My Lords, I am somewhat reluctant to go slightly against the tide in the face of noble Lords who I greatly admire in the sporting world speaking here today. I have great sympathy with what my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moynihan, the noble Lord, Lord Hendry, and my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint said about the war on ticket touts; I support that, and I support the values in it. However, we have to ask a number of specific questions about these amendments and what this legislation can actually do.
Most authorised resale ticket sites give guarantees on the validity of tickets or provide a value back if the tickets are not valid. One of the issues is how we get people to use those sites more. We do not want to upset any move away from them, which would be into the hands of people who are fraudulent and are trying to break the system.
The other thing that is very important is that the public want the opportunity to resell and buy in the secondary market. This is particularly important when tickets are being sold a year ahead of the event. Another problem is that often the tickets are not issued until six weeks or so before the event, so some of the information that might be required in the resale market might not be available.
There is already considerable legislation against fraud and against competition and there are issues of restraint of trade, all of which need to be taken into account. We also have to ask ourselves why this primary legislation is being asked to make specific requirements in one sector. Should it be doing that? Should we not have more embracing legislation that deals with this issue? All the recognised operators have an interest in preventing fraud; that is what actually protects their brand, as any fraud inevitably undermines their genuine business.
There is an issue with sellers providing information, particularly individual consumers. I am not sure that I want my name going on a ticket that I might have had if it has gone through a recognised secondary provider—in fact, I certainly would not want that. So the guarantee is the key, as is establishing that the tickets are valid.
7.15 pm
One of the things that the Government should respond to in this debate, and I am sure they will, is the question of what they are going to do to deal with these automated computer programs, and what legislation they are prepared to consider. That is probably a more effective means of dealing with this problem than just providing more information and putting a greater burden on those who are actually trying to work through the authorised resale market.
Secondary markets provide an opportunity for fans to buy tickets, and we should recognise that there is overwhelming public support for some form of resale system. Markets move up and down, so secondary markets do not just deal with higher prices; they also have to deal when the price has gone down. I have already asked whether this is an appropriate place to have specific legislation that deals with one sector that is actually more complex than just asking for more information.
On transparency, the recognised providers already provide the face value of the ticket and the location of the seat when it is known and available, as well as information on any restrictions. If we start asking for more information, that might become disproportionate and it runs the risk of driving the fraudulent market overseas, which would be more difficult to control. There are a number of issues that have to be taken into account in considering this amendment before we can give it support.