if someone buys enough tickets, will make them a lot of money, especially if dynamic pricing is used as well. But that is recognition from the top of the industry that change is desperately needed—Michael Rapino never said anything like that before we got into government three short months ago.

Furthermore, disagreement over what constitutes face value must also be addressed, given Ticketmaster’s roll-out of dynamic pricing. In February, which was before the recent Oasis debacle, Live Nation unveiled a 36% increase in its annual revenues, to £22.7 billion, and Rapino said:

“Outside of the US, we’re in the first inning…We’re just rolling this out around the world. So that’s the great growth opportunity, obviously.”

Remember, where did they get their money? Fans—off the back of fans, regular people just wanting to see their favourite artist and to take part in the culture.

I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth made all those points about what it is that makes our heart glad and what it is we want to do in our spare time. We want to see our favourite artist or attend our favourite sporting event, which is why people are so willing to press “Buy” when they see that crazy price. Something within us drives us to that, but culture and enjoyment should be accessible to all of us, no matter how deep or not deep our pockets are.

I am so glad that the Government immediately agreed to include dynamic pricing in their autumn review of ticket resales. I will continue to engage actively with them on this issue and the wider issues in the secondary ticketing market. We must take action to protect fans, venues, artists and athletes. Existing legislation is not good enough. For years we have said, “If we could only enforce what we have,” but we have tried that and it is just not working. I have been campaigning on this issue for more than 15 years. I have worked closely with industry experts and I presented Parliament with the solution back in 2010, with my private Member’s Bill—it is still the only solution. I therefore look forward to this Government making it, or a revision of it, law very soon.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing such an important debate. She invited us to share the details of our first gig. Mine was when I was taken to hear Soul II Soul at the Notting Hill carnival when I was little, which was cool. In fact, on the day I was due to be born, my mum decided to see Nina Simone instead, which is also cool. Unfortunately, I have not lived up to that musical heritage, because I have been to see three out of seven members of S Club 7 and two fifths of 5ive. To be honest, that day inflation pricing was not the issue; it was whether we were going to get our money back at all—after we had seen them.

In all seriousness, buying tickets under false pretences and selling them on at hugely inflated prices means that fans face a choice: they either stump up or they miss out. It is therefore not hyperbole to say that ticket touts are ripping the heart out of live music.

Cracking down on ticket touting is important to music venues, too. Driving prices for gigs higher and higher means that genuine fans cannot access live music, and that has implications for small grassroots music venues as well as big arenas. I can proudly say that my constituency of Ipswich boasts a phenomenally impressive music scene, but if fans are consistently frozen out of live music and the arts more broadly and see them as something they can no longer afford or access, it is grassroots venues and entertainers that will suffer the most.

Although our most famous grassroots music venue, The Smokehouse, right in the heart of our town, has nurtured the next generation of local talent, it has been close to closure. During the covid-19 pandemic, the financial pressures became so overbearing that it had to be saved by £12,000 of crowdfunding from local residents and grants from the local Ipswich borough council and Arts Council England. Research from the Music Venue Trust earlier this year shows that two grassroots music venues close every week, leaving holes in the cultural fabric of the cities and towns they once brought so much joy to.

Our county of Suffolk is famous for being the home of Ed Sheeran—apologies—who is a phenomenal success. We are proud of the strides we have made in Ipswich over the past few years. I give a big shout-out to all those behind the Brighten the Corners music festival, who have an insatiable thirst for going bigger and better every single year. Yet with 2024 set to be the worst year on record for grassroots music venue closures, I cannot help but wonder whether Suffolk’s next Ed Sheeran will be denied their chance to shine.

It is high time to face up to these challenges. That is why I am proud, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, that our movement has been campaigning hard to ensure grassroots music venues have the opportunity to be owned and operated by the community. Community-owned assets can keep their profits local, reinvesting any money made into the project and its successes. Because such assets are rooted in their communities, they provide not just a physical space for gigs but other opportunities for communities too. Some community-owned music venues provide training and development for young people, teaching them about music technology, sound design and stage management, and setting them up for proper careers. We should actively support that groundbreaking model for the live music sector as a route to keep our beloved venues open.

