Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Sep 1996

Vol. 469 No. 2

Telecommunications (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

It is clear that developments at EU level, as outlined by me last night require fundamental changes in the regulation and administration of telecommunications in Ireland. These changes must take place against the background of the Government's objectives for the sector. The Government's key objectives is to achieve a telecommunications sector which is in the top quartile of OECD indicators of price competitiveness, quality and availability as soon as possible. The Government believes that such a sector will play an important part in maintaining and developing Ireland's economic competitiveness. Before outlining the steps which are being taken to achieve this objective and the role of this Bill in this context, I would like to briefly review the current status of telecommunications in Ireland.

The function of providing telecommunications services in Ireland was transferred from the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs to Telecom Éireann on its establishment on 1 January 1984. Telecom Éireann's function is to provide a national telecommunications service within the State and between the State and the rest of the world. It has the duty to meet the needs of the State for comprehensive and efficient telecommunications services and to satisfy all reasonable demands for such services throughout the State, so far as is reasonably practicable. This is the company's universal service obligation. The company has the exclusive privilege of offering, providing and maintaining the public telecommunications network and voice telephony services. In addition, Telecome Éireann is the only undertaking licensed to provide international public infrastructure and international voice telephony services. The company's privilege, as originally granted, has been narrowed as areas of the sector have been opened up to competition.

Investment in telecommunications has been an important component of productive infrastructural investment in the Irish economy since the late 1970s. More recently, the scale of investment has remained at an impressive level. Total investment since 1985 has been of the order of £1.9 billion. This investment has generated tangible results in terms of the capability and quality of the infrastructure. At this stage 75 per cent of the national backbone transmission network is based on optical fibre and 80 per cent of Telecom Éireann's customers are connected to digital exchanges. This is on a par with the most advanced networks of other member states. However, investment continues to be required to meet the growing demand for new services, such as mobile communications, and enhance the ability of the network to provide widespread advanced services. In particular, this requires further investment in the customer access network.

As regards market development, Telecom Éireann has 1.3 million lines in service giving a national telephone density of 35 per cent. This has grown from 28 per cent in 1990 but lies well behind the EU average of 48 per cent. The Government is determined that this gap should close over the medium term.

As regards telephone tariffs, Ireland has historically had high average charges for telephony, although some elements have been provided below cost. However, in recent years, in preparation for competition, charges have been substantially adjusted and this had led to a better alignment between costs and revenues. Since 1990, all charges including rentals and local calls have fallen significantly in real terms. Overall reductions of the order of 40 per cent in real terms have been achieved, and long distance prices have fallen by over 60 per cent. Despite this achievement, Ireland still has a relatively high level of telephony prices compared to many of our EU partners and certain prices are still out of alignment with costs.

Telecom Éireann has made significant progress in improving its financial position in recent years. Its debt level has been reduced from two and a half times annual turnover in 1985 to 60 per cent in the year to March 1996. While this level is now comparable with some other public telecommunications operators, further progress is required to give Telecom Éireann the same financial flexibility enjoyed by others. An important aspect of the delivery of telecommunications services, like in all other areas of business, is the need to provide the optimum customer service. Telecom Éireann has made considerable progress in this area. I welcome the publication earlier this year of its customer charter.

Apart from Telecom Éireann, the Irish telecommunications sector includes a number of other service providers. These operators are entitled under licence to provide services outside of Telecom Éireann's exclusive privilege. Approximately 30 of such service providers are licensed to provide liberalised services. In addition a second operator has been licensed to provide GSM mobile telephony in competition with Eircell, which has been established as an independent subsidiary of Telecom Éireann. Another segment of the sector, the provision of terminal equipment, is fully liberalised and no licence is required.

Apart from the second GSM operator, licensed service providers are not currently entitled to provide or use infrastructures, other than lines leased from Telecom Éireann, satellite networks or cable television networks, for the transmission of the services which they are licensed to provide.

