Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, line 29, to delete "(other than a broadcasting service)". This is an area where the Minister could make an improvement rather than just changing the name of a Minister in the line of a Bill and calling it an improvement. It seems the Minister has made some effort in amendment No. 11 to deal with the issue that I raised but it does not deal with the issue. The amendment proposes to delete "other than a broadcasting service". It removes the exclusion of broadcasting services from the Bill.

My concern is regarding a broadcasting development known as an "infomercial". A programme which is essentially a money-making scheme for a premium rate service provider is broadcast and the broadcaster benefits from the programme making money. This has been the subject of many complaints and criticisms in this country. Even under the change provided for by the Minister, a broadcaster who colludes with a premium rate service provider to scam the public will not come under the remit of this Bill which is very specific and deals with offences of this type. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland will deal with the errant broadcaster. The Minister has stated eloquently many times that the broadcasting authority deals with quality of programming whereas this Bill is about ensuring people comply with the law and if not they will be punished. It is hoped that with the improvements put forward by the Opposition, people will receive their refunds. In this instance the Minister is saying that where a premium rate service provider is engaged in this kind of infomercial activity with a broadcaster, the premium rate service provider will be subject to the Bill but the broadcaster will still be off the hook. A Sunday newspaper recently reported that this programme had been the subject of many complaints and that the broadcaster in question argued there were only 12 complaints in total which was regarded as normal. This is grossly irresponsible. The example I cited relates to a person who paid €370 to a service which is essentially a scam. Callers cannot get through, the questions are impossible to answer and the premium rate service provider is able to coin it. Moreover, the broadcaster enjoys a cut.

If we fail to address this activity in legislation, it will grow. It is fine for the Minister to isolate the premium rate service provider - I am delighted he had done so - but he is letting the broadcaster off the hook. Collusion between broadcasters and service providers will make a great deal of money for both parties. The matter must be addressed in the Bill. It cannot be dealt with in the Broadcasting Act as the role of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland is clear.

The Minister indicated initially that these matters would be addressed in the regulatory structure. Later, he stated the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland would have responsibility for broadcasters, while ComReg would have responsibility for errant premium rate service providers. This is a crazy system for the poor, unfortunate person who tries to have €370 or some other large sum returned as it allows the broadcaster to blame the service provider and vice versa. This approach is unsustainable in terms of consumer protection.

Under amendment No. 8 the proposed structure, under which the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and ComReg would operate as parallel regulators, would be replaced with a single, efficient and effective regulator. The regulators could learn from each other and pool resources, as required. An bord snip nua and Colm McCarthy have stated unequivocally that this type of approach needs to be taken. It should at least be facilitated, as is proposed in amendment No. 8. I am not forcing the Minister to accept that this must be done.

The Minister has been astonishingly weak in countering the argument in favour of convergence between the two regulators. The relevant technologies are rapidly converging and it is self-evident that the two regulators must work together to ensure the regulatory structures meet the needs of broadcasting and telecommunications. The world is changing rapidly and technologies are developing at unbelievable speed.

The needs of the consumer did not feature in the Bill until Opposition Deputies started to work on it. Customers must be at the heart of the legislation. That the issue of refunds did not feature until Opposition parties tabled amendments is indicative of a mindset which must be eliminated. The legislation is not solely about managing but also protecting people who are vulnerable. The vulnerable account for a disproportionately high number of those who avail of premium rate services.

Broadcasting is a powerful medium and when late night television programmes are clearly money making rackets, it is essential that deal with both parties, the service provider and broadcaster. The legislation deals with only one half of a contract involving these two parties. It is clear, even taking into account the change the Minister proposes, that he is focusing solely on the former and ignoring the latter. Amendment No. 6, by removing the reference to "broadcasting service", would enable us to address this omission because the broadcaster would also be in the tent, as it were.

See this speech in context