Debate contribution: Dynamic Pricing
Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .
- MLA
- Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 16 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Dynamic Pricing
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4532741
Read the official Assembly record
Text
At the start of my remarks, I will say two things. First, I am absolutely not a fan of Oasis.
Some people in the Chamber may be lifelong fans, because they sound as though they are, but I am not one. Secondly, to many outside the Chamber, it may seem a wee bit bizarre, and even a wee bit frustrating, that we are taking 90 minutes in the Chamber to debate Oasis tickets. It is not hard to imagine that anyone who has waited for years for a hip operation or a knee operation, or an operation for something much worse, or anyone who is locked in poverty without any opportunity to get out of it, will be wondering whether we might not have better things to discuss and debate. The fundamental, underlying issue is important, however. It is an issue about a monopoly. It is about trampling on the little guy. It is about big companies trapping working-class people into paying much more than they can afford. That is why we are discussing the matter today and why time has been set aside for a debate. It is about extortion, pure and simple. That is the reason that we are all here, setting aside the puns and all. Like everyone else here, a few weeks ago, I heard at first hand stories of people forced to queue for hours just to get a shot at one of the prized tickets for the reunion tour. Some 14 million people from 158 countries formed part of that digital queue, including lifelong fans just hoping to revisit the music of their formative years. When they joined that queue, they made a choice on the basis of the information that they had at the time, only to find out hours later that the price of tickets had ballooned to something that was totally unaffordable for many and much more than double what was originally advertised. It is not hard to imagine why those fans felt robbed, hard done by and, in many cases, completely conned. Consumers therefore need and deserve openness, transparency and a level playing field. In that context, I am really glad to debate the motion today, and we will be supporting it. I note that the CMA is already investigating that instance of so-called dynamic pricing. We have already heard from the consumer group Which?, whose advice is that people who were charged overinflated prices should be refunded. I know that many of us agree with that assessment. I am also reassured by the attention that the practice has received in the press and from the relevant agencies. The CMA has already stated that it will investigate concerns about the sale of concert tickets for Oasis. Every day is a school day, for I enjoyed the contributions from Sian and David about the monopoly and what is happening behind dynamic pricing.
Tempting as it may be to put this solely on the CMA, I do not think that that would be right. There must be a role for our Government here, whether through engagement with the UK Government or measures that can be taken much closer to home. It would be wrong to let the motion pass without clearly calling on the Economy Minister to confirm that, should recommendations be produced, he will undertake to do everything in his power to advance whatever changes in legislation or policy are required. After all, in 2021, the CMA produced recommendations on protection for consumers buying tickets on the secondary market, but I do not see very much evidence at all of their implementation by the UK Government. Recommendations are one thing, but delivery is quite another. The CMA can assist policymakers, but it cannot implement policy. That is our job and the job of the Department. In the South, we have already seen a ban on the practice of reselling tickets above face value, and, in Britain, the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport appears intent on taking action on the issue through that Department's work. Of course, when discussing those types of practice, we should recognise the huge importance of live gigs and concerts to our cultural offering. Arts and culture are the fabric of our towns and communities across the North, and ensuring that everyone has access to watch or participate in arts and culture is vital for our well-being, the places where we live and our economy. It must, however, be affordable and accessible. In conclusion, we support the motion and look forward to seeing the recommendations produced by the CMA as well as any actions that can be taken forward by Stormont and our Ministers to end this unfair and exploitative practice.
787 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.43 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:03 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.