At its heart, our work to crack down on ticket touts is about fairness and protecting consumers and fans. Scams and rip-offs are becoming increasingly common and normalised. That affects not just the live music industry but everything from football to car insurance. The odds are increasingly stacked against ordinary people and the grassroots industry in favour not just of big corporations, which are far more shielded from the problems I have outlined, but of ticket touts and scammers. We must fix that.

I welcome the new Labour Government’s commitment to make arts and culture more accessible to ordinary people, from tackling ticket touts to broadening the curriculum in schools and expanding access to the arts across the board. Finding a way to stop prolific ticket touts and their often illegal practices is a first step in the right direction, but it must be a springboard for change, spurring on further action to make arts and culture truly affordable and accessible for consumers.

I thank the many Members in the Chamber who have been campaigning on this issue for many years, and the fantastic organisations that have been mentioned. With the new Labour Government’s commitment to take action on this issue, we have a real opportunity to put fans back at the heart of live music.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) for securing this debate so that we can discuss subjects that resonate deeply with our constituents. I wholeheartedly align with her position, which reflects my commitment as a longstanding Co-operative party member. The values we uphold—community, fairness and inclusivity—are essential as we confront the pressing issue of ticket touting.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her hard work over the past 15 years, which has been nothing short of phenomenal. I am sure the Minister is hearing the collective enthusiasm for cracking down on this practice.

The impact of unfair ticket pricing on ordinary individuals cannot be overstated. There are many barriers to accessing cultural experiences for communities in Leigh and Atherton. One of the most significant is affordability. Many are excluded from our vibrant cultural sector due to soaring ticket prices, which have become an obstacle rather than a gateway to enjoyment. If we are to make culture accessible, we must start with fair pricing practices.

Even cinema tickets, which were once a modest indulgence, have become unaffordable for many families. In response we have seen some remarkable achievements. Leigh Film Society is a fantastic Co-operative-inspired organisation that strives to screen films that are socially inclusive and affordable, prioritising accessibility for all. Run entirely by dedicated volunteers, that initiative recognises the inaccessibility of cinema tickets and is committed to broadening cultural access in our community. They now have a deal with the National Theatre whereby they can screen National Theatre Live. Bringing that to Leigh is incredible for our constituents.

The demand for live music in the UK is thriving. We must ensure that it remains accessible to everyone. Significant reforms in ticket pricing are essential. The Music Venue Trust is championing the cause of grassroots venues and advocating for a fair distribution of funding within the cultural sector. These venues are not just places for entertainment; they are community hubs that foster creativity and bring people together. While this debate is centred on ticket touting, we must not lose sight of the need to protect and enhance grassroots venues, which play a crucial role in communities like Leigh and Atherton. By supporting such venues, we can ensure that the cultural landscape remains diverse and vibrant.

I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth in her calls to reform ticket pricing practices. Together, we can create an environment where ordinary people can participate in our rich cultural life without fear of being priced out. Let us commit to supporting grassroots groups and organisations that enrich our communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this important debate. I will put it on the table: the last gig I went to was Jason Donovan at Chepstow castle, and I think the next one on my agenda is also Jason Donovan, at Cheltenham town hall. For that, I have to thank my wife.

From personal experience, I know that it can lead to huge frustration and an inclination to do whatever it takes to get in if someone is denied the ticket they want. Fans often feel they have no choice. For fans of sports, music and festivals, there is nothing quite as disappointing as missing out on the tickets we want for that one event of the year that we want to attend. In some cases, it is 10, 20 or even 30 events, because we know that fans are fans. The one thing they want to do is get through the front door and see the thing they love.

Sadly, there are too many unscrupulous organisations that prey on good-natured dedication to a band, team or regular event. These unscrupulous organisations and individuals are getting away with it. It is an extreme example of market failure. When honest, hard-working fans miss out or are forced to pay hundreds of pounds over the odds because secondary ticketing platforms and touts sweep up the market, the sense of unfairness is very real. The UK’s secondary ticketing market had an estimated annual worth of £1 billion in 2019, with ticket touts mass-buying tickets—the “harvesting” we heard of earlier. They are doing that for sporting and cultural events, then selling tickets on at massively inflated prices.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. When fans are forced to pay way over the odds, they are not able to then go to 10, 20 or 30 other concerts or sporting events, because they may have spent their budget for the year on that one special event that they really wanted to go to. Does he recognise that this issue robs the fans of those multiple opportunities?

