Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

“Dáil Éireann resolves that the Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill 2017 be deemed to be read a second time this day nine months, to allow for scrutiny by the Select Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and for the Committee to consider submissions and hold hearings that have regard in particular to ensure that:

(a) the proposed Bill strikes a measured and effective approach in relation to the issue;

(b) the proposed Bill does not expose consumers to possible detriment in cases of false or non-delivery of tickets;

(c) the proposed Bill does not give rise to any unintended consequences;

(d) account is taken of further examination of the submissions to the public consultation process (launched in January 2017) to explore the range of solutions, both legislative and otherwise, that might address the issue of ticket resale; and

(e) the proposed Bill does not give rise to Constitutional difficulties; and

to fully discuss and explore other practical issues and consequences that may arise as a result of the proposals.”

I am dealing with this Bill on behalf of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, who is at a trade fair in Brussels. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Private Member's Bill and commend Deputy Quinlivan for bringing it forward. I also commend Deputies Rock and Donnelly for their Private Members’ Bill on the issue.

As Deputy Quinlivan said, there is no doubting the public concern and anger over the resale of tickets at inflated prices. Music or sports fans who are unable to get tickets for a concert or match they want to attend feel understandably annoyed when they see tickets for sale on secondary websites at a multiple of the face value price. Their annoyance is even greater when tickets go on sale on secondary websites immediately after or even before the primary ticket sale has ended. Disappointed fans want to know how this can happen and what can be done to tackle it.

The main solution proposed in the Deputy's Bill is make it an offence to sell, or offer for sale, event tickets at a price more than 10% above the face value of the ticket. This would be backed up by a provision authorising the Garda Síochána to apply to a court for an order for the confiscation of gains made from illegal ticket sales. The Bill would also make it an offence for businesses which provide electronic communication services used in connection with illegal ticket sales to continue to provide such services on being notified of their use for this purpose. These businesses would also have to comply with a request from a garda or event organiser for information about the ticket seller or other information relevant to the investigation of an offence under the legislation. The Bill would further require the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, to consult with venue operators, event organisers and ticketing agents with a view to establishing a voluntary code on ticket refunds or an official ticket exchange facility for consumers. The Bill introduced by Deputies Rock and Donnelly would make it an offence to sell, offer or advertise for sale an event ticket at a price in excess of that set by the event organiser.

The Government shares the concern of the three Deputies and of the public on this issue. Before the publication of the Deputy's Bill or that of the earlier Bill from Deputies Rock and Donnelly, my colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mitchell O’Connor, launched a public consultation on the subject, along with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross. They took this step because it was clear to them that, despite the significant amount of commentary on the issue, there was a lack of reliable information on many aspects of ticket resale, including its extent, the sources of the tickets that end up for resale on the secondary market and the prices achieved, as opposed to advertised, for tickets sold on that market.

The public consultation which ran from January to the end of March this year elicited over 20 responses, including submissions from sporting organisations, promoters and the main players in the primary and secondary ticket markets in Ireland. The responses were published earlier this week on the website of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. I encourage all Deputies with an interest in the subject to take the time to read the submissions. In addition to providing valuable information on the workings of the primary and secondary ticket markets, they show clearly the different views that exist on the causes of the current problems in these markets and on the solutions to those problems.

All Members would agree that good legislation is evidence-based and should be underpinned by a rigorous regulatory impact analysis. Such an impact analysis must assess the need for proposed legislation and whether it would have the desired impacts.

It must also look at possible unforeseen and unintended impacts and identify likely costs. While there is no doubt that there is a problem with the resale of tickets, we should not overstate its scale. The number of events each year where demand exceeds supply at the level necessary for a sizeable volume of secondary ticket sales is almost certainly in low double figures and accounts for a very small proportion of the thousands of ticketed events that take place every year. Similarly, it would be easy to get the impression from media reports that very large numbers of tickets for high demand events are listed for sale in secondary ticket marketplaces. In most cases, however, the number of such listings, although too high, is a good deal smaller than is commonly assumed. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor, has advised me, for example, that an analysis by her Department of ticket listings on the main secondary market websites for the recent Ed Sheeran concerts in the week following their release found that they accounted for fewer than 1% of tickets for the concerts. Even if every single one of these tickets had been available for sale on the primary ticket market, it is clear that there would still have been a large number of disappointed fans unable to get tickets. This underlines that the main cause of the difficulties experienced by fans in sourcing tickets for some events is the mismatch between supply and demand. Where this mismatch occurs to any significant extent, measures restricting the resale of tickets such as those proposed in the Bill would not address the fundamental cause of the problem or ensure everybody who wanted a ticket for a high demand event would be able to get one.

Another aspect of the issue on which it would be helpful to have full information is the make-up of those who offer tickets for sale on secondary market websites. The consultation paper suggests ticket resellers fall into three main categories: those who buy tickets with the intention of attending the event but who later find that they are unable to attend; ticket buyers who plan to attend an event but who buy extra tickets in order to subsidise the purchase of their own tickets and the other costs associated with attendance; and those who buy tickets for events that they have no intention of attending in order to resell the tickets at a profit. Some people who engage in this activity may do so occasionally, while others may do it on a more systematic basis. The consultation paper notes that this last category of ticket reseller, particularly those engaged in the activity on an organised, larges-cale basis, is the one that gives rise to the greatest public concern and which is most likely to be characterised as engaged in ticket touting. Consumers may be more tolerant of resale by the other two groups.

