Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 May 2017

Vol. 950 No. 2

Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill 2017: Second Stage [Private Members]

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill 2017 aims to eliminate the persistent problem of ticket touting while at the same time protecting ordinary consumers and charities. In drafting this Bill, my three main concerns were to ensure that those who buy tickets with the intention of attending an event but who later find that they are unable to attend are protected and allowed to re-sell their tickets, to target those ticket touts who purchase tickets for events they never intend to attend and who have only the intention of reselling at huge prices and to ensure there are exemptions for charities. This last concern is dealt with in section 5. This provides for registered charities to be allowed to sell tickets at a price greater than the 10% limit.

Ticket touting has escalated in recent years. With advances in technology, the practice has grown from traditional touts selling counterfeit, cancelled or extortionately priced tickets outside venues to online sites in the grey area of regulation. Each time tickets go on sale for a concert or sporting event, it is followed by a news report that outlines how the tickets sold out in minutes and are immediately re-selling online on secondary sites at extortionate prices. Despite people's best efforts in queuing at retailers or arranging to buy tickets online on the morning of a sale, most have no chance as a result of the misuse of the system by secondary re-sellers. This has caused huge concern and much debate in the media but there has been very little action to deal with the problem until tickets for the next popular event are sold out. Ticket touting and the secondary sales of tickets for events, be they music concerts, sporting or cultural events, have been the source of huge concern and anger for many years. People are perplexed as to why tickets that are supposedly "sold out" can then be offered for sale - in some cases by companies which are often owned by the primary seller for multiples of the initial cost of same. Peter Aiken of Aiken Promotions, one of the country's biggest music promoters, has recently spoken out against the use of secondary ticket-selling websites such as Seatwave and GetMeIn, both of which are owned by Ticketmaster. He said that many of those selling on these secondary sites do not need to prove they actually have tickets and so many people face being ripped off and left very disappointed. Many organisations have been particularly proactive in ensuring that tickets for their events are not sold on and that in the vast majority of cases, those who purchase tickets from them do attend save for exceptional reasons. In particular I commend Cumann Lúthchleas Gael and the Irish Rugby Football Union, which have robust procedures to ensure as best they can that tickets are not resold at exorbitant prices.

However, the re-selling of tickets needs to be tackled. It is not benefitting the public, music artists or sports teams involved and is tarnishing the experience for many. This Bill aims to address these issues and give everyone a fair opportunity to buy tickets to these events. Over a number of years, there have been a number of attempts to regulate the re-sale of tickets. Deputies Denis Naughten and Alan Shatter brought forward the Prohibition of Ticket Touts Bill in 1998 while Deputy Jimmy Deenihan brought forward the Prohibition of Ticket Touts Bill in 2005 but these were unsuccessful and the problem remains. If enacted, this Bill will have the potential to make the re-sale of tickets unprofitable and thus it would have a huge impact on the existing problem and make most ticket touting pointless. Unless we take the profit out of re-selling and impose sanctions on those who persist, we will never adequately address this issue.

I will go through the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 provides for the interpretation of the wording of the Bill. This includes the term "designated event", which is defined as a sporting or cultural event for which more than 300 tickets have been offered for sale. "Face value" is defined as the original price of the ticket, including the full cost of the ticket plus any administration or other fees incurred in its purchase from the primary retailer. Section 2 outlines the offences that would be introduced by this Bill. The Bill will make it an offence for a person to sell or offer for sale a ticket for a designated event at a price greater than 10% above the face value of the ticket. Section 2 also outlines that a person guilty of such an offence shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000. Section 3 outlines the powers of An Garda Síochána if it has reasonable cause for believing a person is committing or has committed an offence under section 2. Section 4 details the procedure for a confiscation order, should the court determine that a person has benefitted from illegal ticket touting. Exemptions for charities are dealt with in section 5. This provides for registered charities to be allowed to sell tickets at a price greater than the 10% limit. Section 6 details the procedure for dealing with the sale and disposal of tickets on the Internet. This provides for a period of 24 hours where a person who provides services for electronic communication or for the shortage of electronic data is made aware that they are used in connection with the commission of an offence under this Act before such a person shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 7 of the Bill seeks to allow for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, to consult with venue operators, event organisers and ticket agents in order to establish a voluntary code regarding ticket refunds to consumers. Section 8 details that expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of the Act shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. Section 9 is the final section of the Bill and deals with the Short Title and commencement. The Act may be known as the Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Act 2017 and come into effect one month from the date of its passing.

