Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Clive Efford and David Nuttall

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

No, it is not. Let us be clear that a lot of these organisations are quite capable of looking after themselves and, if they put their minds to it, of achieving the aims they say they want to achieve. That applies whether we are talking about the Harvey Goldsmiths of this world, the Rugby Football Union or the England and Wales Cricket Board. These organisations put forward their arguments about wanting to help the grass roots of sport and so on, but if they really wanted to do that, they could do so in many ways without going down the road of trying to interfere in the free market.

Let us be clear about how much personal information will have to be placed on the internet for everyone to see under the regulations that have been passed by the other place. The seller has to provide details of

“(a) the face value of the ticket;

(b) any age or other restrictions on the user of the ticket;

(c) the designated location of the ticket including the stand, the block, the row and the seat number of the ticket, where applicable; and

(d) the ticket booking identification or reference number.”

That information could easily be used by criminals and those who are less scrupulous in order to ring up the vendor of the ticket and arrange for the ticket to be sent to an alternative address. It could also be used to set up an alternative listing, as so much information is being provided.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The information that the hon. Gentleman has just read out would surely be available at the point of sale, so if anyone wanted to use it in the way he is suggesting, they would merely need to go on the website originally offering the tickets or ring up the venue in order to get it. It is at the point of resale in the secondary ticketing market that we are asking for that same information to be made available. What can be wrong with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He has just described one way in which these sporting bodies can control the allocation of tickets. I am sure that there are many other ways. Much has been said about the use of botnets and modern technology to scoop up tickets.

I have heard nothing about how big businesses, which run these venues, have tried to use technology to deal with the problem—if they think it is a problem. I put it to the Chamber that they do not think it is a problem, as they are getting the money that they expected to get. They do not see it as a problem and the consumers do not see it as a problem. The reason why I have not been inundated with complaints is that people are, by and large, happy with the system. They know that tickets for popular events will probably be sold at a price that is greater than that for which they were originally sold. If people are lucky enough to get a ticket in the first allocation, that is exactly how they regard themselves—lucky. They know that they have got a valuable commodity, in just the same way as someone who acquires any other article that goes up in value thinks themselves lucky. Someone may buy something for a fiver at a car boot sale on a Sunday morning, and find out a few months or years later, when they take it on “Antiques Roadshow”, that it is worth 10, 100 or 1,000 times more than they paid. That is how the free market works.

It does not matter how much we try to legislate or to cap ticket prices, the fact is that ultimately the free market will out: tickets will change hands, whether through an organised website or on the black market outside stadiums and venues, for whatever someone else is prepared to pay for them.

[Clive Efford]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her campaign on secondary ticketing and the need to protect consumers, and to the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) for his consistency on this issue and, as someone who comes from the entertainment industry, for his very well-informed speech.

I must also pay tribute to Statler and Waldorf at the back of the Government Benches—if it was not unparliamentary, I would suggest that the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) were a couple of muppets. My question for them is: what kind of market would object to consumers being fully informed about a commodity at the time of purchase? Even if we applied the principles of the free market, we would not want to restrict information to consumers when they buy products.

The hon. Member for Shipley used the example of selling houses, but we would not sell someone a house without letting them look around it or without giving them all its specifications. Similarly, we would not sell someone a car saying, “We’ll only let you look at its left side,” or “We won’t let you look inside”; we have to give people all the information. There cannot be any objection to ensuring that consumers are fully informed.

The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) intervened to ask about the resale of rugby tickets. He said that if tickets allocated within the rugby family were offered for resale on the secondary market, the rugby club found doing so would be banned from receiving any future allocation. The RFU went to court to obtain the information it needed in order to regulate the sale of tickets in exactly that way. I therefore agree that such rules should apply, but rugby needs such information to make its own regulations stick. In seemingly agreeing with his colleague, the hon. Member for Bury North, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is actually agreeing with us.

The Olympics restricted the resale of tickets, which had to go back through the arrangements set up by London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and be resold by Ticketmaster at face value. In the early stages, people complained about the fact that there were a lot of empty seats, but such tickets had to be recycled to ensure there was an atmosphere in the stadium. The process of making sure that the tickets went to family members or genuine fans successfully and memorably created a unique atmosphere within the Olympic stadium. That is remembered, particularly by the athletes who performed there, because we made sure that such tickets were made available at face value to genuine fans.

