Proposition 53K0656

Projet de loi relatif à la vente de titres d'accès à des événements.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jef Van den Bergh, Liesbeth Van der Auwera
Open Vld Mathias De Clercq, Willem-Frederik Schiltz, Ine Somers

Submission date

Nov. 22, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection cultural event sporting event selling price illicit trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 2, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The present bill is one of the first to be discussed in the committee during this legislative term. It is a bill proposed by both the PS group and Open Vld and CD&V. After the organization of a hearing, the bill was approved two weeks ago in the committee for business. The report was especially well prepared by the staff of this Chamber. I would therefore like to refer to this written report for detailed information.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will immediately proceed to my presentation. The present bill is the result of the special good intentions of the authors of both bills. It’s about addressing a number of practices where some malafide, and sometimes even less malafide, organizations book wage profits on the cap of music and sports event enthusiasts. These are practices in which they buy tickets and then resell them for a multiplier of the price or by bid. From the love of music or sport of so many fans, they make a massive profit without contributing themselves to the event.

The intentions to address such excesses are, of course, very good. Our group supports and appreciates every effort in this regard, but the result is unfortunately slightly less. What appears today results mainly in an excessive “regulite” with a liberal signature which could have nefaste consequences and just not lead to the desired results, on the contrary.

The bill states that any platform on which tickets can be resold at a price that is higher than the original selling price is prohibited. In practice, this is about eBay, Kapaza, Koopjeskrant, and so on. If this bill is approved, it could have negative consequences for such players.

This law prohibits the sale at a higher price. We must ask ourselves whether this is also effectively the goal. Why should someone who has a long time to get a ticket or maybe take a half-day vacation to sit in time behind his PC for a particular popular event where he eventually can not go, not ask 250 euros for a ticket for which he himself paid 200 euros?

Why do we want to prevent those who have done so much effort from receiving a small compensation? There is a big difference between a small compensation and the excesses, which must definitely be fought. The question is, why does this majority, including the liberal faction, prohibit this?

The bill is not only negative on certain points, it is also contrary to the European Service Directive. The authors pointed out that the Dutch Parliament attempted to refute similar comments. A similar proposal was not approved in the Netherlands. This may have been based on other arguments, but it is clear that no review has been carried out in any European country or that the ceiling of the resale price is in accordance with the European Service Directive. The advice that we have obtained, in any case, says no. It would be ⁇ regrettable if the authors of this proposal win today but should withdraw their proposal in a few weeks or months. That would be a ⁇ bad signal to those who expect very much from this proposal.

We had proposed, and in it we were followed by the colleagues of Green, that at least the opinion of the State Council would be requested and that at least it would be examined whether the proposal is in accordance with the European Service Directive. Then we are at least sure that it will not have to be withdrawn afterwards. This would be especially harmful to the confidence in politics.

In practice, the bill as it is presented will make little difference. Anyone who wants to pay more will still do so. Only the whole story will shift to the illegal, to the underground, to the black market, abroad, like Switzerland or the Netherlands. A number of resellers already operate from Switzerland. The only result will be that people will seek refuge in such platforms, where they will pay too much and have less protection than when they use the regulated resale channels such as the Shopping Journal, eBay, and others. You know the protection programs that certain resellers offer.

Worse, this bill guarantees that anyone who buys a ticket from a reseller can recover the surplus price compared to the original selling price.

In fact, this is a signal to people that if they find a ticket on the internet that is ten times too expensive, they just have to buy it, because afterwards they can still recover the surplus price. That could be especially bad, because that bird will have been flying for a long time, that reseller will have been sitting somewhere else, in the Netherlands or Switzerland or elsewhere. Remember that you will ever get caught. People will lose even more money. This was also the result of a radio interview just after the proposal was approved. The head of Rock Werchter said the biggest problem are non-delivery tickets, so tickets that people buy from a reseller but that are not delivered. With this bill, consumers who want to buy a ticket will be directed precisely further to the underground, to the black market, to malafide organizations from abroad. This story will be reinforced even a bit. This seems to me ⁇ regrettable.