The practice of ticket touting has gone on for too long. What should be an enjoyable experience for people is being made into a nightmare because of the difficulty of obtaining reasonably priced legitimate tickets due to secondary selling. Genuine music and sport fans are the biggest losers in this situation. Ireland will continue to suffer reputational damage while the practice of ticket touting continues here, which could affect decisions to host major sporting events here. Ireland is a candidate to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup, which would be the biggest sporting tournament ever held in Ireland. If chosen as hosts, it is estimated over 450,000 visitors would arrive in Ireland for the tournament and over 2 million tickets would be sold by the host rugby union. Organisers should be reassured that fans will be protected, not exploited should events such as the Rugby World Cup be held here. The passing of legislation such as this Bill would provide organisers with reassurance that the tournament would not be plagued by negative media coverage over ticketing issues and would allow genuine fans to benefit from the fixtures.

International practice has shown that the issue is not confined to Ireland. The producers of a musical called Hamilton and Adele, a singer, tried and failed to curb ticket touting for their respective shows. They sought to introduce measures whereby ticket holders had to have a confirmation email, the bank card used to make the booking and photo ID. In spite of those measures, tickets for the shows were for sale on secondary websites at extortionate prices. Stronger measures such as those contained in this Bill are needed to combat this.

The Government conducted a consultation for which I commend the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Mitchell O'Connor. The consultation was launched in January and concluded last week. The report has not been completed but submissions to the consultation were published on the Department website. Contributions included that of Peter Aiken of Aiken Promotions, who said that he would like to see the resale of tickets by third parties criminalised. The Consumers’ Association of Ireland said that there should be a ban on the resale of all tickets for all publically advertised and promoted events above face value plus the addition of between a 5% and 10% resale charge. DoneDeal, a website on which a large number of tickets are resold, said it would be very keen to support any legislation to ensure that the resale of tickets is more regulated. The GAA said that touting in its various forms should be classified as a criminal activity with appropriate penalties in place, whether it takes place on the street or online or involves the private trading of tickets for above face value or fraudulent tickets. A number of contributions expressed concern about the potential damage to Ireland’s reputation. The FAI said that the introduction of such legislation forms part of commitments given by the Government as part of Ireland’s bid to UEFA to host matches in Euro 2020. The Irish American Football Association said the Government needs to be conscious that Ireland will cease to be an attractive destination for overseas sporting events if event organisers are more interested in once-off windfall profits rather than the sustainability of Ireland as an event destination.

There were also contributions from reselling sites. Unsurprisingly, submissions received from such sites were not in favour of introducing legislation to regulate this area. However, this legislation will not have a detrimental effect on such sites as the Bill does not outlaw the reselling of tickets but rather places a cap on prices in order to prevent abuse. It will therefore remain possible for tickets to be resold on these sites but only at reasonable prices that are fair to consumers. The issues highlighted in the consultation will be addressed by this Bill.

I hoped that the Bill would receive all-party support. I wrote to Deputies Rock and Donnelly who have previously put forward a Bill on this issue. I thought there would be support for the Bill but unfortunately the Government has tabled an amendment which I appeal to it to withdraw. The amendment would have the effect of kicking the can down the road for nine months. I am disappointed by it being tabled.

Ordinary people who need to resell their ticket for genuine reasons will be facilitated by allowing the resale of tickets at a maximum profit margin of 10% of the original purchase price. The Bill will deter those who intend to resell tickets at exorbitant prices by eradicating their profits through the imposition of fines of up to €5,000. The Bill recognises that tickets for sporting and cultural events are often resold at charity fundraisers for charities and includes an exemption for regulated charities to account for this. The Bill will address the ticketing issues that have plagued music, cultural and sporting events in Ireland for years and I welcome any suggestions or amendments to make it work best for consumers.

