Emma Foody MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Apr 2025 · Road Maintenance · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, like in so many other constituencies we have heard about today, potholes are not just an inconvenience but a danger. They damage vehicles, put cyclists and pedestrians at risk and cost working people hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds in repairs. For carers on their rounds, parents on the school run, and small businesses making deliveries, this problem disrupts daily life and chips away at local confidence. This situation has not happened by accident. One of the last acts of the previous Conservative administration at North Tyneside council was to outsource road maintenance to Capita back in 2013 on a 15-year contract. It was a 15-year contract of poor service and inadequate outcomes. During the election campaign last year—and every week when I am knocking doors—several people shared their frustration of potholes in our local area. Residents in Shiremoor on Angerton Avenue described how they would report a pothole, then Capita would come out and gaslight them over whether the pothole existed and tell them why it would not be repaired—“it wasn’t wide enough” or “it wasn’t deep enough”. They often argued for long periods of time while more were appearing, like a frustrating game of whack-a-mole. That is the legacy of failure in North Tyneside from the last Conservative administration—a legacy we can never risk happening again. When we talk about legacies of Conservative failure, we need look no further than Conservative-run Northumberland county council. I found it extraordinary the number of Conservative Members who want to associate themselves with that council, because under the Conservatives in Northumberland we have seen staggering levels of negligence. We are now the county with the third-highest number of potholes in the entire country. Recent research has shown that 449 claims to the council for compensation due to pothole damage were successful. One might ask whether that is on par with other councils in the area. It is not. Northumberland county council does not only come out higher than all the individual local authorities within the North East combined authority, or all of them put together, but its level of successful claims is four times that of all the councils put together. There has been more than £250,000 in payouts. That is a quarter of a million pounds of taxpayer money that could have been far better spent. That is truly staggering given that the council could have avoided all that by adequately maintaining our roads. The Conservatives had their chance to fix the situation, and they failed. The roads are broken, and so is their credibility, both locally and nationally. The good news is that help is now coming from the Labour Government. Our plan for change is delivering real results, and from this month councils will receive their share of £1.6 billion in new funding to repair and maintain our roads. The North East combined authority, led by Labour Mayor Kim McGuinness, will receive over £21 million to tackle the issue head on. This is not about press releases or photo opportunities. It is about fixing the basics that communities rely on. That means fewer parents dreading the school run, fewer workers stuck in traffic caused by roadworks, and fewer elderly residents fearing a fall because of uneven pavements. We are not just filling in the holes. We are laying the foundations for the future. Labour is delivering a £4.8 billion investment in major road schemes, preventive maintenance and long-term infrastructure renewal, which will mean fewer potholes, safer roads and more confidence in our transport system. That is what governing seriously looks like: fixing the basics, supporting local economies and making life better for ordinary people. The people of Cramlington and Killingworth have waited long enough. Labour is delivering the investment, the oversight and the plan. Now it is time for councils to act and for the Conservatives to explain why they ever let things get so bad.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a compelling case about the risks associated with social media platforms. Companies too often seem to have all the agency and none of the accountability for what we see on their platforms. We see these platforms pushing more and more extreme content to people through their algorithms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we saw checks and balances applied to the social media giants?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an incredibly impassioned speech, which comes from a place of real experience. As has been mentioned, though, we see an incredibly stark divide in the younger generation. Recent research on generation Z has shown that it is more polarised than ever, with over 25% of young people preferring authoritarianism. Does he agree that it is time to ensure that our young people can access nuanced debate?

• 14 Nov 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Next week is UK Parliament Week. I recently had the privilege of visiting Beaconhill primary school in Cramlington in my constituency. It was fantastic to meet the leadership team and hear about their incredible work to ensure that every child gets to share in opportunity. I also met Oliver and Melody and the school council, who spoke about how the antisocial behaviour of a few has left the local park strewn with litter and unable to be enjoyed by local children. May we have a debate in Government time on tackling antisocial behaviour, to ensure that our public spaces can be enjoyed by everyone?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. Residents in my constituency are still feeling the pinch in their pockets and pay packets from Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget. It is vital that this Government fix the foundations of our economy to deliver proper public services and a rise in living standards. Can the Chancellor tell me how she will deliver this for the north-east and for people across the country?