Of course, and fans want to be there, in the room or the stadium, as often as they possibly can. It enriches their cultural enjoyment, and it is really unfortunate when they end up only able to go to one match a season, or one gig a year, because they have to pay 10 times the price in some cases.

This problem contributes to the unacceptable and extraordinary statistic that an estimated half of Britons have at some point been priced out of the market for tickets to events that they want to attend. When I read that, I did wonder whether it was true, but apparently it is, which is absolutely extraordinary. That is simply unfair. The fact that this subject is being debated today, and that the Government have signalled their intent to make things fairer, is definitely to be welcomed.

Liberal Democrats have, for some time, been calling for greater protection of fans who are exploited by ticket touts. That means that we want to see the implementation of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations to crack down on illegal ticket resale—and it was mentioned earlier that the authority itself might take a more expansive role.

We are calling for the prohibition of platforms that allow sellers to list more tickets for an event than the seller is able to procure legally from the primary market. That practice is clearly exploitative, misleading and wrong. The Liberal Democrats are calling for platforms to be strictly liable for incorrect information about tickets listed on their websites. Dodgy tickets that are not what they seem mislead the public, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) told us earlier.

We also believe that all secondary ticketing sites must be forced to hold a licence to operate in the UK. Many of us who have been going to sporting events for some time are familiar with the person standing outside the music venue or stadium who says “Any spare tickets?” as crowds walk past. The unlicensed nature of this market means that some secondary ticket operators are little more than that, but they are fronted by an official-looking website. Licensing will bring them into line or put them out of business, which is what they deserve.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a ban on the use of surge pricing by ticket platforms. It cannot be right that people pay a significantly higher price for the same product based on the fact that many others are seeking the same ticket at the same time. That is not an example of a liberal market that helps consumers; it is predatory behaviour. That said, it is clearly desirable for sellers to retain the ability to give early-bird discounts or late deals on undersold events. Those are examples of variable prices that work for consumers.

The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a reform to transaction fees, with the aim of placing a cap on the amount that can be added to ticket prices. How can it be right that a ticket listed for £50 or £60 can, by the time it gets to the checkout, end up costing £80 or £90? That is another example of dishonest and predatory behaviour.

We believe that the changes we are calling for would make it very difficult for professional sellers to sell tickets that have been procured unlawfully. They would also make it more difficult for the professional sellers to sell through secondary ticketing platforms in breach of the law. The changes would help event organisers too: their terms often prohibit or restrict resale to identify and cancel tickets, but sometimes those rules cannot be enforced.

Attending gigs, sporting events and festivals is core to the enjoyment that so many of us take in our leisure time. This issue is central to people’s ability to be happy and healthy, and to enjoy their lives. We must do all we can to stop the widespread abuse that causes so much frustration to so many.

I finish by saying that there is a suspicion that ticketing companies could solve this whole issue tomorrow, using technology that is currently available, but that choices have been made not to do so. That is why a crackdown is needed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody), and I hope she enjoys her nostalgic tour through all the concerts she plans to go to. For what it is worth, as we are sharing, one of my first gigs was Faithless, which I am quite proud of, although it does not quite stack up when I say that my second one was Tom Jones. Still, I enjoyed both hugely.

I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) talk about her parents becoming victims. There is some joke about Sting and getting the Police involved, but I will leave that for the moment.

I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her dedication and her expertise on this issue. We all know, as I have learned in the last five years, that we have to plod and plod in this place to keep getting heard. The fact that we are having another debate and that there will be a consultation is all credit to her.

Like the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), I too have seen three of S Club 7. My sighting was at a stag do with my brother in Newport. I hope that the hon. Member was not there—if he was, I hope he does not share the pictures.

As the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) noted, grassroots venues are so important. The UK is a centre for the creative industries, and that is the testbed; that is why we have world-class talent coming out, and we certainly do not want to lose that.

The hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) brings a huge amount of expertise. I think she said she was a DJ, so I am looking forward to her doing the cross-party celebration of “Mistletoe and Wine”—there is a good Cliff Richard reference.

The issue of secondary ticketing and dynamic ticket pricing has affected many of our constituents, as we have heard today. It certainly seems that when Oasis came up with their masterplan to reform, the ticket promoters did not foresee the issue of dynamic pricing causing so many headlines and unfortunately detracting from the exciting news of Oasis reforming.