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 to 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, large-scale 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% 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 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.

I thank Deputy Maurice Quinlivan for bringing forward the Bill which deals with a very topical issue. It is a good Bill which needs to be worked on and we are happy to support it. I agree with the Government's proposal that it proceed to Committee Stage after a period. A period of nine months has been proposed, but it could be shorter. There is a need for proper scrutiny because the issue is hugely complex and technological advances are well ahead of legislation. We have no legislation in place in this country. It is, therefore, an issue of huge public concern.

I attended a Munster rugby match in Thomond Park over the Christmas period with a neighbour of mine. I had a ticket, but he did not. He bought a ticket outside the stadium and when he presented it, it was declined. It had been sold back into the system on the website. There are issues that need to be dealt with in considering how we should try to tackle the problem. We must also bear in mind how legislation might be enforced. The Minister of State made reference to the moving of tickets to websites offshore, as happens in the gaming and gambling industries. We do not want to have a situation where some of the more reputable ticket reselling organisations will relocate and take their business and jobs elsewhere.

There are other complexities. Deputy Maurice Quinlivan and I both come from Limerick where there is a strong rugby tradition. Munster played Saracens in the European Rugby Champions Cup recently in the Aviva Stadium.

Most of the rugby clubs in Limerick would have used some of their ticket allocation to hold fundraising events in Dublin, where they would have sold packages of a meal and a ticket. How do we separate out that type of thing? I am just offering it as an example. A person obviously would pay more than the face value of the ticket as the whole thing is designed to make money and to fundraise for the club. These are hugely important sources of income to clubs. I note that the Deputy has exempted charities. There is also a huge issue in terms of the funding of our sporting organisations. Rightly or wrongly, the use of tickets for big sporting events which are distributed to soccer, GAA and rugby clubs is now an integral part of funding the day-to-day activities of voluntary clubs. There is a rugby club in Limerick city which was founded well over 100 years ago. Up until recently, it owed the bank €1.1 million. It is an amateur club with hundreds of kids turning up at weekends to play on the firsts, seconds and thirds. They are playing in the all-Ireland rugby league and all the rest. This is the reality faced by GAA, soccer and rugby clubs and other sporting organisations of different codes every day of the week. Tickets for major events are used for funding their day-to-day activities. It is not right but it is how they have to survive at the moment. How do we address that?

I am aware that the Department has carried out consultation. I really want to hear from the sporting organisations. Some of what Deputy Quinlivan has cited from their submissions to the Department is fine. They are running the events along with the concert and event promoters. They are getting the tickets out into the marketplace and are saying it should be criminalised after that, once they have the tickets sold at face value. My view is that those organisations, along with us as legislators and the State, have a responsibility to come up with reasonable, practical proposals to deal with the issue of ticket touting and reselling at inflated prices.

Nor is there any point in sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to the constitutional question in respect of property rights. If I hold a ticket and I have paid for it, can I not sell it at an inflated price? I own the ticket and it is my property. It is enshrined in our Constitution. We can all shrug our shoulders. I remember during a previous Administration how the Labour Party filled the galleries when the issue of upward-only rent reviews was under discussion. They insisted it was not unconstitutional and that we could deal with it by legislation. They marched people up and down the hill. When they got into government, even though they had the same legal adviser as when they were in opposition, it suddenly became a constitutional issue. The question really has to be addressed. If one owns a ticket, is it property or a licence? I think the Minister of State mentioned that matter and it must be teased out.

Why exempt charities? I am not anti-charity, and we all want to support charities, but we have seen how some churches register as charities. They collect their dues and subscriptions from parishioners and people get a tax form in the door which they are asked to sign. The church is registered as a charity and is claiming the credit. It is not just the church that does it. Will we then have a proliferation of charities? Again, it is very complex.

I am with Deputy Quinlivan all the way on the Bill. We really need to sort the problem out. I would love for our committee to spend a decent amount of time considering it. The Deputy has offered a Bill for the right reasons. The public, whom we are elected to serve, are the big losers. We should also have a debate about the primary cost of ticketing. If a family wants to go to Croke Park for an all-Ireland final, it is a very expensive day out. What is the cost of a ticket for an all-Ireland final or semi-final? A family of three, four or five might get a holiday in Spain for the same type of money. That is part of the engagement we need to have.