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Secondary Ticketing Market · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the secondary ticketing market. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Rosindell. I am delighted to see so many other Members who have long campaigned on this issue, including my north-east colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and I look forward to her contribution. I also thank organisations such as the FanFair Alliance for their hard work on this matter, and the Co-operative party for its End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign. Live sport, music and entertainment brings joy to millions of people every single week. Whether it is watching their favourite team or going to a gig, concert or play, people save up for events, wait in online or telephone queues and eagerly anticipate games and shows. I am sure that that is something just about everyone in this country has experienced, and we can all think back to our favourite game, gig, concert or play. They are memorable events that we remember for decades—moments shared with friends, family or partners that last a lifetime. Members need not worry—I will not go around the room and ask everyone about their first gig or their favourite one, or about that live sporting fixture that lives with them forever. Growing up, my friends and I would save our pocket money or our paper round money, and we would queue up at local music shops such as Pet Sounds to get tickets to gigs, generally at the local universities. As true millennials, we got to see loads of our favourite punk bands—NOFX, Bowling for Soup, and Spunge being just a few. For those who think that punk is just a phase, I am looking forward to the Tour of the Setting Sum farewell tour by Sum 41 next week. These are formative moments and cherished memories, but for everyone who gets to enjoy them, there are those who have missed out—those who were not able to secure tickets and make those memories. Far too often, those consumers are then left at the mercy of what is the topic of today’s debate—the secondary ticketing market. The issue profoundly affects music and sport fans, event-goers and the integrity of our live entertainment industry, but it appears to be inadequately addressed by current regulatory frameworks. People understand that they will not always get a ticket to the show, gig or game, but they feel a real sense of injustice at the scale of secondary ticketing platforms, with tickets often appearing just moments after people have attempted to purchase them. While allowing a space for those tickets to be resold is important, it is also important that that is not to the detriment of consumers. The industry is vast, with one in five tickets ending up on secondary platforms, so the need for education and measures to protect consumers is becoming increasingly clear. Recent findings from O2 show that consumers lose an estimated £145 million each year due to inflated resale prices, which are pricing many out of the events and experiences they love. A study by ITV News and the FanFair Alliance found that over two thirds of resale tickets for 174 festivals and outdoor events were being offered by just three traders, who collectively sought to profit by almost £1 million. Earlier this year, it was reported that two prolific touts were jailed after buying tickets for high-profile gigs and reselling them on secondary sites for up to 500% of their original cost, with the scheme being worth more than £6.5 million. Worryingly, with technology, the issue is becoming more and more prevalent. In just six weeks, O2 prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform, with those tickets almost guaranteed to end up on resale sites and other people losing out. I will touch a little later on the practice of ticket harvesting, and while some progress has been made to prevent it, new technologies and techniques continue to circumvent the measures in place. With that as a backdrop, is it any wonder that research from the FanFair Alliance found that 80% of respondents believe that secondary ticketing services are unfairly exploiting fans? Practices such as drip-feeding, surge pricing and strategic holdbacks create a precarious environment for consumers, and concerns have been raised about practices that manipulate supply and demand, driving up prices and creating artificial scarcity. Shockingly, between 30% and 50% of tickets may be withheld from public sale, leading to heightened frustration among genuine fans who simply want to attend events. As the cost of attending events increases, it is ultimately fans who are missing out. We cannot allow a situation where genuine fans are priced out of culture, art and entertainment because of these practices. We are already at a stage where too many fans opt out of trying to attend events, dispirited by the existing landscape, with little chance of seeing their team, group or artist at what would be the normal asking price. Again, at the heart of this is people—consumers—who are missing out. Due to enhanced costs, they cannot attend the gig or event they have dreamed of. What do consumers have to navigate at the moment? As I have said, ticket harvesting, surge pricing and a concerning transparency deficit. Ticket harvesting—where individuals or groups use automated software and bots to acquire large quantities of tickets during primary sale—is preventing fans from accessing culture at an industrial scale. As mentioned earlier, O2 indicated that it prevented 50,000 suspected bots from accessing its Priority platform in just six weeks. Similarly, FanFair found platforms where people bragged about the extent of their exploits. Members of a Discord group were able to purchase up to 1,700 tickets to an upcoming tour next year, with the tickets then being sold at enhanced prices, and fans paying the price. Those alarming statistics highlight the scale of the problem. We have all heard what this can lead to. Whether it is tickets to major concerts, Eurovision or other events, I am sure everyone has seen