It is important to separate the secondary ticket market from the specific issue of dynamic ticket pricing. Unlike the primary market, in which tickets are sold at their original face value and the price is set by the artists, event organisers or box office, the secondary ticket market relates to tickets resold after their original sale. Prices for these tickets are often inflated and sometimes go for at least double the face value. We have heard the term price gouging, which particularly applies here.

Dynamic ticket pricing is, as the Minister will be aware, a pricing strategy used by a lot of sectors, including hotels, taxis and airlines, to name but a few. Dynamic ticket pricing can bring significant benefits for consumers when prices are lowered—for example, early bird tickets or late tickets, as we heard from the hon. Member for Chelmsford.

I appreciate that the Competition and Markets Authority has published a call for evidence on the use of dynamic ticket pricing for Oasis. I hope the Minister will agree that in the case of Oasis ticket sales the issue seems to be that fans may not have been provided with the necessary information up front and had not been given any clear information about what was going on. Above all, transparency is really important.

I hope the Minister will touch on how drip-pricing is slightly different and how that affects the live events sector. As we have heard, that relates to hidden costs. A customer should be able to see the full price they are paying up front and not have hidden unnecessary costs.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Lady has upgraded me, but of course—on that basis.

The shadow Minister—sorry. He pointed out that with dynamic pricing the price can go up but also come down. That might happen when it is Uber, airline prices or hotel rooms, but at yesterday’s meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse we heard from experts in the room, FanFair Alliance and Reg Walker, that that never happens with regard to ticketing. They never come down. The only way is up.

I bow to the hon. Lady’s expertise. I hope that will be teased out when we know the terms of reference for the consultation. These are exactly the problems that we need to look at. We can all see that there can be a benefit for the market if dynamic pricing is used for cheaper theatre tickets, but if it is not used in the correct way, how do we enforce that? “How” is the hardest part. We have heard a lot about the problem, but how we solve it, with advancing technology, is what is really going to make the difference.

That takes me back to the point about the need to have information up front, so that people are not misled in the sales process. Clarity is key. I know the Minister is keen to quote the example of Dua Lipa, but I did my own research on ticket face value. My team and I came across a ticket on Viagogo that was priced at £250 but marked up to £5,167.

We can clearly see that that profit is not going where it should, which is upsetting for fans and frustrating for venues and, perhaps most importantly, angers the artists. Through no fault of their own, they are then labelled as a problem because they are pulled into the secondary market. As many hon. Members will know, and as we have heard, there was particular frustration about the use of computer-powered software. As we heard from the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth, we all welcomed the last Government taking action to strengthen the law on ticket information requirements and introducing a criminal offence for the use of automated software to buy more tickets online.

I often think that it is wise to learn from other hon. Members in this place. With that in mind, I looked to see what the Minister had previously said on the topic, given his long-standing interest. I noticed that in April, when the then Government announced a review into the market, he castigated them and said:

“The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]

He continued by saying that Labour

“will bring these measures in and go further”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 187.]

So I have to admit that it is a surprise to see that the new Government’s plan, which they thought about for 14 years, is to introduce a consultation. In our exchange in the Chamber last week, the Minister quoted Bucks Fizz. He said,

“the previous Government had embraced Bucks Fizz…

‘Don’t let your indecision take you from behind.’”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 966.]

I am pleased to see him being decisive by choosing to do exactly what the last Government did. He is so decisive, in fact, that when he was asked this week, he said:

“That is why we will be launching a consultation on the secondary ticket market soon—the piece of paper in front of me actually says ‘in the autumn’, but I am never quite sure when that is, so I am going with ‘soon’.”—[Official Report, 17 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 969.]

I ask the Minister not to look back in anger at the last Government—after all, the Conservatives were caught beneath a landslide by a Labour champagne supernova. He is in the Government, and it is the Government’s job to get this right.

I have several questions for the Minister. When will the Government launch their consultation, not the one by the CMA? What is the scope of the consultation and what are its terms of reference—for example, will it include the role of search engines that signpost customers to touts, which is a real problem? When does it aim to conclude? Wider still, how does the private Member’s Bill presented by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) fit into this? Is it a Government handout Bill and does it have Government support?