Having briefly outlined the current position regarding telecommunications in Ireland, I will indicate the main features of the Government's programme for the achievement of our objectives for the sector. The main elements are: the further development of Telecom Éireann as a major player, providing high quality telecommunications services in both monopoly services and emerging competitive markets; the establishment of an independent regulator for the telecommunications sector; and the liberalisation of the market to allow full competition.

To accelerate the further development of Telecom Éireann the Government and the company have agreed it should form a strategic alliance with a major telecommunications operator. Furthermore, it was agreed the best way to secure a successful long-term strategic alliance would be to enable the partner to take an equity stake in Telecom Éireann. The Government and Telecom Éireann sought a partner which would have the necessary commercial and technological experience and capabilities and commitment to support the company in growing and developing its business.

The Government approved a mandate for negotiation of a strategic alliance in July 1995 and, following an open and competitive selection process, the Government in July of this year approved the signature of an alliance agreement with KPN/Telia. The details of the selection process and the main features of the agreement with KPN/Telia have already been outlined in the House so it is not necessary to go into detail on these issues.

The second major element of the Government's strategy for the sector is the establishment of an independent regulator. Up to now, the regulation of the sector has been a function of the Minister. The Minister is, at the same time, the shareholder of the major player in the market and responsible for the overall development of the sector. With the emergence of competition in the Irish telecommunications market, it is appropriate that the regulation of the sector be seen to be independent from the Minister's shareholding and sectoral development functions. This separation is also a feature of telecommunications development in most of our EU partners and a requirement of pending EU legislation. It is all the more appropriate given the strategic alliance deal in which the Minister, as Telecom Éireann shareholder, will have a shareholding relationship with a consortium of international public telecommunications operators.

The legislative measures necessary to establish the regulator are outlined in the Bill. I will elaborate on these provisions later. It is the Government's intention to establish a multi-sector regulator covering energy and communications at a later date when the drafting of necessary legislative provisions is completed. The functions of the telecommunications regulator will be subsumed into this body on, or shortly after, the establishment of the multi-sector regulator.

The third element of the Government's strategy for the development of the telecommunications sector is the liberalisation of the market to allow full competition. The Government has decided to remove all remaining restrictions on full competition so that the market will be fully liberalised by 1 January 2000. While full liberalisation will take place from 1 January 1998 in the European Union, some member states, including Ireland, have the possibility of deferring liberalisation for up to five years. The Government has decided not to avail of the full five years in order that the benefits of competition can be experienced as soon as possible. However, the Government was concerned to ensure that when full competition is allowed Ireland should have a strong national telecommunications operator in Telecom Éireann, capable of withstanding the rigours of competition and growing further in that area. The Government believes the ongoing transformation and development of Telecom Éireann as a customer-focused and market-oriented company will have reached the stage by the year 2000 where it will be in a position to compete against new entrants to the liberalised Irish telecommunications market.

This Bill is aimed at putting in place some of these key steps in achieving the Government's objectives for the telecommunications sector. The measures in the Bill can be grouped into three main areas. First, the Bill provides for the establishment of the director of telecommunications regulation and transfers the Minister's existing telecommunications regulatory functions to the director. Second, it will make the necessary legislative amendments to permit the strategic alliance agreement with KPN/Telia and the share transactions which will underpin the deal. In this regard, it makes some changes to the relationship between the Government and Telecom Éireann that are appropriate to a situation where the company has shareholders other than the Government. Third, the Bill provides for a new method of telecommunications tariff control, initially by the Minister and ultimately by the director of telecommunications regulation.

The establishment of the office of the director of telecommunications regulation is provided for in section 2 and further provisions regarding the director are set out in the First Schedule. The director will be in a position within the Civil Service and the appointment will be for a period of up to six years. Section 5 requires the Minister to provide, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, staff, premises, equipment and other resources required by the director for the performance of his or her functions.

