Management company agreements & digital tv providers - Broadcasting Bill amendment

Deputy Liz McManus: I move amendment No. 112:

In page 130, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

130.—(1) This section applies where provision contained in any agreement relating to the use of private property (“property agreement”) has the effect of imposing on the occupier a prohibition or restriction under which his choice of—

(a) the person from whom he obtains digital television services, or particular digital television services, or

(b) the person through whom he arranges to be provided with digital television services, or particular digital television services,

is confined to a person with an interest in the building subject to the property agreement, to a person selected by a person with such an interest or to persons who are one or the other.

(2) This section also applies where provision contained in a property agreement has the effect of imposing any other prohibition or restriction on the occupier of the building with respect to a digital television matter.

(3) A provision falling within subsection (1) shall have effect—

(a) as if the prohibition or restriction applied only where the person from whom consent is required has not given its consent to a departure from the requirements imposed by the prohibition or restriction; and

(b) as if the person from whom consent is required or other party were required not to withhold that consent unreasonably.

(4) A provision falling within subsection (2) shall have effect—

(a) in relation to things done inside a building subject to the property agreement, or

(b) for purposes connected with the provision to the occupier of a digital television service,

as if the prohibition or restriction applied only where the person from whom consent is required has not given its consent in relation to the matter in question and as if they were required not to withhold that consent unreasonably.

(5) Where a provision falling within subsection (1) or (2) imposes a requirement on any person not unreasonably to withhold its consent—

(a) in relation to a digital television matter, or

(b) to the obtaining by the occupier of a building subject to a property agreement of a digital television service from or through a particular person,

the question whether the consent is unreasonably withheld has to be determined having regard to all the circumstances and to the principle that no person should unreasonably be denied access to a digital television service.

(6) Any contravention of this section shall be enforceable by the Competition Authority and in civil proceedings by any person affected by this section.

(7) The Competition Authority may by order provide for this section not to apply in the case of such provisions as may be described in the order.

(8) References in this section to digital television matters are references to—

(a) the provision of a digital television service;

(b) the connection of digital television reception apparatus to a relevant electronic communications network or of any such network to another;

and

(c) the installation, maintenance, adjustment, repair, alteration or use for purposes connected with the provision of such a service of digital television reception apparatus.

(9) This section applies to provisions contained in any agreement entered into before the commencement of this section to the extent only that provision to that effect is contained in an order made by the Competition Authority.”.

This amendment relates to an issue that I raised previously. It was sent to me as a possible solution to the problem that I had raised and I would be grateful, were the Minister to take on board its points. Essentially, it relates to an issue that has been quite widespread in this metropolitan area in particular, whereby people in apartments cannot use the provider of their choice because of management company agreements. While this might appear to be a basic and simple issue regarding people’s rights, it turns out that people do not have any rights and often end up with providers they do not want. Even when people have many complaints in this regard and go to the Competition Authority, etc., it does not appear to make any difference.

I would be grateful were the Minister to accept the principle that people have a right to choose, regardless of whether they live in an apartment or anywhere else. If the Minister does not intend to accept this amendment, he should advise me as to how he proposes to resolve this issue that has been raised by my colleague, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, in particular. He has received many submissions in this regard from both apartment owners and tenants, who cannot ensure that they can have their desired provider. Members are aware that standards of service vary considerably between companies and this issue must be addressed in the Bill.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: In respect of amendment No. 112, which relates to the provision of digital services in multi-occupancy developments, the issue in question concerns access to shared infrastructure and, therefore, is relevant to television services and, for example, to energy, telephone and broadband connections or any other shared infrastructure over which competing providers seek to provide services. I understand that while the issue of the exclusive provision of television services currently is the subject of a Competition Authority review, the principal solution is for a legislative intervention that will regularise the position of management companies with respect to apartment residents, with specific emphasis on the vesting of management companies in the owners of such appointments in a timely manner. This appears to be the crux of the issue as it is clear that management companies and their control play a central role in the right of residents as a group to select common service providers.

In June 2008, the Law Reform Commission published a report into the reform of property and planning law. In response to the commission’s report, a high level interdepartmental committee on multi-unit developments was established to identify the necessary legislative and administrative actions that should be taken in response to the commission’s recommendations. The work of the committee has, in turn, fed into the development of the multi-unit developments Bill 2009, which was published by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last month. The multi-unit developments Bill specifically addresses the role in control of management companies in respect of multi-unit developments and, as such, I do not propose to accept the Deputy’s amendment.

Deputy Liz McManus: For clarity, does the Bill published by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform deal with this issue? If not, Members must deal with it here.

Deputy Eamon Ryan: As I noted in my response, my understanding is that it does. I noted that the regulation of the management companies is the key to this issue and that matter will be controlled in that Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle: How stands the amendment?

Deputy Liz McManus: I trust the Minister and I will withdraw it.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is nice to hear that.

Deputy Liz McManus: For the moment.

An Ceann Comhairle: A caveat.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.