It is also a pity that there is no earlier work on alternatives. The original proposal of the PS was even more stringent on certain points, but provided for at least a period of consultation, a period of round table with a stick behind the door. I think this is a good approach, because there are alternatives. The economic inspection can be strengthened. It already appears today and is already going to see if there are sellers at the door of events, who do things there afterwards. That seems to me a good thing. It can be used further. There are possibilities.

There are other proposals, such as transparency. The selling price of a ticket must be indicated on the ticket itself. That seems logical to me. It is a pity that this has not been the case before. However, this is a good thing and a step forward. Let us at least just take that step and not be too radical, not immediately prohibit everything and send the people toward the black market. There are also other suggestions, such as the phased sale. Tomorrowland did so, selling it first to Belgians and later to non-Belgians. That is a possibility, as well as selling a limited number of tickets per person. There are indeed possibilities.

Per ⁇ the best option is the digital way. During the hearing on the bill, the head of the Ancienne Belgique said that especially paper tickets are loved by fraudsters. A paper ticket, on which there is no name, can easily be resold or can even be named. Worse, people then come to the entrance with a ticket that is no longer valid, the barcode of which is no longer accepted. These people are duplicate and grossly deceived. It is therefore a missed opportunity that we no longer invest on digitalization, on offering a platform, on consultation with the industry to come through cooperation to a platform to make more use of that digital path.

Our country was once a pioneer on the digital road. Our country was the first to introduce eID in Europe. We were an example. Bill Gates even came here. What do we say today? We don’t see any help in it, ⁇ not for ticket sales. When it comes to re-sales, we would rather abolish the matter radically. This is ⁇ regrettable. Here opportunities are missed. Therefore, our group will not support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, when I buy a concert venue or a venue to attend a football match, etc., it is with the very firm intention to go there. Everyone should be in the same state of mind. Unfortunately, some people prefer to buy tickets in order to try to get the maximum profit from them.

As I said in the commission, today, a ticket for Depeche Mode at Rock Werchter, it is 300 euros in the black market, or a profit of 220 euros for the person who bought his ticket without having any intention to go to the concert. A ticket to attend the Indochina concert originally sold for 30 euros, i.e. at a democratic price, is now sold for 255 euros on the Internet, ⁇ on the site that was cited. Football enthusiasts are much less interested. Indeed, a ticket to attend the match Belgium-Serbia – Belgium makes sense for many football fans, and fortunately, in addition – costs 1,000 euros while the seats are not yet on sale. In fact, they are already sold on websites.

It is not admissible that persons buy one, three or even ten tickets in order to generate profits at the expense of amateurs who, they, have not managed to obtain them while they really want to attend either the event or the concert, but also at the expense of industry actors, such as the organizer, who take the risk of organizing the event or the concert.

But it is equally unacceptable that concert organizers reserve the right to prohibit the resale of tickets, as is currently the case, at the expense of persons who had bought a ticket in good faith, but who, being sick and/or unable to attend the event, wish in good faith and without winning to get rid of their ticket.

For this reason, we have framed the resale of show tickets, the goal being that as many people as possible can attend the show of their choice at a normal rate, i.e. at the rate determined by the organizer of the event.

That said, we are not talking about selling tickets, or blocking the prices of concert tickets, etc., as was the case with energy. This is a secondary market, not a primary market. I am convinced that the arguments raised earlier with regard to the EU are not valid.

As I have always said, if a person wishes to appeal to the European Court of Justice, it will always be readable to him; the law will be applicable and will meanwhile show its effectiveness.

This is a resale, not the sale of a concert ticket. A resale will be allowed at the costing price and only at the costing price. Mr. Dedecker, we are moving towards transparency: the final price will have to be notified on the concert ticket and bear all costs, including booking costs.

The law provides for a fine of up to 10,000 euros. It must be dissuasive.

As for the controls, we will rely on the SPF Economy. In addition to the checks, the SPF Economy and the Minister of Economy, to whom we will transmit the message, will have to organize advertising around this law. Indeed, the checks are of course important, but any citizen can file a complaint when he observes an anomaly on a website that offers a ticket for a football match at 1,000 euros; he will be able to call the SPF Economie to denounce the fact; in addition, he can already do so since the resale is prohibited. Complaints are important.