The office of the director will accordingly be staffed with Civil Service staff transferred from the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications but the director will have power to acquire externally sourced staff subject to approval of overall staff numbers by the Minister for Finance. While the Bill provides that the Minister may delegate his powers in relation to the transferred staff to the director, thereby giving the director full control over those staff, the Government has decided that the Civil Service staff will be seconded to the office of the director and thus will nominally remain officers of the Minister. The position will be reviewed in the context of the establishment of the multi-sector regulator and the integration of the director's functions with those of the multi-sector regulator.

Sections 3 and 4 sets out the functions of the director. The functions are those transferred from the Minister under section 4 as well as further functions conferred by the Bill. The director's functions will mainly involve the issuing and enforcement of licences for telecommunications service providers, for the use of the radio frequency spectrum, including the use of the spectrum for broadcasting, and cable television infrastructure. The director will also have responsibility for tariff regulation after the first tariff order is made by the Minister. I will outline the tariff regulation provisions later. The Bill includes powers, in section 12, for the director to appoint authorised officers to obtain information necessary for the performance of the director's functions.

The Bill provides that the director shall be independent in the exercise of his or her functions. This is a key principle underlying the establishment of the office of director. Consistent with this principle, section 6 provides for the financing of the costs by the director in exercising his or her functions. The director will retain fees which are payable under the transferred licensing functions and may also impose a levy on providers of telecommunications services. The levy will be raised through a levy order by the director and used to meet the director's expenses. It will also be used for the payment by the Minister of Ireland's membership charges to international telecommunications organisations. The director will only be permitted to retain the amounts which are necessary to meet the costs of providing the regulatory services and if there is any surplus it will be surrendered to the Exchequer.

The second main purpose of the Bill, to which I referred earlier, is to provide for the Telecom Éireann strategic alliance. Section 8 removes restrictions contained in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, on the issue and transfer of shares in Telecom Éireann, thereby enabling Telecom Éireann's strategic partner to take an equity stake in the company. The section places a lower limit on the shareholding of the Minister and the Minister for Finance in the company: their aggregate shareholding shall not be reduced to less than a majority of the issued share capital. Section 9 enables the Ministers and the company to enter into agreements related to the sale and issue of equity in the company. Such agreements may cover a wide range of issues connected with governance of the company, investments and other matters. The strategic alliance arrangement with the KPN/Telia consortium involves three agreements: a share purchase agreement, under which the consortium will acquire its equity stake in the company, a shareholders' agreement, which set out the framework for the relationship between the Ministers and the consortium in regard to the governance of Telecom Éireann, and an agreement on strategic co-operation setting out the contributions to be made by the consortium to Telecom Éireann at strategic and operational levels.

An important component of the strategic alliance transaction and in the achievement of the benefits of the alliance is the opportunity which will be afforded to the staff of Telecom Éireann to share in the growth of the company. Section 8 enables the company to issue, and the Ministers to transfer, shares in the company for the purpose of employee shareholding schemes. As part of the mandate for the strategic alliance negotiations which the Government approved at the start of the process, the Government indicated that, subject to certain conditions, they were willing to consider setting aside up to 5 per cent of the share capital for an employee shareholding scheme. The Government's intention is that the terms under which the shares will be issued will be to encourage active participation by employees as shareholders in the company and that the scheme should facilitate the change management process within the company leading to the continued improvement of the company's customer service, quality and commercial success. Detailed negotiations with the staff on the restructuring of the company and on employee shareholding have yet to take place. I am aware that staff representatives have expressed interest in a larger employee shareholding. If negotiations result in an agreement among all parties, including the strategic partner, which would assist in the future development of the company and if such an agreement involved practical and feasible arrangements by the staff to purchase at full value shares in excess of 5 per cent I will be prepared to put appropriate proposals to Government.