The RFU wanted to do exactly the same with its tickets for this year’s rugby world cup, but even before the tickets were made available, they could be bought for several thousands of pounds on secondary ticketing websites. The cheapest child’s ticket is £7 and the most expensive ticket is £700, but I saw—I will not name the website, because there are lots of them and it is wrong to single out one of them—five tickets on sale for £8,000 each, with a £3,000 handling charge.

Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill

Debate between Clive Efford and David Nuttall

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

We welcome the Government amendment and their change of heart on the alteration that we proposed both in Committee and on Report.

We pay tribute to the Members of the House of Lords who took up several of the issues that we raised during the Bill’s passage through this House. They have been very successful in gaining Government support for our amendments, notably in relation to sport spread betting, pre-watershed gambling advertising and its impact on children, a one-stop shop for problem gamblers and financial blocking. On all those areas, the Government said that change was not necessary or desirable, but it is very welcome that they have now changed their mind.

We welcome the Lords amendment on the horserace betting levy. There are two key issues: the application of the existing levy to online gamblers, and a consultation on the levy’s replacement in the long term. It is worth putting in context why the levy is necessary to support the horse racing industry.

British horse racing is a major sport. It is the country’s second most popular sport, with 5.68 million attendees, according to the British Horseracing Authority. It is also the second largest sporting employer. British racing supports a predominantly rural industry that makes a significant contribution to the British economy. It generates £3.45 billion in annual expenditure, provides direct and associated employment for 85,000 people and assists in leveraging billions of pounds of inward investment.

Horse racing is inextricably linked with gambling like no other sport, with the exception of greyhound racing. As online gambling has grown, betting operators have moved offshore, which has contributed to a fall in revenue from the levy from an average of about £106 million between 2003-04 and 2008-09 to £66.7 million now. The industry says that that has led the number of horses in training to go down by 14.2% between 2008 and 2013, and foal production to go down by 25.3% during the same period. The Lords amendment is therefore very important. We welcome the Government’s about-turn and their support for our position on the levy.

The Minister has accepted our position, but a review may take a very long time. What does she think is the time scale for the review? When will the end date be for a major review of the betting levy?

In Committee, I warned the Minister that she might face more tenacious support for the horse racing industry than comes from most Members of the House of Commons. After I had told her that she might face more fanatical opposition in the House of Lords, she said:

“I am not sure that I understand quite what the hon. Member means by the horse racing fanatics in the other place, but I look forward to finding out.”––[Official Report, Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 141.]

She well and truly found out when the Bill arrived in the Lords.

When I moved the amendment on Report, the Minister said:

“First, I do not believe that we should assume that genuine levy reform lies in merely extending the existing levy scheme… Secondly, as I have said previously, any extension of the levy to offshore bookmakers as a result of the new clauses”—

the ones I had tabled—

“would require EU Commission approval because the levy is a state aid scheme. I will not implement the proposals, for which we do not have EU approval in respect of state aid.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 195.]

When the Bill reached the Lords—following some to-ing and fro-ing between the Opposition, Cross Benchers and the Government—Lord Gardiner of Kimble moved an amendment, and said:

“We agree with the view that while we still have a statutory levy, it should be fairly applied. Furthermore, we are persuaded that including a clause about extending the levy to offshore remote operators is fully in keeping with the context and purpose of the Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2014; Vol. 752, c. 1301.]

Will the Minister explain to the House—I will allow her to intervene—exactly what changed between our discussions in the House of Commons and those in the House of Lords? There has been a complete about-turn in the Government’s position on this issue.

It is important that there are no delays. The Minister said that she hoped that the consultation would start in May. Will she clarify whether it will conclude before the annual review of the levy terms, which will take place in October?

I know that there is concern about the horserace betting levy. My noble Friend Lord Lipsey spoke of his opposition to it in the other place. I share some of his concerns. If we go ahead with extending the levy and it generates an additional £20 million for the horse racing industry, what exactly will the Minister do to ensure that it benefits the wider horse racing industry and not just the haves at the expense of the have-nots? That investment should benefit the low-paid workers in the industry, generate economic activity in rural areas, and perhaps even support struggling race courses to become viable and keep people in their jobs.

The amendment will provide a great deal of support to the industry and could mean £20 million of investment. The industry must use it wisely. If it is used not to provide those wider benefits, but to inflate prizes at the expense of lower-paid workers in the industry, the support for the levy in the House might dissipate and the industry might lose important income. We all have a duty to pay close attention to what the money is used for when it finally reaches the industry.