As part of our consultation, I would also like us to engage with the ticket resellers in the secondary market, such as eBay, StubHub and viagogo. Deputy Quinlivan and I are both from Limerick, where viagogo is a serious employer and a very reputable company. We have to sit down, talk with them and learn from their experiences. The issue has been around for a very long time and I would rather get it right than get it wrong and have to revisit it. We know that others have tried to deal with the issue previously. We are happy to support the Bill but would like to have a degree of consultation. If Deputy Quinlivan wants to propose to shorten the nine months, I am happy to go along with that too.

Deputy Quinlivan has certainly given us a great opportunity to discuss this issue. Listening to Members on all sides of the House this evening, there is general consensus that everybody would like to solve this issue. The big question is how to do so. Looking back, I can think of a plethora of names - the Minister, Deputy Naughten, former Deputy Shatter, Deputies Donnelly, Rock and others - who have all brought forward proposals on this matter. They were good proposals; I have looked up some of them. It is an extremely complex issue. This evening's Bill is a good one. However, we should allow time for the process that is currently under way between the Departments of Transport, Tourism and Sport, and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. At some stage, we should bring all the interested groups around the table to discuss the matter.

On the issue of charities, many of us attend charity events. I acknowledge that Deputy Quinlivan proposes to exempt charities. One of the ways in which they raise money is by auctioning tickets for major events such as all-Ireland finals, soccer matches or music concerts. I do many of these charity auctions myself, and sometimes they get €400 or €500 for a ticket. We want to make sure that this area was not affected. It may be covered in the Bill already. With the charity exemption, though, might we find a plethora of organisations looking for charitable status? That is another issue. I am just raising these questions so that all the issues will be addressed. We do not want a legal situation to arise whereby somebody can challenge part of the legislation.

I thank the Deputy for bringing the Bill forward. It is clear that there is a common consensus that we want this issue addressed. By working together and allowing a short period for discussion on the matter, we could bring it forward.

Is Deputy Martin Kenny offering? Deputy Crowe is going first.

The elder lemon goes first. I welcome the Bill and thank my colleague, Deputy Quinlivan, for bringing it forward. There is an urgency in this matter. The legislation has two main objectives. It will protect the ordinary consumer who buys a ticket in good faith only to discover he or she cannot attend the event. It would also ensure that people will be able to dispose of their tickets within a suggested 10% profit margin. It will stop those who purchase event tickets with the sole intention of selling them on for a profit. The Bill is intended to disincentivise ticket touting by the introduction of substantial fines.

It is timely that we tackle the ticket rip-off chancers who increasingly charge outrageous prices for tickets to entertainment and sport events in Ireland.

Part of the difficulty is that, with the advances in technology, the practice has grown from the idea of traditional touts selling counterfeit, cancelled or other tickets outside venues to online sites. We have all come across those who appeal for anyone looking for a spare ticket; it is the usual thing. This takes place in a grey or non-existent area of regulation. This grey area with the associated technology and so on has spurred the concern of many people.

Each time tickets go for sale for a concert or sporting event a news report usually follows outlining how the tickets have sold out. I listened to what the Minister of State said. He suggested this was only for some concerts and so on. It may be part of a selling ploy. I acknowledge the Minister of State referred to a mismatch and demand and supply. Furthermore, he said 20 submissions were made on the site. However, if he went online or took to social media, he would know far more than 20 people are discussing this issue and they all have their stories. The fact that people did not make a submission on the Department website or engage in that process does not mean we can dismiss this or that it is not a problem.

Despite the best efforts of people in queuing or arranging to buy tickets online on the morning of sale, they have no chance of getting a result because of the misuse by secondary sellers. I am unsure whether the Minister of State has ever tried it, but I have tried it for various things I wanted to get. This is how it appears to me as a consumer.

The ongoing problem was highlighted in recent months. After tickets for music festivals like Electric Picnic sold out within minutes, the same tickets appeared immediately afterwards on ticket re-selling sites for far higher prices.