You say that we will witness a trip to foreign sites. In France, for example, two concert organizers won their trial because foreign sites sold seats for a concert held in France.

We add tools to those that already exist for the benefit of an organizer or a consumer. They reinforce what exists and add transparency to enable resale by people of good faith.

In fact, we are moving toward solutions, while I have not heard any solution from you, except to relay the arguments of a lobbyist – which I will not quote – from the largest resale site, which has lobbied against us all.

The Socialist bill proposal, which you have gently cited, was held in respect of the need to put good practices together. That is why we have requested regular consultation between the relevant stakeholders, i.e. producers, organizers, distributors, halls and consumers.

We are therefore, of course, waiting for these round tables that can bring the best practices together. The Ancient Belgium or Botanical, for example, have these good practices since they have a completely secure seat resale site.

I also remind you that an evaluation of the law is planned and that we will not hesitate to do it in parliament. This is a response to a series of criticisms that have just been made to this tribune.

Dear colleagues, the prohibition of profitable resale also goes in the direction of a claim from a large number of culture enthusiasts. I have heard a concert organizer greeting on the French-speaking waves this law, and it is not the only one, even though controls will need to be established.

This law will no longer allow speculation on concert tickets, cultural events, performances. This is why it is important. There is no reason for someone who does not take any risk to make an unreasonable profit on the back of cultural enthusiasts, concerts, sporting events. Culture should be accessible to the widest possible public. We hope that this black market will decrease and that accessibility will increase. There will be an end to speculation through this law, and I look forward to it.

I would like to thank all of my collaborators and colleagues. Continuous negotiations and the pugnacity of each of us have allowed us to bring this law to the vote today – hoping that the N-VA will return to its position.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mr. Secretary of State, Flo and Charlotte, Aurelie and Isabelle would yesterday as young teenagers experience the evening of their lives: One Direction in the Sport Palace. I would not give it for ten euros, but it is a dream for many teenagers and then especially teenage girls. They, or their parents, had paid 400 euros for tickets on one or another website. The tickets at the entrance turned out to be fake tickets: a drama for these girls, to tears. We had similar images with Justin Bieber a few weeks ago. It shows how far the abuse in some goes to make money on the cap of young and older fans through malafide ticket sales.

What is the government interfering with, culture editor Thomas Peeters asked in The Time when the present proposal was approved in the committee for business. He promptly launched an alternative proposal: offering tickets in slides. As if we had never thought of this in our committee! As if we had never discussed such pistes! As if it was so simple! As an example, he referred to the expensive tickets for Neil Young’s performance in Vorst-Nationaal on July 8. I also bought tickets for it. Expensive tickets: 87,5 euros! After all, the grandfather of the guitar rock has been an expensive bird for years if you want to see him engaged in our concert halls. But if you exaggerate that amount for it and he doesn’t stand for playing empty rooms, there may be little pressure today to lower his price.

Is this not an argument to let the free market do its thing, to free the market completely? We mean not, and ⁇ not with the expansions as we know them in the so-called secondary market, a nice euphemism for the black market. After all, you pay not 87 euros, but 156 euros today, and that while the tickets have not even sold out. The authors of this proposal are of the opinion that cultural and other events should be accessible as widely as possible, giving everyone, as far as possible, an equal opportunity to purchase a ticket at a reasonable price. The secondary market for concert tickets, which today is heavily tired, reduces that chance. After all, the organized resellers purchase tens to hundreds of tickets at the start of the pre-sale of desired events, creating additional shortages and further reducing the chances of purchasing a ticket for ordinary fans.

Some argue, contrary to the previous assumption, that the primary market – the organizers, the promoters, the ticket sellers – should themselves come up with solutions to the phenomenon. They argue that, in particular, the matter should not be regulated by law and the government should not interfere with the file.

There have been attempts to find such solutions. I have been following the problem since 2005. I have repeatedly discussed this in the Committee on Business.

The then Minister Marc Verwilghen was not insensitive to the problem. Initiatives were then taken to avoid additional legislation. A roundtable was organised with all stakeholders to make agreements so that the phenomenon of the black market could be instigated. These initiatives have led to a so-called gentlemen’s agreement between the sector and the government.

