Seanad debates
Tuesday, 20 February 2007
Communications Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2007: Committee Stage
6:00 pm
Noel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
I have sympathy for the intent of the Senator's amendment but I cannot accept it because the purpose of amending the Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951, as outlined in the Bill before the House, was to increase fines to deter nuisance calls specifically to ECAS, the emergency call answering service. The proposed amendment would widen that considerably and would not fit in with the remit of the Bill as originally introduced. It is being communicated to the Department that the amendment could be utilised to tackle cyber bullying and once-off threatening communications but that type of regulation falls outside the remit of this Bill because the sole intent of the Bill is to address nuisance calls to the emergency services only. We get ourselves into trouble when we change the basic function of Bills before the House.
To be helpful to the Senator, in addition to the provisions of section 13 of the Post Office (Amendment) Act, which we are strengthening in this Bill, there are a number of other relevant pieces of legislation. The sending of child pornographic images via telephone is covered by the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. That provides for an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years for anyone who knowingly produces, distributes, prints, publishes, imports, exports, sells or shows child pornography. Mere possession of child pornography can attract a penalty of five years imprisonment. It is also an offence under section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act to harass a person by use of any means, including the use of a telephone. Those matters would be a matter for investigation by the gardaĆ and anyone who has information relating to those matters should bring them to the attention of the gardaĆ. While I have general sympathy with the intent of the amendment, it is not suitable for this Bill.
No comments