I listened to the Minister of State talk about pushing it down the road for a further nine or 12 months. The difficulty is that, as the Minister of State is aware, we are facing into a concert season. Again, I am conscious of young people being ripped off. Weekend camping tickets for Electric Picnic went on sale at a price of €246.10, including charges. Yet, on the same day, tickets were widely available on re-selling sites at inflated prices. I am informed that tickets were on sale on www.seatwave.ie, a Ticketmaster-owned company. I am uncomfortable about that connection. On the one hand, a company is selling tickets, but then another linked company is selling the same tickets for €474.98 only hours after the original tickets went on sale. Those were the prices for a weekend camping ticket. The same tickets were also selling on another site for a whopping €542.36. These opportunistic money-grabbing chancers are preventing genuine concert-goers and sporting enthusiasts from the opportunity to attend events. This needs to be tackled head-on.

This Bill will, I hope, close the loopholes that allow this practice and will begin to address it. I use the term "I hope" because there is such potential for money to be made that those involved will probably come up with a different angle. As legislators, we need to examine this area and adapt the legislation as we go along.

I welcome the recent comments of Peter Aiken of Aiken Promotions, one of the country's music promoters, on the need for regulation of ticket selling. This was mentioned earlier in the debate. He has been at this game for a lifetime. He is concerned and has spoken out against the use of secondary ticket selling sites such as www.seatwave.ie and www.getmein.com after tickets for U2 and Ed Sheeran were being touted for over €1,000 on the Internet. One could say that we should let the market decide and so on and I have heard of the possibility of a constitutional issue. What are people saying? Are we going to do something or kick it down the road? My view is that we need to do something. We have seen the demand for tickets. No one has mentioned it, but let us discuss the elephant in the room: Garth Brooks. Who remembers that? There was extraordinary demand. Even though there were many tickets over many nights, that was a phenomenon in itself.

I imagine companies like Ticketmaster would not be happy with this legislation, but so what? We put in legislation all the time that companies are not happy with. I believe that concert-goers and young people who buy tickets for different events and so on would be over the moon if we gave a commitment to do something about it. Exorbitant profits are being made. Again, we should ask whether Revenue is aware of these sites and the profits and so on. I would like to think that Revenue is following up on some of these sites that are making major profits in the region of 20 or 30 times the initial price. It is wrong and that is where I am coming from.

While I have the opportunity, I want to discuss the issue of gambling, which was mentioned already, and addiction in sport. There is urgent need for legislation to address the glamorisation of gambling and to help curb gambling addiction, which is negatively affecting so many families and individuals throughout the State. While many punters going to sporting events will enjoy the atmosphere and place modest bets on races, many others from all walks of life have a gambling problem or addiction that will affect their families and loved ones for their entire lives. Yet, a vast amount of these sporting events and concerts are sponsored by gambling companies. The easy accessibility and normalisation of online and offline betting is a curse for many families and individuals. In other EU countries health warnings follow gambling and the associated dangers. These warnings alert the viewers to the dangers of gambling. Ireland needs to follow suit. Legislation is coming down the tracks. However, it would be wrong for us to leave this aspect out of the debate. Gambling and online betting can bring short joy to some but unfortunately many lives have been destroyed by this addiction. It is time that we finally legislate and tackle the gambling addition that we are facing in our society.

I welcome this legislation. There is considerable expectation that we will do something on this question. The concern I have is that if we push it down the line too far, we may not have a government and we will be into the next phase and so on. Another point arises if we do not act. It is important that we engage in dotting the i's and crossing the t's but people are getting ripped off. That is the major concern. That is where I am coming from. We are not talking about a few euro here or there; the money is considerable. This is a phenomenon that has to be tackled. What is unfolding is wrong.

Let us examine what is done in other jurisdictions. If they can get it right in this area, then we can too. We need to start acting and doing something. We can move forward with this Bill to Committee Stage, where it can be teased out and so on. We need to do this. There is considerable expectation that will happen sooner rather than later.

