I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. Perhaps I can continue to address the trader side. Where a consumer is sold a ticket that is claimed to be on the front row, for example, which turns out to be on the back row, that would breach the 2008 regulations. Advertising for sale a ticket that a trader is not in a position to sell because the ticket is either not available through the primary outlet yet or because the trader is awaiting the outcome of a ballot would also be a breach of the regulations, as well as a potential Fraud Act offence. Criminal penalties reinforce the legislation. A trader or a marketplace can be subject to a fine or even imprisonment if these regulations are breached. In conclusion, we believe that there is already sufficient law in place to ensure that consumers have all the information they need about what they are buying before they buy from a trader.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about botnets. A range of offences is available to law enforcement to tackle the fraudulent sale of tickets and the criminal harvesting of tickets from online ticket sales. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 sets out the framework of offences associated with interfering with a computer, including the criminal use of tools or articles to commit a computer misuse offence, such as a botnet. It was good to hear from my noble friend Lord Borwick that he believes that we are on the way to solving the botnet problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also asserted that there is evidence of large-scale criminal activity. We disagree. Europe Economics found that 90% of sales are by consumers such as you or me. There is already a
strong framework to deal with criminality, such as fraud and money-laundering laws, which the noble Lord mentioned, that might take place in a market. Additional legislation for ticket marketing would not address such criminal activity. Obviously it is important to work with the police and other enforcement authorities, and we will review the data that the noble Lord asked for to see what up-to-date data we have. I will write to him on that point.
My noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint said, “Will the Minister look at the websites?”. I will, but the enforcement of the law is for the CMA and trading standards. We have done some research. These sites already require key information to be given. All these sites have money-back guarantees. Most ticket transactions pass without problem—it is over 90%—so I think progress has been made there.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan gave us a very interesting summary of his experience with the Olympics—that wonderful summer which we all enjoyed in the brilliant sunshine, and the success of the Games. Indeed, as he described, it was very successful in terms of ticket sales, although of course there were some gaps in the audience, which was a sadness for consumers who would have liked to have been sitting in those seats. A ticket resale regime was a condition for hosting the Olympic Games. We brought that in and said at the time that such cases have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I do not think that my noble friend was suggesting that this should be extended widely but he was asking us to consider that issue.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan also asserted that other countries had found a good way to regulate ticket sales. Our finding is that the evidence is mixed. New South Wales has a draft Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Reselling) Bill restricting ticket resales, and we do not yet know its impact. As we understand it, these new restrictions are not the same as those in one of the amendments under discussion today. We have also seen press reports arguing that Queensland’s anti-scalping laws, as I think they call them, have had little effect. However, obviously we will keep those under review.
I have tried to talk about traders. I should now like to turn to the subject of Amendments 26, 28 and 29, which is consumer-to-consumer sales. We want consumers to be active and empowered in the market as buyers and sellers. It is a fact of life that sometimes consumers have a ticket that they cannot use. At this time of year I might buy tickets for my husband, a son and myself for a classical concert in the Royal Parks next summer. If my husband is taken ill six months later and cannot attend, I need to resell the ticket. That means that I can get my money back and it gives other consumers the chance to attend the sold-out event. We see no need to restrict this. Consumers should be able to freely and easily resell in this way tickets that they cannot use; my noble friend Lord Borwick made this point very well. The OFT has said that secondary agents can,
“provide a useful function for consumers who need tickets for events and are willing and able to pay premium prices”.
My noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint asked about the impact of her amendment and how to build on the 2013 regulations. I shall try to answer. We know that
over 70% of consumers think that they should be able to resell their tickets. Not only is it the right thing to do to allow this market to operate, but that statistic also indicates that if we restricted the legitimate resale market, consumers would find other ways to sell on the black or grey markets. We also know that consumers care about protecting their data and identity online. The Communications Consumer Panel reports that nearly two-thirds of social network users said that they had a high level of concern about the use of information from profiles by companies. In that same survey, the largest top-of-mind concern related to the safety of personal details or ID theft, with just over one-quarter of internet users spontaneously mentioning it.
Most consumers would not be comfortable having their contact details prominently displayed on a website. I am not sure I would like that—but I am sure I am not the only one who already receives too much junk mail. Consumers want to sell online and to protect their personal data. The current regulatory system allows that, while protecting consumers when they buy from traders.
7.30 pm
My noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint also asked whether individuals selling a large number of tickets to a trader did so as traders or as consumers. If an individual is selling a significant number of tickets as a commercial enterprise—that is, to make profit—they are highly likely to be classified as a trader under existing legislation. This will obviously turn on the circumstances of each case, but it is a key point.
I will now comment on the provision of information. Legislation is already in place to ensure consumers get the information they need when buying from traders. When consumers buy and sell with other consumers they should, in contrast, be allowed to do so without burdensome regulation. That would be my summary on that point.
On the question of refunds and damages, my noble friends who have tabled Amendment 30 raise a valid point: consumers who have been sold something which is not what it claimed to be should have access to redress. However, the change proposed risks a perverse impact on the market. For example, it would mean that consumers would have an incentive to use the resale market, rather than the primary market, where the ticket price is rarely refunded, never mind the additional costs. Instead of going to the All England Lawn Tennis Club for their tickets, they would go straight to the secondary market. We do not want to influence consumers’ decisions in that way. We also need to consider how rogue traders might react: would they just sell tickets that do not exist or are not what they say they are, knowing that the marketplace would have to refund the consumer? Again, we do not want to encourage that.
Let me reassure the House that consumers are already protected, either in legislation or through voluntary industry measures. All four main online marketplaces have refund policies in place; where a ticket bought on these sites turns out to be invalid they will refund or replace the ticket. Some make this easier for the consumer by not charging them until after the event. My noble friend Lord Stoneham spoke interestingly about the role these sites now play in honest resale. In addition,
thanks to new legislation bought in by the Government, consumers now have a private right to seek redress—including damages—if they are misled into a purchase. I am pleased to reassure the Committee that industry has already taken action. I am not convinced it would be appropriate to go further, certainly in the terms proposed in Amendment 30.
It was good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, in view of all that he has done for football. He spoke about Section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That provision has not been extended to cover other sporting events as there is no comparable public order threat. Incidents of violence and disorder are now very rare at sporting events other than football. The Home Office keeps this situation under review through the UK football policing unit and at European level. However, it is not appropriate to confuse public order legislation with the protection of commercial interests or event integrity of the kind that we are debating.
I have spoken at length. It has been a very good debate. As the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Pendry, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan have all said, this matter has a long history and lots of legislation already exists. As a result, there is already a significant level of consumer protection in place, some of which is very recent, including voluntary action by the industry itself. I will of course read Hansard carefully, but it feels as though we have enough legislation. I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.