The consequences included restrictions on the maximum number of tickets to be sold per person in the primary sale, the installation of exchange casinos at major, popular events and the sending of tickets shortly before the event.

The government, for its part, would organize more checks by the inspectors of Economy both on the Internet and on the streets near the events. For this purpose, however, the inspectors concerned had to invoke old commercial legislation and the rules relating to online sales. It was already a whole task to act legally.

Several years later, when Vincent Van Quickenborne had taken power, it turned out that the phenomenon did not decrease, but on the contrary, increased. The global web turned out to be the ideal tool for increasing the supply of tickets in the secondary market.

Initially, the new minister responded with a new round table. The gentlemen’s agreement was also again held against light. Soon, these initiatives proved to be insufficient to solve and the call for a good legal basis to address the problem became once again greater.

The first proposal made by Mr. Schiltz, myself and Mrs. Lalieux dates from the period mentioned above.

We are now almost four years later. Clearly, it has taken a lot of time before we can effectively present a proposal with a potential majority in Parliament. This also shows that we didn’t go on ice overnight. Almost all possible pistes and alternatives have passed the review in recent years. Interfering in a practice that has so far been left virtually free is therefore a rather profound step.

At the same time, however, we must keep in mind that the organised secondary market today makes profits on the cap of organizers and fans. The number of players shows that this is a very lucrative business. In fact, they parasitize on the activities of the players in the primary market, literally and figuratively at the expense of the concert visitors.

Could the organizer deal with ticket sales differently? Would he better sell the tickets in slides, with rising prices and last-minute tickets, as the culture editor of De Tijd suggests?

At first glance, this may be an interesting track, but then we ignore the fact that the ticket prices are contractually fixed by the management of the artist and that play space for the organizer therefore usually does not exist. Some artists, by the way, are also really concerned about their fans and set maximum prices in their contracts.

In addition, we do not wish to place performances and events on the same line as air travel or TGV tickets. To the extent possible, we want as wide as possible access to a fair price.

This would also be a false solution. This alternative would only aggravate the problem. Because the biggest problems related to the black market arise precisely for the performances and festivals that sell out within a few minutes, an hour or a few days.

If you start selling tickets for such events in four slides, you create four times a stormflow, four times cluttering servers and call centers, and give the organized buyers four times the chance to organize their business. It offers these companies even more opportunities to acquire more tickets and sell them with wheel profit.

Another alternative proposal has the same result. Some say the primary market has the right to demand to buy back tickets if the customer so asks, for example when he cannot go through unforeseen circumstances.

This would first and foremost create a life insurance for the ticket dealers. After all, the only risk they run today is that the event is not as desired as they expected and they do not lose their tickets. A repurchase light would be the best insurance for these players on the black market.

This is the subject of the bill. We are not targeting the concert lovers. On the contrary, the bill is primarily aimed at the so-called ticket companies that appear as formal point of sale, with prices that outweigh the pan. They have built a business model that parasitizes the organizers and fans by buying as many tickets as possible at the opening of the lines, creating an artificial shortage and very real frustrations among the concert enthusiast.

This is a marginal phenomenon, you say. Set yourself in front of your computer and within a few minutes you will find one site after another that offers tickets for desired performances at prices that are a multiplier of the official demand price. By the way, if you inject an event on Google, you will always first go to sites from the secondary market. You need to scroll down a whole end before you find the official sales site.

What do you think about these sites today? Céline Dion in the Sport Palace, up to 990 euros – I wonder who wants to pay –, Beyoncé in the Sport Palace, 590 euros – the normal price is 88 euros –, a day ticket for Rock Werchter, 298 euros – normal price 80 euros. A combi ticket for Rock Werchter – still not sold out today – is sold on the Internet for 764 euros.

It doesn’t have to be just about music: tickets for stand-up comedian Alex Agnew in the Sport Palace go up to 170 euros. Tickets for Tomorrowland, as already mentioned, go up to 7 716 euros for a weekend ticket. Another striking thing that colleague Lalieux has already mentioned is a ticket for the football match Belgium-Serbia, for which the pre-sale has not even started, up to 511 euros, for a qualifying match for which 30 to 75 euros are normally paid.