and heard the stories. The latest hot tickets go live, and within minutes they are listed on secondary platforms at significantly inflated prices. To give one example, after the swift sell-out of Eurovision tickets in 2023, tickets resold for upwards of £9,000—more than 20 times their initial price. That kind of price gouging creates an environment where only the wealthiest fans can afford to attend popular events, alienating loyal supporters and pricing them out of culture. Turning now to transparency in the market, consumers deserve clear and accurate information regarding who is selling tickets, how many are available and the pricing structures involved. One of the most pressing issues is the information gap that exists on secondary ticketing platforms. When consumers purchase tickets, they often receive insufficient details regarding their authenticity, the identity of the seller and the potential risks involved. Enhanced transparency is crucial to enable fans to make informed decisions. At the moment, it is unclear what exactly the secondary ticket market is, with research showing that 62% of music fans purchasing from resale platforms do not realise they are buying from individual sellers, creating confusion for many. In the best-case scenarios, we hear of fans having to meet people in car parks for handovers of tickets; at worst, the tickets do not exist. Greater transparency would play a pivotal role in educating consumers about the risks of ticketing, and especially the practice of speculative selling, where tickets are listed that do not exist or are not available. That practice can lead to dire consequences, with fans thinking they have secured tickets, only to find that they have been misled. Investigations have uncovered instances where tickets worth more than £1 million were speculatively advertised online. Despite consumers being assured that protections are in place, it appears that some sellers remain able to circumvent protections, with the consumer paying the price and experiencing the double whammy of missing out and losing out financially. Fans, whether at sports events, gigs or other events, should be at the heart of events, yet current practices lead to disillusion among fans and a disconnect with those they support and the sector more widely. Inflated prices leave loyal fans priced out of attending live events they once enjoyed, with the prohibitive cost of attending eroding the connection between fans and artists. Trust among fans is another casualty; when fans feel they are being exploited, their trust in both the industry and the teams or artists involved is eroded. Anger at missing out can be directed at those acts or teams, with allegations that they are complicit in a system that excludes ordinary fans, when this is largely through no fault of their own. We have seen many recent examples where fans have expressed upset at the initial difficulty of getting a ticket and then at the surge pricing and instant relisting on secondary platforms. When tickets are resold at an inflated price, that does not benefit the artist or the venue. Instead, the profits are siphoned off, removing crucial funding from cultural communities. We know that artists rely on ticket sales as a significant portion of their income, especially in an era when traditional revenue streams such as album sales have dwindled due to streaming services. The success of a tour can hinge on the ability to sell tickets at a fair price, and unfair practices undermine the economic viability of live performances. So this is about protecting not just consumers, but entertainment more widely and making it more accessible. So what is currently in place to protect consumers and the sector? Well, there is regulation and enforcement from a number of organisations: the Competition and Markets Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, trading standards and, in some cases, the police. The CMA published a comprehensive report in 2021 that outlined recommendations aimed at curbing detrimental practices in the ticketing market. Among them was a call for stronger measures against ticket resellers who exploit fans with excessive prices. The CMA’s investigation revealed that a significant portion of tickets listed were being sold at inflated prices on secondary platforms. The previous Government were hesitant to implement all the CMA’s recommendations, which included further proposals. However, there have been recent changes in regulations in this area, with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and we have taken a significant step forward. There has been an expansion of the CMA’s investigation and enforcement powers, allowing for direct action against non-compliant reselling platforms. Additionally, the Act will enable the CMA to enforce existing rules, addressing a long-standing concern over the lack of transparency and ensuring that consumers have access to clear and accurate information. The previous Government could have gone further, but held back from embracing some of the reforms, which could have further strengthened consumer protections. I am pleased that the new Labour Government have already confirmed that a new consultation will take place and that we will revisit the recommendations. As a proud Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, I am delighted that the party has launched a new consumer campaign on this issue. The End the Ticket Price Rip-off campaign highlights the fact that, whether it is dynamic pricing way above face value or fans being frozen out of culture, the party movement has always had consumers at the heart of it, standing up for consumers and helping to deliver everything from the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. I really welcome the latest campaign, alongside a petition that has already been signed by thousands calling for strong powers to stop fans being taken advantage of and to protect them from being exploited by touts and resale sites. I know that the Government are setting up the consultation as we speak and that it will involve not only DCMS but the Department