I congratulate Deputy Quinlivan on bringing forward the Bill. This area has been in the minds of many young people. If a computer is on in my house late at night, it means someone is trying to buy tickets for something. Broadband comes to mind as an issue because the people in rural Ireland can never seem to get the tickets and we often blame broadband. There is also a tendency to believe in many cases that the tickets are gone because they have been swooped up by people who will then resell them at a major profit.

One thing that strikes me from the debate is that there is a great deal of agreement. Everyone agrees that there is a major problem here, that this problem needs to be addressed and that the proposals brought forward by Deputy Quinlivan go a long way to addressing them.

The issue which jumps to mind immediately is that, as Deputy Seán Crowe stated, so many people are being ripped off. We had a slogan not so long ago about rip-off Ireland. This is the rip-off Ireland that we need to deal with. If we kick this too far down the road and let it go, I firmly believe that the people who are engaged in this sort of thing will have time to come up with other ways of getting around it and working it out. While I fully appreciate the need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of any kind, at the same time we need to act.

I appreciate what Deputy Niall Collins said, which is that Fianna Fáil supports the Bill but feels that time needs to be allowed for it at the committee. My understanding is that the committee takes plenty of time as it is, without ever putting any limits on matters. That is one of the issues that is raised here regularly. However, the big profiteering that goes on is really the problem. We need to deal with the prices that are being charged at all levels for these tickets. The only way to do that is to put a limit on it. If a person gets a ticket and is going to resell it, he or she should not be able to resell it above a particular limit. I think most people would consider the 10% limit reasonable.

Charities, charity exemptions, raffling tickets, selling tickets in bundles along with a meal and all those sorts of things were mentioned. All of those possibilities can be dealt with on Committee Stage. As we know, the committee will invite various groups to come before it, including, I assume, charity organisations. Deputy Eugene Murphy asked if people would be registering for charitable status. I know of a number of organisations trying to do that with Revenue at the moment. It is such an immense task, given all the legal hurdles they have to jump, that I do not think there will be too many trying to go down that road. I would not be overly concerned in that regard.

I firmly believe that all the issues that have been raised, including those to which the Minister of State referred, can be dealt with on Committee Stage. There is no reason not to move to Committee Stage as quickly as possible. While we have some degree of progress, the truth is that putting a time limit on it - I presume it is a nine-month limit - sets it too far out. If we could find some agreement or arrangement to bring it closer, that would be a way forward.

Deputy Crowe also raised the issue of gambling. I have come across people who have an addiction to gambling and who are also associated with sports. It is all the same world. Many of those people are involved in ticket touting. These are issues that we need to grapple with as quickly as possible.

We should not overstate the scale of the problem. The Minister of State indicated that already. However, while we do not want to overstate the scale of the problem - it may be quite small in one sense - we have to consider the scale of it for the people who run into it. What of the teenager whose heart is set on going to a concert for three or four years because a star is coming to town but discovers that he or she cannot get a ticket because the price is five times face value? A relative, godmother or someone else goes off and pays an exorbitant price for the ticket. It is simply not fair. We need to insert some level of fairness into this because the scale of the problem is huge for those who are caught up in it.

A point was made earlier about the companies that are engaged in this and the loss of jobs. There are two kinds of industries. There is the kind that provides a genuine product or service at a reasonable price that reflects the cost and the effort that goes into the product or service. Then there is the kind of service which is just a rip-off. I do not think we should be promoting or trying to sustain any industry which is setting out to rip people off. We need to be careful that we do not do that in this case.

I commend the Bill as it stands. I understand the amendment is about kicking this down the road a little bit but I think we can come to an arrangement in that regard. I think that is the way forward. I commend Deputy Maurice Quinlivan and other Members who came forward with similar Bills that have not yet reached the floor of this House. A level of agreement is something that we need. When we have it, let us use it and not let it slip through our fingers.

I welcome the opportunity to respond and I thank Members for their contributions. It is clear that there is a great deal of support and agreement on the need for legislation, the tightening of the rules and fair play. This has been acknowledged in all interventions. At its base, the Bill has the desire to address the issue of so-called ticket touting which has received, as I stated, widespread media and social media commentary in recent months. The responses in the public consultation process, which closed at the end of March, contain a considerable amount of useful information about the operation of the primary and secondary ticket markets, the scale of ticket resale, the sources of tickets put up for resale and the price levels achieved on the secondary ticket market. They also reveal sharp differences of view on possible future measures. I note that my colleague, Deputy Rock, who also produced a Bill on this issue, is planning a dialogue with all parties that made submissions as part of the Minister's public consultation. He is inviting them to come together and discuss their views on implementation ahead of the Bill moving to Second Stage.