Finally, no one in the House wants to see the public or the artist ripped off, as the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) pointed out, so can the Minister clarify how the following fits into Labour’s vision for tackling the secondary market? The Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, stated that

“a Labour government will cap resale prices so fans can see the acts that they love at a fair price.”

Is that Labour policy? What is a “fair price” and for whom, and how does that translate into artists being paid for their talents? Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will forensically analyse the successes and weaknesses of the legislation that has been implemented in Ireland and is coming forward in Australia, with no fear or favour, to ensure that we get a fit with whatever is brought forward.

In closing, live events make a significant contribution to the UK economy, as many Ministers will know from their summers of concerts and sporting events. Indeed, it is tempting to mention the Prime Minister’s favourite country pop singer and her recent Eras tour, which provided an economic boost to this country of almost £1 billion. The Conservatives want the live events sector to continue to thrive, and to ensure that the ticket market is fair for consumers and well-priced. As the Opposition are looking forward to seeing the consultation, one could say that we are ready for it. I hope the Minister will announce further details not only “soon” but imminently.

It is a great delight to see you in your seat, Mr Rosindell, not least because we have been knocking around these parts as MPs for about the same time. It pays to hang on in there, doesn’t it? It is a great delight to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing this debate. This is an innovation that I have started in the last few debates that we have had here: I am going to try to answer the questions that hon. Members have put to the Minister as much as I possibly can.

Hear, hear!

Hang on. In the words of Shania Twain, “That don’t impress me much”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth asked what we can do under the current legislation. It is a frustration, certainly for this Minister—I am not sure that previous Ministers felt it—that although several different bodies could bring forward prosecutions, the number of prosecutions has been so few. I fully understand why trading standards has struggled, because for the last 14 years, local authorities have had difficult budgets and sometimes it has not had the resources that it needs to take forward these issues.

It is not for me to directly tell trading standards or the CMA when to take action— we believe in the separation of powers, so that would be completely inappropriate —but the more that the prosecuting authorities feel able to act in this sphere, the better. If they want to come to me and say that they do not have the powers or the resources that they need, I am happy to hear that and we can act on that basis, but it is frustrating that I cannot tell them to act in individual cases.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I will try to answer all the questions. I will come on to his questions later.

One key matter that we will have to get right—if and when we bring forward legislation in this field—is enforcement, because there is no point bringing forward new lews if we cannot enforce them. We made manifesto commitments during the general election that we are absolutely determined to implement. As for when they will be implemented in legislation, we have had one King’s Speech; there will be another one coming along. I do not want to tell the Leader of the House precisely who will have what Bills at what time, because I might not stay in my post if I keep doing that, but if there is a Bill at some point, we will have to ensure that we sort out the enforcement issue. That is one element on which we will be consulting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth said that this issue is not at the top of the list of Government priorities. Whenever I post about it on X, people say, “Bryant, get on with doing the things that really matter to your constituents.” Well, this is one of those issues. The Government can do more than one thing at the same time. This is part of a panoply of measures that we need to implement to ensure that we put fans back at the heart of music, live events and sport. It is part of a wider Government strategy to rejig the economy so that it works for all of us. As my hon. Friend quoted:

“What is a club in any case?...It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging”.

It is fundamentally about the fans. They are the people who have created the value, and it is despicable that they are not able to benefit from it.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) made the point that things have got worse since 2012. I think she is right, which is why it was a bit cheeky of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), to pretend that they had not been in government for 14 years, and to actually praise the previous Government for taking no action in this area. We are determined to take the necessary action, and I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford and her party will support those measures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) used the word “parasite” at one point. On the “Today” programme, someone was saying that leeches have had great difficulty reproducing of late, but that they have discovered a new way. I do not want to overstate this metaphor, but we could argue that what we see in the secondary market is a form of leeching off the creative endeavours and the fan-led passion of so many others.

I will give some more examples. “Vampire” is my favourite of Olivia Rodrigo’s songs. We can get tickets for her concert in Manchester on 1 July next year on StubHub for £1,506, with a face value of £200. If we go to Viagogo, the price is £2,573 for exactly the same event—almost identical tickets, just a few rows in. That ticket’s face value, which we find only once we have gone two thirds of the way through the process with Viagogo, is £50. That is a shocking 5,146% increase. We can buy tickets for James Blunt—everybody knows I am not a great fan of his and he is no great fan of mine—that have a face value of £105 for £327 on StubHub.

