My hon. Friend may or may not be right about that. I am not particularly well up on the procurement activities of the diplomatic service when it comes to tickets for events. He may know more than I do. I am making the case that ticket touting and a secondary market in tickets are in the best interests of consumers on both sides of the fence. Other people may take a different view, but I am passionately against the Bills because they drive a coach and horses through the principle of ticket touting.
A more general point is that whatever people's view about the desirability or otherwise of ticket touting and selling, it would sure be nonsensical to have a different law relating to Nottingham from those that apply in any other part of the country. It would bring laws passed in this House into utter contempt if, after the House had expressed an opinion on whether something was a good thing that acted in the interests of consumers, one particular city decided to do something completely different on a matter of national importance.
Canterbury City Council Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Philip Davies
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 14 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Canterbury City Council Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c924 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 10:04:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609438
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609438
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_609438