In bigger markets such as the United States and the United Kingdom there is clear evidence of large-scale involvement by organised, professional resellers in the secondary ticket market. The smaller scale of the Irish event market may mean that this category of reseller is less prominent here. In its response to the public consultation process one of the main secondary market ticket platforms has indicated that 90% of sellers on its Irish website in 2016 sold fewer than ten tickets. Assuming that this figure is broadly accurate and representative, it raises a question about the aims and scope of the proposed Bill. If somebody in Limerick or Galway buys four tickets for a concert in Dublin and wishes to sell two of them for 20%, 50% or 100% above the face value price in order to help to subsidise the travel and accommodation costs for their own attendance, should he or she be prohibited by law from doing so and subject to criminal proceedings if he or she resells the tickets for more than the permitted 10% cent mark-up above the original price?

This question raises a related issue about the legal status of event tickets that featured in a number of responses to the public consultation process. Is a ticket the personal property of the ticket buyer which he or she should be free to dispose of as and how they choose in the same way that they would be free to do with goods which they have bought, or should a ticket be seen instead as a licence which is issued subject to the terms and conditions laid down by the event organiser and revocable by the organiser if these terms and conditions, including restrictions on resale, are breached by the purchaser? To my knowledge, this point has not been the subject of a definitive court ruling, nor has the related question of whether bans or restrictions on resale in ticket contracts are fair or unfair under the regulations for unfair terms in consumer contracts.

Any assessment of a legislative proposal must pay particular attention to its likely consequences, intended or unintended. One likely consequence of the Deputy Maurice Quinlivan's Bill and in the Bill proposed by Deputies Noel Rock and Stephen S. Donnelly would be to render unviable the business model of the established secondary marketplaces. As these marketplaces typically charge buyers a fee of 10% of the ticket price and sellers a fee of 15%, it is difficult to see how they could continue to operate if, as stipulated in Deputy Maurice Quinlivan's Bill, the permitted resale price were fixed at a maximum of 10% above the face value of the ticket.

Many people might not lament if the established secondary market ticket platforms were no longer able to operate in Ireland. We have to consider, however, what might follow from such an outcome. I understand why many people view the activities of these platforms with distaste, but it is important to keep in mind that they serve a pro-consumer purpose in offering ticket buyers a guarantee that they will receive either a ticket or their money back. While consumers who overpay for tickets on the secondary ticket market may be subject to some detriment, the greatest detriment is suffered by those who pay black market sellers for tickets that are never provided or that turn out to be fake. Before we enact legislation along the lines proposed, we need to consider carefully whether it is likely to drive ticket resales underground to sellers who will not offer purchasers any guarantee about the tickets they buy. Both event promoters and An Garda Síochána have stated ticket fraud and the sale of counterfeit tickets present a serious problem. It is an issue that we need to take fully into account in our deliberations.

If the established secondary marketplaces were no longer in a position to sell tickets in Ireland, it is likely that some sellers would place tickets on websites in countries, including the United Kingdom and most other European Union member states, where resale was not subject to restrictions of the kind contained in the Bill. Some buyers keen to obtain tickets for major concerts or matches would no doubt also seek to buy them from sellers in other countries. According to information supplied to the Minister, Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor's Department by the Belgian authorities, this appears to have been one of the main effects of a law prohibiting the resale of tickets

above the face value price enacted in Belgium in 2013. The introduction of the legislation has not led to a reduction in the number of complaints about ticket resale from Belgian consumers. In its response to the public consultation process European Consumer Centre Ireland has stated there is a high likelihood that traders would seek to circumvent Irish legislation on ticket resale by operating outside the State.

These concerns and considerations should not necessarily lead us to reject the approach proposed in the two Private Members’ Bills. They do, however, show the need to examine fully and carefully all aspects of the issue and all possible consequences, intended and unintended, of applying a statutory price cap to ticket sales. This examination should also encompass options not dealt with in Deputy Maurice Quinlivan's Bill, in particular, additional information obligations for ticket sellers and provisions to regulate the use of software or bots for the purpose of circumventing restrictions on ticket purchases. Legislative provisions on bots have recently been introduced in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The Minister, Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor, has advised me that she and her officials are willing to co-operate with Deputies Noel Rock, Stephen S. Donnelly and Maurice Quinlivan in such an examination and for this purpose draw on the outcome of the public consultation process, any subsequent engagement with stakeholders and consultations with public authorities in other countries.

This is a complex question with a number of dimensions, on which there are conflicting, validly held views. While a number of countries permit the resale of tickets only at face value or a specified mark-up above face value, independent reviews in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands have rejected this approach. In working to achieve fairer access to event tickets for consumers, we must recognise and take full account of the complexity of the issues and different interests involved.

See this speech in context