The existing regulations are sufficient, and the proposed amendment by the Lords would be ineffective due to enforcement challenges. The Government is committed to a review of primary and secondary markets over nine months to find better solutions.

Asked why the CMA has prosecuted so few people under current regulations, highlighting concern about enforcement effectiveness.

Argued that implementing the recommendations made by the CMA through the Lords amendment would significantly impact tackling issues associated with secondary ticket sites, reducing fraud and scams.

Questioned why the Government does not take action as championing consumer protection. Mentioned examples of consumer distress and asked if the Minister would change course after negative impacts on events.

Agreed that the secondary ticket market has always existed but argued for reinforcing existing safeguards rather than making it unviable and pushing people into unregulated spaces where they get no protection.

Supports Labour's cross-party proposal to strengthen consumer rights against fraudulent ticket practices, restricting resale quantities and ensuring clear face value visibility. Criticises Government for ideological opposition instead of supporting Lords' amendments.

Questions whether a complete ban on resale similar to the Olympics is proposed, suggesting reservations about the practical implications of such measures.

Clarifies that Parliament did not ban resale for the Olympics but required authorized resale instead, aiming to correct a misinterpretation of previous legislation.

Questions whether consumers would be better protected by spivs selling tickets outside venues rather than on official secondary markets, suggesting potential for increased fraud and inefficiency.

Emphasises that the finite number of tickets being gobbled up by speculators online is a significant issue, advocating for more stringent measures to protect consumers from exploitation.

Critiques the Government amendment for its limited scope in enforcing existing rules on secondary ticket sales. Argues that amendment 104B provides clear measures to prevent fraudulent practices, ensure fair pricing, and introduce a review process within nine months.

Asks if the Government can provide more resources and capacity to the Competition and Markets Authority for enforcement of secondary ticketing regulations.

Supports the amendment, emphasising its importance in protecting fans from fraudulent practices. Argues that it ensures resellers provide proof of purchase and limits their ticket sales to what they can legally buy from the primary market.

Suggests that better enforcement of existing regulations is sufficient and aligns with the Government's stance on the matter.

Ms. Hodgson supports the revised Lords amendment 104B, arguing that existing laws are inadequate for regulating secondary ticketing markets. She cites lack of prosecutions under relevant legislation since 2017 as evidence. She mentions a 'ticket queen' case and Viagogo's involvement in illegal football ticket sales to illustrate inadequacy. She also discusses the impact on fans, such as overpriced tickets and fake tickets leading to heartbreak for attendees.

Intervenes twice to support Ms. Hodgson, emphasising the missed opportunity 13 years ago and highlighting Lord Moynihan's background as a Thatcher-era sports Minister who now supports regulating secondary ticketing markets. He stresses the industrial scale of ticket abuse and the potential impact on families planning to buy tickets.

Mr Hollinrake argued that the proposed cap on ticket prices, as suggested by opposition members, would not significantly diminish misconduct according to the CMA report. He highlighted that existing legislation already sets out clear requirements for enforcement and emphasised that primary markets have substantial control over restricting secondary sales. Additionally, he noted that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has a budget of £122 million and can retain fines and penalties for its own enforcement activities. Mr Hollinrake acknowledged the importance of stricter enforcement but also insisted that more regulation is not necessary.

Mr Bryant's intervention questioned whether Mr Hollinrake would encourage people to buy Taylor Swift concert tickets only from authorised vendors, given that unauthorised secondary markets are considered invalid by the organisers.