It is not just about music: the England versus South Africa autumn international rugby tickets for 16 November, with a face value of £145, cost £889 on Viagogo. We should tell the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who I think is the world’s greatest Bruce Springsteen fan, that tickets with a face value of £150 are selling on Gigsberg for £1,044.08. Tickets for the world darts championship being held at Alexandra Palace on 30 December this year, with a face value of £55, are £248 on Gigsberg. I could go on, because this is an endless daily source of—frankly—racketeering based on a fundamental unfairness, and that is what we want to put right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) and I have talked about several issues in relation to the creative industries in his constituency. He made the point about Ed Sheeran, whom I think has made Framlingham castle more famous for him than for Queen Mary, which is quite an accomplishment after so many hundreds of years. That is also part of our tourism industry, as people want to go to Framlingham castle to see the place that “Castle on the Hill” was written about, so we need to capitalise on that. But we cannot if none of the money ends up going back into the creative industries or even into the local economy, and simply goes off into a black hole.

I do not want this debate to end without mentioning Ed Sheeran and how much he has done to try to tackle the scourge of ticket touting. Lots of other artists, such as Iron Maiden, Arctic Monkeys, Mumford & Sons and many others have tried, but Ed Sheeran went above and beyond by cancelling tickets when they had been resold. Taylor Swift never did that because she did not want to break the hearts of all her fans, but Ed Sheeran has been a real warrior in that regard.

Absolutely; that is a well-made point. Indeed, several other artists are moving in the same direction and I encourage more artists to go down that route. In the end, we need to get to a place where the face value is the face value and where other people are not racketeering on the back of that. Sometimes, the artist gets it in the neck because people think they have enabled it to happen, but that is profoundly unfair.

Incidentally, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South also referred to Sam Fender. I am afraid that when Sam Fender was on at St James’s Park, I was watching P!nk at the Stadium of Light. Interestingly, having two massive gigs on at the same time had a dramatic effect on the local economy in the north-east, which is really important. There are issues for the whole visitor economy that need to be looked at, and I had an interesting conversation with all the local authorities and the new mayor, thinking about how we can make sure that the visitor economy works for everybody when such big events are going on at the same time. Part of that has to be about making sure that the money that is currently going out of the door and never ending up in the local economy does end up there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley)—she is a great friend and we have known each other a long time—spoke about going to see Cliff Richard. I once saw Cliff Richard live, but it was at a wedding and we did not have to pay. He did not sing “Congratulations”, which we thought was going to come along at any moment. My hon. Friend made a point about sudden changes in prices just as we get to the checkout. Of course, we would be absolutely furious if that happened in Sainsbury’s, Tesco or Morrisons. Why should we be any less furious when it happens on a website?

I was looking at tickets on StubHub earlier, when suddenly it said, “Your price is locked in.” Well, I thought that was the price. What do they mean when they say it is locked in? This is crazy; it is a deliberate attempt to make us stick and keep on buying the ticket, even when we have realised that we are buying something for 5,146% of its original face-value price, because that is the point at which we learn that that is the face value. This is completely wrong; it is not the market working in the interests of humanity, but humanity having to serve the market in an inappropriate way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) made some really significant points. Many of us are making identical points, but that strengthens the argument that we need to take action in this space, and we are absolutely determined to do so. We will do it in a responsible way, and we want to make sure that every single element of the legislation that we eventually bring forward works, does what it says on the tin and is able to be enforced. That is why we will launch a consultation in the very near future, and I very much hope that many hon. Members will want to take part in the discussion about precisely how that consultation ends up being framed.

I think this debate is the second or third outing the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and I have had against each other. One cannot just blame one’s partner for one’s musical choices. That is like the moment in Genesis when Adam says,

“The woman beguiled me and I did eat”

after eating the forbidden fruit. I am not sure that Jason Donovan is the forbidden fruit, but if the hon. Member likes Jason Donovan, he should just own up to it. It is fine; we will not think any the less of him for going to see Jason Donovan all the time.