I would like to discuss Mr. Van den Bergh for a moment.

Mr. Van den Bergh, you say that some argue that the government should always be outside and I have the impression that you were looking at me at that time. I feel a bit addressed. For all clarity, that’s not what I said. Government must intervene; that is a fact.

At the beginning of your discussion you talked about fake tickets, but such things are already banned today. The government can and must intervene in this regard. In this regard, your bill offers little added value.

For all the examples you listed below, such as tickets for events that have not yet been sold out, I wonder what the added value of your bill is at the moment. If a ticket can still be purchased from the original seller at a normal price, how stupid should you be to buy a ticket from a reseller at a multiplier of the price?

However, this is happening today.

Sometimes we cannot help the world out of stupidity. No law will help against this.

Mr. Dedecker, such things happen today. I mention the performance of Leonard Cohen in your town of Gent on St. Peter's Square. About that, the story revolved around that someone had bought a ticket on the first site he encountered when googling to that performance. At first glance it looked like a very reliable site. The price she saw there, she paid, because she is a big fan and was willing to pay that price. Later it turns out that the ticket has been stolen and that she will not be allowed access to the square. Nevertheless, she had assumed that it was an official sales site, whose name, by the way, sounded credible, and so on.

I think we should be able to take action against these types of sites. This aspect is also part of the present legislation. In this sense, our proposed legislation can contribute.

On the counterfeit tickets, I would like to say the following. These tickets are counterfeited on the basis of tickets purchased, not with the aim of going to the performance, but to earn profits. With our proposal, we can contribute to this. I ⁇ ’t go so lightly about saying that our bill is nonsense, quite the opposite.

Mr. Van den Bergh, ⁇ I myself fall into matters that are intended to be addressed.

The sale of a fake ticket, regardless of whether the event has already been sold out, is, as I know, already criminal today.

Yes, that is true. of course .

Well, just take that. To do this, we do not need a new bill that everyone shaves on the same chest and that everyone calls a criminal.

Mr. Dedecker, our bill is not about fake tickets, but about the resale of tickets, which in certain cases can also be fake. I gave falsehood but as an example of the misleading ticket sale as it exists today. That is an existing market today and we would like to keep it as small as possible, or if it can even eradicate it. That is the purpose of our bill.

I hear you say that the government needs to intervene, but I don’t hear about how it should be done. You have not spoken about this. So I would like to know from you how this should be done. However, you do not answer this question.

Mr. Decker, I do not understand your logic. You say you share the concern of the ticket scam and at the same time you accept the scam of a person who buys ten tickets with the intention of reselling them and making a profit. You find this normal! I do not understand your logic.

You say that in the case of fake tickets, a repressive policy must be carried out. This is what we are already doing, except that from now on, the ticket can no longer be sold at 1,000 euros and, moreover, the consumer whose ticket costs 20 euros, for example, will have to resell it at the same price. This will be very deterrent to fraudsters.

But why don’t you accept the simple fact that a person buying a ticket does so with the intention of using it personally? And you, who are entirely liberal, how does it happen that a person who has made no effort, taken no risk could make 300, 600, or even 1000% of profits on the back of those who took the risk, that is, the agents, the artist and the organizer? I don’t understand, and you never gave us an answer on this subject, never! The day you get an answer, maybe we will listen to your arguments!

You know, Mrs. Lalieux, counterfeiting can already be addressed today, but what sense does it have to create here today new legislation that offers no solution, that one cannot implement or control. What will you do if the weather comes to foreign sellers? Nothing can be done against it. This was, by the way, also the conclusion of the responsible of Werchter in an interview with colleague Schiltz. Her conclusion was that it would not help, but that they at least have something. This is also effective policy of this government: the agreement itself is more important than its content. This bill is an illustration of this.

I suggest that Mr. Schiltz speaks for himself.

Mr. President, it is very kind to allow me to comment on my own words.

Colleague Dedecker, I would like to hear what Mr Van den Bergh has to say further. You take out one point, which you then generalize, in order to burn down the entire bill. What Ms. Lalieux says is correct. You have no answer. You have no alternative. This law is not one hundred percent enforceable, you say, and therefore it is a mess law.

