Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The justification for the amendment is the lived experience of consumers who take out contracts, with broadband providers in particular. Often, the consumer purchases a broadband product, such as fibre to the home or a copper line, that is advertised as providing 1 GB but it provides less than that and there are dropouts and blackouts in the service provision. The consumer might pay €80 for that. I raised this on Second Stage. I know there is a withholding arrangement built into the legislation in relation to moneys. I fully accept that I may not be on the right track here so I have an open mind on this matter. I am trying to ensure that, where the consumer goes through all the steps with the provider and where it is found that the trader did not adhere fully to the legislation, there is a stick built in whereby the provider will become guilty of an offence. We have enough anecdotal evidence based on our own experiences as public representatives of services having failed people where there is a contract to supply. I am open to correction on this but there do not appear to be sufficient penalties built in to ensure manners are put on the providers. This amendment seeks to provide some remedy for the consumer, as well as some penalty for the provider. Most people's experiences are positive and that is fully acknowledged. Establishing a scheme that is unambiguous in its nature will provide a clear charter, for want of a better expression, to the consumer and the provider where there is an absolute understanding of the expectations on the provider or the trader. That is where I am coming from. ComReg is overloaded and is not resourced. Let us call a spade a spade. We know that so let us acknowledge that. There are not enough personnel in ComReg and policing these issues has been a perennial problem. People will be reluctant to withdraw a part of their payment for lack of a service if they do not feel there are enough protections built in.