Section 10 of the Bill also relates to the strategic alliance issue. It modifies the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, in relation to the number of employee directors to be appointed to Telecom Éireann. Currently, under those Acts, the number of employee directors of Telecome Éireann is one-third of the total number of directors of the company, which has been set at 12. The Government has agreed in the context of the strategic alliance transaction that the partner will be entitled to appoint three directors to a board of 12. In order to preserve the Minister's majority position on the board to reflect the Government's majority shareholding, the Government has agreed in the context of the transaction to reduce the number of employee directors to a number which does not exceed one-third of the number which the Minister is otherwise entitled to appoint. Accordingly, the Government has agreed that the Minister should appoint seven, including the chairman and the chief executive, and that the number of employee directors to be appointed under the worker participation Acts should be two.

I am aware of the possible implications from an employee representation point of view of a reduction of employee directors from four to two. However, this solution was driven by the need to preserve effective control of the State's majority shareholding, the representational interests of the strategic partner, the objective of maintaining a small to medium sized board for the purpose of effective governance and the need to have meaningful employee representation at the key decision making forum in respect of company operations. I am, however, open to any suggestions, proposals or amendments that may emerge from consultations with the trade unions involved and interested parties as to how the employee issue could evolve. If agreement is reached and if such agreement requires changes to the text of the Bill, new proposals could be introduced on Committee Stage or, if some form of agreement could not be reached quickly, the matter could be dealt with in subsequent legislative proposals during 1997. I would like to emphasise that State representation on the board is also being reduced and employee director representation is being kept at the highest level possible consistent with the need for majority control by the State as majority shareholder on a 12 person board.

The third main purpose of the Bill which I mentioned earlier is to introduce a new method of regulating telecommuncations tariffs. Currently the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, allows Telecom Éireann to set rates and other terms and conditions for its telecommunications services but the company must obtain the Minister's approval for price increases. Service providers licensed to provide services outside Telecome Éireann's exclusive privilege are not subject to price control. The Government believes that tariff regulation remains necessary for services offered in markets which have not reached a sufficient level of competition to ensure that tariffs will remain at reasonable levels. However, regulation of the tariffs for such services should enable Telecom Éireann to position itself for a competitive environment by giving it flexibility to adjust tariffs to better reflect its costs while, at the same time, capturing for consumers a share of the benefits of increased efficiency and driving overall tariffs in Ireland closer to relevant international comparisons.

After reviewing the various approaches, the Government has decided to employ a "price cap" type system of tariff regulation for services that are not subject to full competition. The price cap is a common tool of price control in markets approaching liberalisation where there is a need to ensure that consumer benefit from price reductions while at the same time affording the telecommunications operator the opportunity to restructure charges in advance of competition. Under the price cap system, charges are limited for defined ‘baskets' of services but the service provider has some flexibility to adjust tariffs for individual services within the baskets. This confers freedom to restructure tariffs with reference to growing competition as well as strong incentive to increase efficiency. Section 7 provides that the Minister may make an order specifying a price cap for a specified basket of telecommunications services provided by a company. The price cap order will specify that the combined prices of the services included in the basket will not increase beyond a specified level and this level will be set at a certain percentage below the consumer price index. This will ensure that prices will fall in nominal as well as real terms. This function will be transferred to the director along with the Minister's other regulatory functions. However, to allow companies a stable environment in which to implement business plans, any price cap order which is in force at the time of the transfer will not be subject to review the director until two years after it is made and then only at the request of the Minister. However, the director may modify the order on the basis of that review. Five years after the price cap order has been made by the Minister, the director may review and modify the order on his or her own initiative.

Apart from the three main areas covered by the Bill, which I have just outlined, it also makes technical amendments to the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 regarding the pension arrangements for persons who were members of the staff of the former Department of Posts and Telegraph and who retired or died before the day on which the transfer of staff from that Department to Telecom Éireann and An Post took place. The amendments underpin practical arrangements which have been put in place for the discharge of the liability of the Minister for Finance relating to those pre-vesting day pensioners of Telecom Éireann and An Post.