Mr. Dedecker, I challenge you to trace the laws in the entire arsenal of legislation we have, which are 100% enforceable. I refuse to surrender to the theory that the law is not enforceable or is not 100% waterproof and that therefore it should not be. The law has different merits, in different areas.

I would like to listen to the continuation of the presentation by Mr Van den Bergh, who is excellently listing those points.

I would like to follow Mr. President’s proposal. by Schiltz. I also ask you not to repeat the debate in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, there were a lot of objections and alternative proposals put forward, though slightly less on the part of Mr. Dedecker, for the regulation in question. As I said, we didn’t go on ice overnight. All proposals were seriously considered for advantages and disadvantages. The result is now: a ban on the sale of tickets before the official pre-sale has started. This is already an important step.

A second element is the prohibition on the resale of tickets with large profits, but also – which was from the beginning a central starting point – the right to resale a ticket. Mr. Dedecker, for this, sites such as eBay, Kapaza and the Koopjeskrant can still be used. To say that these platforms should not be used today to sell private tickets at normal prices, the truth is violence. It is important to emphasize this.

Finally, I would also like to refer to the conclusion made by Professor Méon of the ULB, who conducted research on the secondary market for concert tickets, during the hearing in the committee: “The prohibition on the re-selling of tickets for cultural and sports events with a profit can be justified if one wants to hold those events democratically and to attract a diverse audience. Speculators who only buy tickets to sell them later are discouraged in this way.”

That is precisely the purpose of this interference, as it was called in The Time. We want to keep events as democratic as possible.

There was an argument that the black market will always exist, on the street and more hidden on the internet. Per ⁇ it is indeed an illusion to believe that with this law we will be able to prevent any resale of tickets, but this should not be a reason to do nothing.

The scale and especially the seemingly real but misleading sales sites will finally actually be able to be addressed on the basis of this law. That is what will have to happen now.

I had hoped that the competent Minister for Economic Affairs would be present here. Of course, the law can only produce results if it is effectively enforced by sufficient checks by the inspectors of Economy.

Finally, like Mrs. Lalieux, I would like to thank the staff and colleagues for their cooperation in achieving this result. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Schiltz for making it possible for us to reach a single text.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, this bill, if it prohibits the resale of entitlements for access to cultural and sporting events in the usual way, however, authorizes this act when it is occasional; this is important.

The text is primarily intended to give the possibility to a greater number to obtain access rights at a fair rate, i.e. the price set by the organizers of the event.

What does this text provide for the most important thing? We note that it aims to determine the rules for the resale or secondary sale of access securities. It establishes rules regarding the prices practiced and their display on access titles. The price of returned tickets may not exceed the cost price plus the administrative costs.

The aim is also to put an end to speculation on these securities, sometimes resulting in exorbitant amounts while the base price was accessible to a larger number. It will be forbidden to sell a ticket purchased for free. It also provides for penalties in the case of illegal professional resale, compared to the penalties provided for in the Market Practices Act. Furthermore, deceived buyers will be able to demand repair, i.e. reimbursement of surpluses. Finally, a regular consultation between the parties concerned should allow for a continuous evaluation of the law and the establishment of good practices. An evaluation report will be submitted every two years.

We believe it was important to legislate on this subject, which is why our group will support this text.

Initially, two bills were submitted regarding the resale of entrance tickets for cultural and sporting events.

Indeed, the discussion has been going on for a long time. Our group is therefore very pleased that a compromise has finally been reached between the two bills. The bill that is being voted today can only be welcomed, as the secondary market for tickets for all kinds of events is now being massively manipulated. The result of that manipulation is that tickets for popular events are resold at woeker prices.

That’s what we put in touch with the bill proposal: there can no longer be made profits from resale. Those who resell their ticket may only recover the costs incurred such as shipping costs. It is also good that after two years an evaluation is made using surveys, which will be carried out by the FOD Economy, SMEs, Middle Stand and Energy, which will collect information both on the ground and on the Internet. If the evaluation shows that there are still shortcomings, the text will be updated.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is with joy and pride that I am standing before you today to close the round related to the concert tickets.

