Digital Markets Bill - Lords amendments and Government motions to disagree with certain Lords amendments

He draws attention to the financial privilege implications of several Lords amendments and discusses multiple Government motions to disagree with specific Lords amendments. He emphasises the need for a balanced approach when imposing penalties.

Intervenes to express support for amendment 104, which aims to impose requirements on secondary ticketing sites. She raises concerns about fraud and the need for robust legislation.

Supports his colleague's view that previous amendments struck a balance, expressing disagreement with Lords' characterisation of the matter. He argues for proper discretion in considering penalties.

Questions why the term 'proportionate' was chosen over 'appropriate,' expressing concern about potential gaps for interpretation and challenge in courts.

Questions the clarity of the term 'proportionate' and its implications for court decisions, suggesting that it may enable broader interpretation than intended.

Expresses concern about the change from 'appropriate' to 'proportionate,' fearing it will allow more scope for challenge and interpretation by courts.

Raises concerns about the effectiveness of existing legislation and provides an example of tickets on secondary sites being sold at a huge markup, questioning whether the market is working.

Intervenes to highlight examples of ticket price inflation on secondary sites and questions the adequacy of current legislation, echoing concerns about enforcement.

Critiques amendments that weaken CMA's powers, suggests they will enable big tech firms to launch legal challenges. Argues for restoring original wording on proportionality, countervailing benefits exemptions, and appeals standards. Emphasises importance of judicial scrutiny over merits reviews.

[INTERVENTION] - Asks if transformation from Back Benches to Front Bench applies equally to Opposition and Government, implying scrutiny should be applied across the board.

[INTERVENTION] - Questions how a tribunal would assess appropriateness without considering detail, suggesting potential legal challenges under revised criteria.

[INTERVENTION] - Clarifies that Labour supports resale of tickets at face value for legitimate reasons, not restricting such sales but opposing ticket touting.

Expressed concerns about fraudulent ticket sales and highlighted the financial and emotional impact on consumers, supporting amendments that aim to address these issues.

Acknowledged concerns about the government’s opposition to certain Lords amendments and emphasised the need for clear communication regarding judicial review standards and countervailing benefits.

Defended the government's position on changes to judicial review standards and countervailing benefits, clarifying that the Bill still upholds competition law principles.

Pressed for further clarification from the government on judicial review standards and countervailing benefits, emphasising the importance of rigorous legal definitions in competition law.

Supported Lords amendments that would strengthen judicial review standards and clarify terms such as 'indispensable' to ensure robust competition law enforcement. Also supported measures addressing secondary ticketing fraud.

Raises concerns that changing from 'appropriate' to 'proportionate' could open up full merits appeal, leading to lengthy litigations. Emphasises the need for clarity in guidance to prevent disproportionate interventions and ensure market competition.

Agrees with Damian Collins on the importance of clear definitions, particularly regarding 'consumer benefit' which should include future consumers as well.

Opposes the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 104, advocating for basic protections against fraudulent abuse in the secondary ticketing market. Argues that current practices harm fans, damage industry relationships, and undermine live event confidence.

Sharon Hodgson argued that Lords amendment 104 is necessary to protect British consumers from illegal ticket touts, who use bots to harvest tickets in bulk. She cited examples of fraud and misleading practices by platforms like Viagogo and stressed the need for regulation similar to Ireland, France and Australia. The amendment would prevent speculative selling, require clear disclosure of face value prices and trader identities, and ensure UK-based traders are subject to UK laws.

Andrew Gwynne interjected to support Sharon Hodgson's arguments, highlighting how bots deprive constituents of tickets for sports matches or concerts. He emphasised the inherent unfairness in the current system.

Chris Bryant interjected to criticise the Minister's lack of arguments against the Lords amendment, suggesting that the Government does not have a substantive case against it.

The speaker supports the amendment as it protects consumers and small businesses from unfair competition by big tech firms. She emphasises that Google has over 90% of the UK search advertising market, while Facebook controls more than half of the £5.5 billion display advertising market, highlighting the need for regulation to level the playing field.

Ms Lyn Brown argued that there is significant digital exclusion in Newham, with many struggling financially due to subscription scams and fake reviews. She called for clearer regulations against ticket touting and proposed an upper limit on the number of tickets individuals can resell, as well as support for impartial journalism through measures like the BBC World Service. She also questioned the Government's reasons for opposing these amendments.

Mr Andrew Gwynne intervened to highlight that even tech-savvy individuals cannot overcome bots used in ticket touting, which unfairly deprives genuine fans of tickets. He emphasised the need for legislation to address this issue.

Mr Chris Bryant intervened to emphasise that venue-specific measures, such as those at the O2 Arena which limit ticket resale prices, are not sufficient without broader legislative enforcement. He argued for comprehensive legislation to prevent the misuse of bots and ensure fair access to event tickets.

He reassured the shadow Minister that he aims to ensure a fair playing field for businesses but disagreed with claims of weakening bill provisions. He argued against 'bleed back' between penalties and regulatory decisions, supporting current legislation's effectiveness in banning bots and improving enforcement. He also defended the Government’s approach to secondary ticketing, believing it is covered by existing laws.

Asked why the Minister opposes the Lords amendment on 'proof of purchase' for secondary ticket marketing or face value details. He pointed out that platforms like Viagogo do not provide original value information to buyers.

Warned against repeating arguments used by global platform executives and questioned the validity of claims about enforcement difficulties. She emphasised that lack of prosecutions does not indicate failure but could be due to robust legislation.

Challenged the Minister's claims about enforcement, citing Taylor Swift’s stance on ticket resales in Ireland. She argued that no Swift tickets are available on secondary platforms there due to restrictions.

Asked about enforcement challenges, questioning whether trading standards lack capacity or if complexities in jurisdiction hinder effective prosecutions of ticketing bots.

Expressed concern over online scams targeting families and young people, highlighting the lack of protection from local trading standards due to jurisdictional confusion. She questioned whether this issue would be addressed in the review.