I pay tribute to the Members of the House of Lords who supported the amendments that we tabled, not least the amendment before us. I pay particular tribute to Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Collins of Highbury. I would not go so far as to suggest that someone should name a racehorse or even a stakes race after each of them. However, I received an e-mail of gratitude from the British Horseracing Authority, expressing its appreciation for my support, which said:

“I hope that we can get you along to a race meeting in the near future, potentially for the inaugural running of the ‘Clive Efford Cup’”.

I am sure that that was said in jest, but I will not stand in anyone’s way if that is what they want to do.

This is a welcome about-turn from the Government. We certainly support the amendment. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance about the time scales, because we do not want there to be any delay that could be avoided in implementing the levy on online gambling because, in the meantime, the industry will be missing out on significant income that could be put to good use, as I have set out today. I hope that the House will support the amendment.

[Mr Nuttall]

I want to raise two matters. Both have been touched on, but I want to expand on them.

First, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) rightly said, a new clause very similar to the Lords amendment was tabled on Report. I, along with other Government Members, voted against it. Of course, it was not the same clause, but it was very similar to the amendment we are being asked to support today, and if I am anything, I like to be constant and consistent in my position.

[Clive Efford]

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the outcome is the same? We will apply the existing levy—assuming we get European Commission approval—to online gamblers, and the Government will consult on a future levy for the longer term. The outcome is the same whether the amendment has been mildly adjusted or not.

[Mr Nuttall]

I appreciate that the aim might be the same, but as I understand it, the Lords amendment creates a reserved power straight away—

[Clive Efford]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I thought it was to do it straight away, which is slightly different.

[Clive Efford]

In Committee we tabled two amendments, one of which would have done what the hon. Gentleman has set out. We also offered the Government the opportunity to consider taking the reserved power in the longer term. That was the amendment we brought to the House on Report, and he voted against the reserved power, which is again set out in this amendment.

[Mr Nuttall]

This is a very time-limited debate and I do not want to spend all my time on a preliminary point. The substantive point is that, whether or not the amendment is identical or slightly different to the previous one, this new clause certainly does provide for a reserved power. That is somewhat confusing given what the Chancellor said in his Budget statement last Wednesday:

“We will also extend the horserace betting levy to bookmakers who are based offshore, and we will look at wider levy reform and at introducing a ‘racing right’ to support the sport.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 791.]

That makes it apparent, or gives the impression, that it is going to happen, and that the reserved power will not be kept for a rainy day but is something that the Government definitely want to proceed with. We must assume that that is the case; otherwise, why introduce it in the first place?

That leads neatly to my second point. I will not quote word for word what the hon. Member for Eltham said on Report, because he mentioned some of it in his speech. On 26 November last year, when new clauses 10 and 11 were being considered, the Minister stated:

“Nor am I convinced that we should seek EU approval for an extension of the current levy when we do not know that it will satisfy the need for proper reform. I am not prepared to act in a way that could jeopardise the stability provided by the recent voluntary arrangement.

I have also been urged to take a power to extend the levy at a future point, but that assumes that all that we might wish to do is extend the existing system, and that would not be genuine levy reform. Even if we took such a power, we could find that it was too narrowly scoped to enable us to achieve what we wanted—for example, to meet the EC—”

I presume that means the European Union—

“requirements for any reform scheme to be state aid compliant.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 195.]

There are therefore two matters of confusion. First, what is the Government’s position on the proposal? Is it simply to have a reserved power, or is it to seek to introduce a measure at the earliest opportunity? Secondly, for what will the Government seek approval from the EU? Will they simply seek approval to extend the levy, or will they seek a wider reform, which was the reason given on 26 November for the delay?

Essentially, those are the two points that I would be grateful to the Minister for addressing when she replies to this brief debate.

Drugs (Roadside Testing) Bill

Debate between Clive Efford and David Nuttall

Friday 10th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. I am not an expert on insurance policy contracts, but I suspect that it is possible for an insurance company to write such a provision into a contract—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) wants to contribute, he can do so.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is possible that such provisions are already written into contracts—I would be unsurprised if they are. If they are, perhaps they should be more widely advertised. People might know about driving while unfit from alcohol, but they may be unaware that driving under the influence of drugs risks invalidating insurance policies.