It is also with liberal pride that I discuss the proposal. I find it very unfortunate – I turn to Mr. Dedecker – that what was an attempt to seek a solution to a real social problem, both social and liberal, is being used as a possibility to tame the majority. You call it good intentions, which you shake behind and whom you fully share. You outline the problem and participate to a certain extent, but when the work is completed, even taking into account a number of amendments to the N-VA, the bag is suddenly too small and then it is a regelitis with liberal signature.

I think that’s beautiful and rhetorical, but that’s not the point. Would you like to explain to me what liberal signature is, Mr. Dedecker? Liberalism does not mean government. I am glad that you just corrected it, but that made you shine out.

I will not exaggerate the discussion of the committee, Mr. Speaker, but it is relevant for the hemisphere to know.

Mr. Dedecker, you asked me how it could be that a liberal is in favor of a ban. Yes, I am for a ban, I am for a ban on market manipulation. I am in favour of a ban on the abuse of dominant situations, I am in favour of a ban on lying down and deceiving consumers, I am in favour of a ban on deceiving people. I am for liberating consumers and for providing clear and transparent information so that they can position themselves in society and in the market.

For the sake of clarity, the proposal does not deprive the weekly consumer of the right to resell his ticket if he cannot go to a concert. We have specifically made a distinction between the occasional reseller and the professional reseller, between a consumer affected by disaster who stays sitting with a ticket and the wicked – malafide I dare say – semizakenman, who sets up structures to empty the primary market before the normal consumer can secure access to that market.

You then screened with arguments such as enforceability, which I mentioned before, and European law. Your beloved professor Storme, well-known to me, has not hesitated to write an immediate opinion and to state that the proposal is manifestly contrary to European law. The Service Directive is then pulled out of the backpack. I’ve seen who’s the backpack. The argument was literally in a note from eBay. I have had very intense contacts with eBay staff and other players, Mr. Dedecker. I have had very close contacts with all parties. Unlike you, I think for myself. I do not copy the note of a single lobby group for its own interest. I wick and weigh and form my own opinion. I take what I think is relevant.

Mr. Dedecker, the Service Directive has absolutely nothing to do with what we want to approve today, almost nothing. The Service Directive aims to prevent governments from blocking their markets, from blocking access to their domestic markets. For example, there is an establishment regulation for pharmacists; not everyone can simply become a pharmacist. These are the types of matters: access to the primary market for players from outside their own Member State. It has nothing to do with this. So I don’t understand why you want to screen with it. You are looking for nails on low water, you are persistently looking for arguments to attack the proposal yet persistently. I am very sorry for that, because I am convinced that you also share the good intentions to which you yourself refer.

Colleagues, as I have already said, we are proud and satisfied after many wheels and roads, so not with radical restlessness or in a mood of fierce rage to go into the liberal market, after a lot of parades, after a lot of consideration and listening to the different parties and organizing hearings came to a result that is balanced.

Moreover, we write a law that is not doomed to die in the dusty eternity, but that will be evaluated after the first two years. The law literally states that the Minister of Economy will be asked to automatically come up with an evaluation of the law after two years. Therefore, Parliament does not need to approve additional legislation to evaluate the proposed text, the evaluation is in it. Of course, it also states that the law will then be amended or, if necessary, abolished.

We have therefore used a tendency here not to simply stack laws on laws, but to evaluate laws on their efficiency, their effectiveness and their enforceability, in order then to take the appropriate follow-up measures. Thus, colleagues, the proposed legislation is ⁇ not radical, but solves a dramatic problem on which a fundamental sense of injustice lies, a feeling that I have experienced myself. I found the story of Jef very recognizable. I also once stood as an eighteen-year-old joke at Werchter and tried to get tickets, which then, after they had been grabbed away before my nose, an hour later were resold by the same buyers at the tenfold of the price.

I am pleased that we have found a broad majority in the committee. I also thank my colleagues from Green for their critical but constructive opposition. I hope, Mr. Dedecker, that in the future we will find each other again in more meaningful debates on such topics with slightly less party-political games.