Clause 116 - Conditions regulation premium rate services
Communications Bill
6:00 pm
Mr John Greenway (Ryedale, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 245, in
clause 116, page 107, line 27, after 'content', insert ', promotion'.
This is the first of several extremely important amendments proposed by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—ICSTIS, if I can pronounce the acronym correctly. It may be helpful if I explain to the Committee that ICSTIS is the independent body responsible for regulating premium-rate services in the United Kingdom.
Clause 116(1) gives a detailed legal definition of those services. They are delivered as a result of some
form of telecommunications call in which content is provided, generally information or entertainment, and when payment is made through a charge on a telephone bill for the call and when there is some form of sharing of revenue between a communications network and the party responsible for the provision of the service. I shall cite a few brief examples. The services include voting on television shows—such as ''Big Brother'' and ''Pop Idol''—chat and dating services, visa and Government information services, sport, weather, directory inquiries and so on.
The first concern that has been drawn to our attention is that the wording of subsection 116(1) refers only to giving Ofcom power
''for the purpose of regulating the content and provision of premium rate services''.
The subsection does not include the word ''promotion'' that amendment No. 245 seeks to insert. In the experience of ICSTIS, it is often the promotion of such services that gives rise to some of the greatest consumer harm and mischief. Sadly, because we need to press on with other matters, time does not allow me to regale the Committee with all the details of cases drawn to my attention. However, one that will provide some entertainment concerns an organisation called Slick Industries of St. Vincent in the Caribbean, where
''Members of the public complained about receiving an unsolicited e-mail which invited them to call a premium rate service and enter their mobile number and the mobile number of a person they 'fancied'. A text message would then be sent to that person inviting them to call the service to find out who 'fancied' them.''
A document has come to my attention that also relates to the promotion rather than provision of a service. At my tender age, I find this matter difficult, but someone would apparently send a message saying:
''Totally crazy about you!!! A person who knows you has asked us to send you this message. The person is madly in love and crazy about you, and has said that: You are Charming''
and so forth. The message then gives a number to ring, which is where the money is spent. That case relates to the promotion not the provision of a service, and the Committee will be glad to know that ICSTIS upheld various breaches of its code of practice and the companies concerned were fined.
I could mention cases relating to other mischief. For example, people received unsolicited letters purporting to be from a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases. Substantial fines were imposed on those companies.
I have probably said enough to convince the Committee that the work undertaken by ICSTIS—supervising, controlling and taking necessary action against the companies promoting such services when appropriate rather than being limited to the content and provision of those services—is extremely important.
I do not intend to press the amendment, because it may be that the Minister has thought through the problem and will stand up and say, ''Yes, that is a good point.'' He may say, ''Actually, the wording already caters for the problem'', but that is not the view reached by the lawyers who advise ICSTIS.
Before the process of the Bill is concluded over the next six months, I hope that the Minister will at least agree to examine the problem and ensure that the provisions allow ICSTIS to continue its valuable work.