for Business and Trade. I hope that it provides a real opportunity to look at all options to take action that can fundamentally transform the ticketing landscape for fans, artists and the integrity of the market and to enhance consumer protection, ensure fair access to tickets and mitigate the current issues faced. Campaigners have raised concerns about whether the current regulatory framework is being enforced. Following high-profile cases, the CMA has opened investigations, but the problem is far more prevalent. Will the Minister comment on how we can better use current legislation to provide protections to consumers? The Co-operative party has been campaigning for much tougher enforcement action against platforms hosting ticket touts. Where websites continuously exploit fans, could the use of fines and the removal of websites entirely be considered to strengthen the protection of fans? Much as the Co-operative party has long been a movement for the consumer, access to arts and culture is a Labour value. It is why our trade union movement adopted the bread and roses slogan from the American suffrage movement. Life should not be just about the basics—food, housing and wages—but about the roses too. For too many at the moment, culture is becoming inaccessible because of a trade that relies on the exploitation of enjoyment, buying up excessive numbers of tickets before real fans have a chance, and reselling them at extortionate prices. I am sure that the Minister agrees that culture enriches lives, that it should be open to people and that fans should not be priced out due to a secondary ticket market. Can he reassure me that that will be at the heart of what we do as part of the consultation? To conclude, although this matter may not be at the top of the list of things impacting on people across the country, it is important in demonstrating our values. Culture should be available to all and not just the privileged few. Live entertainment should not be in the purview only of those who are able and willing to pay extortionate prices. People already save up for the cost price to access events; they should not be made to pay multiples of that. A system that allows ticket harvesting, surge pricing and tickets being resold at multiple times their original value excludes people from the enjoyment of a gig, sporting event or show. Those actions freeze people out of enjoyment and take away their chance of having the special, memorable moments that live entertainment can bring, whether that is music or sport. As the great Newcastle United manager Bobby Robson once said of football and our beloved Newcastle United, “What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It’s not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It’s the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city. It’s a small boy clambering up stadium steps for the very first time, gripping his father’s hand, gawping at that hallowed stretch of turf beneath and, without being able to do a thing about it, falling in love.” Everyone deserves that opportunity to fall in love. I hope we can work to protect fans and end the ticket rip-off.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Estate Adoption: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  This is an experience that is shared around the country, and we need to look at all available options to we resolve this matter. We are not talking about months that residents are left in this situation, but years—five, 10, 15 years, in which families see their children grow up and leave home before a road is completed. Before the debate, I asked my constituents for their testimonies and experiences of the range of issues that they face. David, who lives on the Fairways estate in the west of Cramlington speaks of roads and pavements on the estate that are largely without tarmac, which has made using bikes, wheelchairs, and pushchairs dangerous outside the home. He talks of how residents are cut off from other facilities such as shops, schools, and parks, because the necessary footpaths were not built for years. He says that only after constant pressure from residents did the developer build a footpath, which is unlit and poorly laid—it would be difficult to use a pushchair or a wheelchair on it—and it links one housing estate to another through a field. If people have a car, the roads are not much better. They are often unfinished, with is a higher risk of damaging vehicles. When the roads are icy, there is more risk of traffic accidents. Another constituent, Iain, has been contacting the developer of Five Mile Park in Wideopen for three years regarding the road surface. The estate was constructed almost 10 years ago, and he has been given excuse after excuse about why work has been delayed on the roads, pavements and footpaths. The developer informed Iain that the road had been completed more than a year ago. However, poor-quality work by contractors means that it has not been brought up to adoptable standards. That is just one case of many in which a developer will claim to have completed roads, pavements or other infrastructure, but not up to a standard for the local authority to adopt them.