The remaining provisions deal with offences and penalties for breaches of provisions repeals of provisions of certain enactments, the procedure for laying of orders before the Houses of the Oireachtas, the payment of the expenses of the Minister in the administration of the Act and the commencement provisions. In relation to the repeals, these are required mainly to update the corporate governance framework applying to Telecom Éireann having regard to the strategic alliance. A number of the provisions of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 which apply jointly to Telecom Éireann and to An Post are being repealed in so far as they relate to Telecom Éireann only. As regards commencement of the Act, section 17 provides that the Minister may by order bring different provisions of the Act into force at different times but at the latest the whole Act will come into force ninety days after it is passed.

I have outlined the background to and the main provisions. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the telecommunications sector is undergoing an unprecedented period of growth and development. This sector is becoming increasingly important as a facilitator of economic and social growth and wellbeing. The Government has decided that the telecommunications sector in Ireland must be in the top quartile of international indicators of price competitiveness, quality and availability by the end of this decade. The steps provided for in this Bill are essential to enable this target to be achieved. I commend this Bill to the House.

I thank the Minister for his address to the House. Fianna Fáil, has decided to oppose this legislation because we believe the public is being short-changed by what can only be described as a scandalous deal — a deal which, apparently, has the agreement of the Minister, the Tánaiste and the Minister for Social Welfare — to sell to two companies, KPN of Holland and Telia of Sweden 20 per cent, to start with, of Telecom Éireann. The Bill is seriously flawed in several respects, and it reflects this Government's incoherent strategy for Telecom Éireann.

The sale of 20 per cent of Telecom for £183 million is a betrayal of the taxpayer who, as the Minister rightly pointed out this morning, has invested heavily in the telecommunications industry for 15 years. Up to £2 billion has been invested in the telecommunications service; now, 20 per cent of that is being sold on the cheap in what I have already described as a panic sale

The price achieved is derisory and seriously undervalues a major State asset. Twenty per cent of Telecom Éireann, which, incidentally, includes Eircell and Cablelink, is worth three or four times the £183 million achieved, and I predict it will be sold for this some time in the next decade. However, the beneficiaries will not be this State, Telecom Éireann or the worker or taxpayer but the Dutch and Swedish investors, who will make a major killing in the next decade on these cheap shares. Fianna Fáil would not have entertained this deal, put together by Deputies Spring and De Rossa.

Telecom's turnover in 1994 was £871 million, 1995 it was £979 million and in 1996 it was over £1 billion. Its profits on ordinary activites rose from £80 million in 1994 to nearly £200 million in 1996. Its net debt has decreased from over £1 billion in 1994 to £718 million now, while annual capital expenditure ran at about £200 million per annum. In this deal, a company which makes profits of almost £200 million, if one adjusts for depreciation, is now being valued at £900 million. The real value of Telecom Éireann, even factoring in the arrival of competition, is up at the £2 billion mark. If the Minister cares to check that with any stockbroker in this city, he will be told this company is worth up to £2 billion, not the £900 million that, pro rata, the Minister has got for it. This is about ten times profit, which is the norm for the telecommunications industry. That price would make 20 per cent worth at least £400 million, not the £183 million which the Minister has flogged it off for.

Less than three years ago a figure of £460 million was being discussed for 35 per cent of Telecom Éireann. That was just an initial offer which would have been upped in negotiations. At one stage, ten telecommunications players were in the field for Telecom Éireann. There was great scope to get a good partner at a good price. However, the Minister's and the Government's handling of the competition has resulted in eight of the ten bidders dropping out. In the end, the Minister was stuck with KPN and Telia. They had him over a barrel and negotiated this deal which values 35 per cent of Telecom at just £315 million.

This deal does not just give KPN-Telia a stake in Telecom's core business for £183 million, it also gives them 35 per cent of Cablelink and Eircell, both potentially very profitable operations in their own right. It is abundantly clear that the deal is not in the best interests of the taxpayer or the economy. Worse again, all the rights and vetoes in this deal are held by the Dutch and the Swedes. They can decide whether to buy the extra 15 per cent. The State cannot choose when or whether this right is taken up or is waived.