The hon. Member basically read out the list of things from the last debate that I said we wanted to do, so I am delighted that he agrees with me or that we agree with him. When it comes to the legislation and the consultation process, I very much hope that he will want to feed in. If there are things that we need to amend, just to make sure that we have got them right, we will do that.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth started off extremely badly, because he basically dissed Tom Jones, who is from Pontypridd—it’s not unusual, but I do not think it is very well advised. He asked a series of questions. He asked, “When?” I have already said that it will be soon. It will be in the autumn, and I reckon that the autumn is already upon us, so it will be soon or imminent—he can choose any word he likes, but it will be soon. Patience is a virtue.

The hon. Member asked whether the private Member’s Bill being advanced by one of my colleagues is a handout Bill. No, it is not a handout Bill; it is a Bill advanced by a private Member. He also asked whether there will be a cap on prices. We already said during the general election that that is our intended direction of travel. It is a moot point precisely what level that cap should be set at, because I do not want to completely ban people from selling tickets. If someone has bought four tickets but suddenly only two people can go, because somebody is ill or they have to change the dates, it is perfectly legitimate that they should be able to sell the tickets on. They might also want to be able to recoup not only the cost of the tickets themselves but some additional costs. That is one of the things we want to consult on, and what would be a suitable cap. I note the point that has been made about a level of 20%, which some people think is too high. Some people think that 10% would be too high; some people think that it would be too low. We need to make sure we get the level right. And of course we will analyse the situation in Ireland.

As we have all been announcing what gigs we have been to this year, let me say that, in addition to P!nk, who I have been to see three times now:

“What about us?

What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”

I went to see Depeche Mode in Cologne—the Germans just couldn’t get enough. And on Saturday night, I went to see Bronski Beat, on the 40th anniversary of the album “Age of Consent” coming out. That goes to the heart of why music can be so important: there must be hundreds of thousands of people in this country who remember when “Age of Consent” came out 40 years ago and how it completely transformed their understanding of themselves and who they could be in life. Being able to go to a live gig to celebrate that with lots of other people is completely transformative, and that is what I want to be available for as many people in this country as possible at a sensible, safe and sane price, rather than people being excluded because some people have much deeper pockets than others.

For me, to use a Welsh term—if it is okay with the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth for me to use a Welsh term and to refer to Welsh artists—this is about chwarae teg, or fair play. Fair play is all I am looking for in this market. First, we need transparency on price along the whole process. When a ticket comes up in the secondary market, people should be able to know what the face value of that ticket is from the beginning and what the deal is. Secondly, we need genuine equality at that 9 o’clock moment when everybody goes online to start bidding for tickets. The hoovering-up of tickets brings the word “hoover” into disrepute. It was striking that all the Coldplay tickets had gone in 40 minutes and yet, even before all of them had gone, tickets were being sold for £2,916 on the secondary market. That is clear evidence that something is awry with the way the system works.

Also, where there is an excessive increase in the secondary market, as we have referred to, that is just wholly inappropriate. It prices people out and, as many Members have said, it does not mean that any of the money goes back into the creative industries or the local economy, which is highly problematic.

I want openness in dynamic pricing. People should be able to understand from the very beginning if that is the process they are entering into. Originally, we were going to consult only on what precise measures we should bring forward in relation to the secondary market, but we are now looking at dynamic pricing. As several Members have said, there are versions of dynamic pricing that do work, and we do not want to ban those. I would argue that the early-bird tickets available for the Rhondda arts festival in my constituency—I suppose I should declare an interest—are a perfectly legitimate part of the whole equation. They sometimes bring money into venues early on, and we do not want to ban that.

We are not looking at dynamic pricing in the whole of the economy, but simply in relation to live events. Because that was not a manifesto commitment before the general election, we will be doing a call for evidence. If people have evidence of where the dynamic pricing model is not working and is counterproductive to the market, please get in touch.

I praise some of the action taken by some of the artists in the industry, which has been referred to. It looks like that is everything—no, there is one thing more I want to say.

So close.

And yet so far. Change is coming. I say to all the people I have referred to—Gigsberg, Viagogo, StubHub, Ticketmaster and all the rest—that change is coming, so they should start getting ready for it, because that is what we are determined to deliver.

I thank the Minister for his response, and I look forward to working with him to take forward this crucial issue. I thank all hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans); my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson); and everyone else. The amount of concern and shared endeavour on this matter is hugely welcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the secondary ticketing market.