I commend Deputy Quinlivan on the Bill. The Government has made a commitment to deal with the ticket touting issue for UEFA 2020 and the Rugby World Cup 2023. I hope it is dealt with well in advance of that. This will not be delayed by the current exercise. Deputy Niall Collins acknowledged the constitutional issue of property rights and whether one can go down the route of licensing. It is clearly a complex matter when constitutional issues are at stake. Deputy Eugene Murphy acknowledged the importance of the matter and reaching agreement on a resolution.

Deputy Martin Kenny commented that everyone agrees. I accept that. Deputy Crowe commented on the role of Revenue and whether these ticket sites are making money and paying their taxes. Revenue could be asked to make a submission to the committee during its hearings about any sites that are involved in ticket sales. I also understand that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission-----

My apologies, but it was more in terms of individuals than the companies themselves. There are individuals out there who are clearly involved in this and who are making huge profits out of it.

I accept that clarification. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, which is an independent body, is currently investigating the ticket resale market from a competition law angle. It will publish a report soon.

I agree with Deputy Crowe that gambling, which is a matter for the Minister for Justice and Equality, is a scourge that impacts on people and can destroy lives and the lives of families.

As indicated earlier, the responses have been put up on the website of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to encourage further consideration of all the issues involved and to encourage all interested parties to examine them. In addressing the issue of ticket resale, I believe that this House will agree that there is an overarching need to be sure that any legislation, if proposed as part of any plan to address the issues, is carefully examined and that any such legislation would be effective and targeted and would not give rise to unwelcome and unintended consequences such as the driving of ticket reselling underground or diverting it to other countries with no real benefit to consumers.

The Bill will go to committee. I am no longer a member of the Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. Like all committees, it is extremely busy. It has set out a work programme. A considerable amount of time will need to be spent on this important work. Nine months was given to allow for that as well as the fact that we have a break from July to mid-September. The nine months does not mean that it cannot be dealt with in two months, if that is what the committee decides. The committee ultimately, however, has to decide how it can fit it in. If it can come back before the summer recess with recommendations, that would be great and it can be moved from there.

Again, I thank all Deputies for their comments on the Bill.

I thank the Minister of State. That is much appreciated. Does Deputy Quinlivan wish to wrap up?

The Bill was never intended to sort all the problems but to start the process of addressing the problems. The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Doyle, in his submission as part of the Government's consultation process basically stated that legislation needs to be urgently implemented in order to prevent the secondary sale of tickets at inflated prices online and outside of venues.

Kicking it down the road by nine months does not show any urgency. This is a huge problem.

I mentioned the Rugby World Cup earlier, which is another big problem coming up. World Rugby will make a decision as to what country will hold the 2023 Rugby World Cup this November. By kicking this down the road by nine months, no progress on legislation on ticket touting will have been made by then. This could affect the overall decision. I am not saying it will, but that is the concern I have. France, which is another candidate for the Rugby World Cup, has strong ticket touting legislation already in place. If the Minister of State kicks the can down the road for nine months, it will be a regrettable decision. We will all regret it. Everything in the Minister of State's amendment can be dealt with on Committee Stage so, again, I do not know why he proposes in the amendment that the Bill be deemed to be read a Second Time in nine months' time. Fianna Fáil indicated it might favour a shorter time but did not say what that would be. We are open to a shorter time but we will press this if the Minister of State holds out for nine months because that is far too long.

I commend everyone who spoke in this debate, including Deputy Eugene Murphy, Deputy Niall Collins, Deputy Crowe, Deputy Martin Kenny and the Minister of State. We have outlined our position. We put the Bill forward in good faith. We believe all the issues in the Government amendment can be discussed in committee but nine months is far too long.

Amendment put.

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 18 May 2017.

Barr
Roinn