| Communications Bill
|
|
Brian White: Premium rate services are a billion-pound industry in this country and a lot of goods things come from it. However, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has highlighted some relevant issues. One of my concerns is the way in which innovative services are coming in. If public confidence in these services is lost, that will prevent the good and proper use of them. There are legitimate uses that need to be protected. Unscrupulous companies could simply unbundle the charging mechanism, and there are ways in which they could get round the Bill—I appreciate that that relates to the next set of amendments. I was struck by Bryan Carsberg's comment that what will drive the regulator is what is in the legislation rather than the intention behind it. I am concerned that there is a gap here, and I ask the Minister to look at it again. Michael Fabricant: Important points have been raised. The unscrupulous operators of this type of premium rate service will be looking for the loophole that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) just referred to. He also said that while the majority of people who offer premium rate services provide very good services and run honourable and decent organisations, sadly there seems to be a large degree of latitude on the standard deviation between those that are very good and those that are very bad, regardless of whether they are in St. Vincent or in parts of the UK. It is important that we can be assured that there will not be a loophole if the word ''promotion'' is not used. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that premium rate services is a billion-pound industry and I think that it will get larger for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned. His comments reminded me of a famous front cover of the American National Lampoon magazine. It had a picture of a puppy dog with a hand and a gun pointing at its head. Underneath was the headline, ''If you don't buy this magazine, we'll shoot this dog''. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam pointed out that that example is used in several types of internet promotion. ICSTIS has said that it regards child protection as fundamentally important because children could be those most affected by such things—especially when considering puppy dog protection. I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench feel strongly about that because I can see their conviction. However, not only children, but older people are affected. ICSTIS has laid down regulations on the publication of the cost of using services, but costs vary Column Number: 320 considerably. People may vote on issues featured on BBC News 24. May I say how much I enjoy BBC News 24? It has been getting a little bit of stick of late but people need to stand up for it. If one phones in to vote on such issues, the likely cost is only 10p for a minute. However, one finds that participation in other television companies' phone-in shows covers the cost of almost all the show.Mr. Robathan: Like ''Who Wants To Be A Millionaire''. Michael Fabricant: Yes, like ''Who Wants To Be A Millionaire''. Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is issuing a foul calumny against many broadcasting companies. He will know that when the Select Committee expressly asked representatives of Granada and Carlton about the issue, they made it clear that they do not try to make significant amounts from the polls. Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. The hon. Gentleman will know that several companies that advertise put in very small writing that phone calls to them can cost up to £1.50 per minute, which is the current maximum premium rate. Is the Minister convinced that the wording of subsection (1) is such that no third party could promote the provision of a premium rate service in such a way that it could threaten the conscience of young children, provide other attractions to young children that might otherwise be banned by ICSTIS or disguise the actual cost of the call? If third parties could get round such aspects by not using the word ''promote'', that is a major loophole. The Minister can be assured that unreasonable people and organisations in the United States make considerable amounts from such services because legislation contains loopholes. It would be unsatisfactory if bad drafting created such a loophole in this country. Mr. Whittingdale: I shall add a few words to those of my hon. Friends because the issue is provoking a lot of concern in the Committee. Two particular examples worry me. One is junk faxes, which is my particular bugbear and was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. The majority of faxes that I receive in my office promote premium rate services. Most of them tell me how I can achieve a miracle diet, although I am not sure whether I have been singled out for that promotion, although I agree that that is highly unlikely. However, receiving the faxes involves a considerable cost because twice during recent months I have had to buy new ink cartridges, which hon. Members know are not cheap. I object to financing junk faxes that are cluttering up my fax machine. Mr. Allan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my sense of outrage that although several of the faxes give a number at the bottom that one can fax if one wants them to stop, the number given is a premium rate number that costs £3 to fax. Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is right to be angry, as am I. I kept my eyes open during the Christmas recess, and in every single magazine that I opened, I obtained Column Number: 321 a card telling me that I had the opportunity to win £1 million, £30,000, a multi-media PC, and all sorts of other wonderful things. All I had to do to see if I had won a prize was to scratch over various symbols to see if I had three matching symbols. I had five cards and, extraordinarily, Lady Luck must have been smiling on me, since for every single card I was a top-tier prize-winner. Retirement from my current occupation beckoned. However, I looked at the bottom of the cards, and, as my hon. Friends have already said, in each case I had to ring a number, the calls cost £1.50, and the amount of time for which I would be on the telephone varied from three minutes to five minutes. It does not take more than simple arithmetic to work out that that represents a significant cost, and one that is likely to be far greater than the value of the minor prize that I might receive as an alternative.I believe that members of the Committee are sufficiently astute to see through that kind of promotion. I generally abide by the principle of caveat emptor. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield raised a valid point, because my excitement at finding the cards was outweighed only by that of my nine-year-old son, who insisted that I should ring up in order to obtain my £1 million. He became quite upset when I told him that I did not think that that was a good idea. He pointed out to me that I was a top-tier prize-winner, and that therefore it was more or less guaranteed that I would receive one of the wonderful prizes. I spent some time explaining the ways of the world to him, and I fear that the trusting innocence of the child has been rather damaged by that experience. There has been an explosion of that sort of promotion, so that they are almost impossible to avoid. They represent a deception that raises real concerns, particularly in relation to children, who inevitably will be taken in by them. I hope, therefore, that ICSTIS will continue to examine them. The amendment is important in strengthening the hand of ICSTIS in dealing with this sort of thing. Mr. Timms: We have had a lively debate on amendment No. 245, and I am impressed by the degree of consensus that has emerged across the Committee in support of the proposal made by the hon. Member for Ryedale. I agree that ICSTIS does an excellent job, and is a good model of effective self-regulation without, until now, any legislative support. We recognise the success of ICSTIS, and want to support and strengthen its work. I also agree that it is important for it to be possible to make conditions in the proposed code about the promotion and advertising of premium rate services. Such services account for a large proportion of the complaints that ICSTIS deals with, and it should be possible to include those aspects in the code. In drafting the legislation, our view was that promotion and advertising fell within the scope of the phrase ''provision of premium rate services'' which appears in subsection (1) in the second line of clause 116. Concern has been expressed in the debate that we may have been a little optimistic on that point, and I understand that some legal thinking confirms that. In Column Number: 322 the light of what has been said, and the unanimity of the Committee, I will make a commitment to look again at the matter, to see whether there is any doubt about whether promotion and advertising is covered by the current wording. If there is such doubt, I will return with a fully considered amendment to rectify that deficiency.I agree with what every Member who has spoken has said, that ICSTIS should have a clear ability to deal with problems with promotion and advertising of the kind to which hon. Members have drawn attention. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had indicated that I suspected that the relevant matter had been caught during the initial drafting and I am willing to accept that the matter needs to be reconsidered. The purpose of introducing such amendments is so that we can debate such issues. The Minister is right to catch the mood of the Committee, because this is a growing problem and one that ICSTIS needs all power at its elbow to deal with. We have made valuable progress on the Bill in the past half an hour, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 7 January 2003 |
