Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

The amendment relates to the sanctions imposed when premium rate service providers charge rates in excess of the published amounts they stated they would charge. It could be suggested such an offence would represent a second breach of the law in this area. These charges are imposed on consumers by commercial entities. I would restrict the imposition of premium rate charges to circumstances in which money is raised by charities for good causes. However, one is allowed to impose such rates for commercial purposes. The charges in question can be exorbitant, as one can see when one watches certain television channels at night. They are excessive. They are significant multiples of the actual cost of telephone calls and text messages. A real deterrent should come into force when charges go above a certain level.

There should be a link between the extent of the fines and the moneys being generated from these enterprises. I suspect that the latter amounts are colossal. Therefore, a fine of €5,000 is probably not a great deterrent. I ask the Minister to examine the matter. I am not absolutely certain of the extent of the revenues being accrued. I suggest the fine imposed on a company should relate in some way to its overall revenue from premium rate services, as there should be a built-in deterrent. If, as I suspect, €5,000 is a minuscule proportion of what each company generates, it cannot be said to be a deterrent. Sufficient deterrents are needed to ensure the code of ethics is complied with fully. I suppose I am betraying a certain suspicion of the operators of many of these services but an element of profiteering is a feature of this industry. Although some are starting to learn more about some aspects of it, others are being exploited by virtue of a lack of awareness on their part of what precisely they are getting themselves into.