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Estate Adoption: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution; it is as if he has seen the next part of my speech as I am going to reference the CMA, so I will progress and touch on the issues he raised. I have mentioned the homeowners, the local authorities and the developers, but there is another third party that has an important role: the utilities and the broadband companies that have to deliver the infrastructure as well. In Earsdon View, residents remain on an unadopted estate, as the developer and the water company have been unable to resolve adoption. A resident on the estate, Jim, feels that the water company and the developer have passed the buck, and nothing has been done on the issue. As he put it, residents are left with “stalemate”. Often, it is the relationships between developers and utilities companies that hold back the full adoption of water mains and other utilities. The knock-on consequence is that roads are left open and untarmacked while the disputes are ongoing. While such issues between developers, third parties and local authorities are haggled over, residents are left to pick up the cost through estate management fees. That fee is meant to support a contractor while they carry out work on the estate, but residents have shared their experiences of being left unsatisfied by the system of estate management fees, which are often unpredictable, opaque and confusing. Many argue that they are being ripped off, with fees that can increase by unlimited and unspecified amounts each year. Residents such as Oliver fear that if fees continue to go up and they were unable to meet them they would be unable to sell their property. The CMA report earlier this year says that one of the things that creates the most distress for homeowners on such estates is the disproportionate response time taken by management companies, as well as their response when homeowners are unable to pay. Homeowners have had their property seized because they cannot meet the costs levied by estate management companies, yet residents are left powerless to challenge the unfinished state and poor quality of their estate. People echo earlier remarks that the existing system is skewed towards developers, with little access to justice for residents. I am glad that the Labour Government have already pledged to end the leasehold system. A developer that has not met its promises to homeowners should not be able to profiteer in relation to those same homeowners. I am proud that this Government are taking the necessary steps to solve our housing crisis. We have a complete shortage of housing of all types. This Labour Government are being bold, with a target of 1.5 million homes during the Parliament; reform of leaseholds to end exorbitant ongoing costs for residents to live in their own homes and of the existing leasehold system; the end of section 21; and reform of the rental market. The Government have said they intend to introduce legislation to deal with the commonhold and leasehold issues that are still prevalent in today’s housing market, fixing the system—adoption should be part of that.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Estate Adoption: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely share the sentiments of my hon. Friend. I refer him to my earlier comments about how this is not just about building homes, but about building communities. To do that properly—the Labour Government have set out that they intend to do that—we need to be able to address the issue of unadopted estates. The CMA report talked about common adoptable standards as one solution that would set out clearly the minimum standard that has to be met for a road to be adoptable. Where the standard is met, there should be mandatory adoption of amenities, with only a few limited exceptions. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those suggestions in his reply. Certainty could be provided to residents about the timescales within which the adoptable standards would be met. The Minister has talked about that previously. Such measures would give residents clarity and would enable developers to be held to account on timescales and delivery against them. The measures would strengthen the hand of residents and local authorities to hold developers accountable for putting in place the most basic infrastructure that residents ought to be able to expect. The measures would address the imbalance between developers and the rights of homeowners when it comes to adoption and delivery of infrastructure. As my colleagues in the north-east and I have set out, residents should not be left for years on estates paying fees on top of council tax while there is unfinished infrastructure and a lack of any certainty of delivery long after the developer has left the site. People who have worked hard, saved and bought their own home deserve better than that. If we are to deliver the housing that this country needs and bring communities with us, addressing this issue and the timely delivery of appropriate infrastructure on estates is crucial to getting that buy-in. I know that this is something that the Minister will be working on, and I look forward to his response.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Estate Adoption: North-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising those issues. I know it is something that is raised with all Northumberland MPs, and I agree that we need to look at all mechanisms to ensure that estates are at an adoptable standard. In my constituency, Dan from West Meadows, another estate, shared his worries that local football pitches would never be brought up to the standard that has been promised. Mark, who lives in Backworth View, told me how the street lighting on his road has never been switched on in the five years he has lived there, yet he is paying full council tax and management fees. Many residents express frustration that they are paying both estate management fees and council tax, yet, because the estate is unadopted, they have poorer quality infrastructure, despite paying more. Local authorities often feel the brunt of complaints from residents, but they hold little power to compel developers to bring private unadopted estates to the standards required for them to be adopted. Local authorities should not be footing the bill for delays and lack of delivery from private house builders. Too often, local authorities are hamstrung. The developers have long since left the site, so local authorities are left fielding complaints from residents, despite having little power to compel action. A chief planning officer at a local authority told me that the current system is skewed towards developers. They pick their own contractors, timeframes and materials, which are often not up to the standard for a council to be able to adopt their work, yet it is the local authority that is left with understandably frustrated residents long after the developer has gone.