The construction of the deal, which has cost in the region of £5 million in foreign consultancy fees, is highly questionable. A provision is made to revalue Telecom in three years time. However, by waiting three years to value Telecom, an incentive is surely built into the deal for the Dutch and the Swedes to restrict, not increase, the value of the company. By restricting the value, the KPN-Telia consortium can keep down the price they have to pay for the further 15 per cent. To create an incentive for the purchase of 20 per cent in order to keep the price down for the remaining 15 per cent, rather than an incentive to keep the price up, is a silly structure to put in place. Of course, they will work to keep the price down to buy the additional 15 per cent and that will restrict the value of Telecom in that three year period.

Already the Dutch and Swedes appear to be calling the shots at this arrangement with media reports that the consortium may be seeking a refund and a change in terms if the EU derogations are not achieved. The Minister has presented the derogations publicly as a "done deal". It appears some back-tracking is taking place. Last weekend in Dublin a senior European Commission civil servant gave a strong signal that Ireland may not be granted two of the three Telecom derogations it is seeking. While Ireland may get a two year derogation on full competition on voice telephony, it may face competition next year for certain business from companies with alternative communications networks. Telecom may also be forced by the EU to sell its 80 per cent stake in Cablelink as part of an agreement on a derogation in relation to competition on voice telephony. If this is sold off the Dutch and the Swedes will probably refuse to pay any serious amount in three years time.

The situation would worsen if a four year derogation which has been sought on a directive which would allow mobile phone companies to bypass Telecom for trunk and international calls is not granted. The EU official who was in Dublin last weekend said the alternative infrastructure market has to be opened as soon as possible, if not by 1996 at least by 1997. This would allow companies with existing networks, such as Esat Digifone, ESB, RTÉ and CIE to compete with Telecom for closed user business. That would mean that the GTM system which is available in Leinster House could be contracted out to someone else with their own infrastructure. If there is back-tracking on these two derogations, KPN-Telia will be in a very strong negotiating position and may be able to get 35 per cent of Telecom Éireann without having to pay anything near the £500 million which the Minister is claiming will be achieved in the long-term.

If KPN/Telia was the best telecommunications group in the world one might see some logic in this deal. If the benefits were not monetary perhaps it would be enjoining a major world telecommunications bloc, but that is not the case. While KPN/Telia are members of the Unisource group, Unisource is not the one taking shares in Telecom Éireann. Unisource will not own the shares but rather two constituent companies: one Swedish and one Dutch.

Telecom Éireann's own consultants, Monitor, came to the conclusion during the run-up to the alliance that Unisource's members had too many internal problems to be a good partner for the semi-State company. Monitor also came to the conclusion that Unisource was not likely to be interested in any real sense in Ireland. I understand it based that conclusion on the comments made by the president of Unisource who waxed eloquently about the benefits of operating in other European countries.

Unisource has yet to prove itself as a buffer against British Telecom and other world players, such as AT&T. Frankly, KPN/Telia are not being rated in technology terms. I understand from an article in The Financial Times recently they are experiencing significant internal pressures seeking funds from their own Government in order to make further capital investments without taking on Telecom Éireann. Many who have had dealings with them claim it is unclear how the KPN/Telia partnership operates. Some claim the Swedish arm, Telia, has only shown an interest in Telecom's mobile operation. Whatever may be said about KPN/Telia, the group can certainly see an opportunity for their investors and I congratulate them on that. Would that our Government could see the same potential. Whereas the Dutch and Swedish investors will reap the rewards from this deal, it is a disastrous deal from the Irish taxpayers' point of view.

Why has the Minister not given Telecom workers or Irish pension funds a look in? He has only grudgingly given a small stake to the Telecom workforce. His comments today about flexibility are clearly designed to get this Bill through without incurring the wrath of the unions. I know what the Minister is at in that regard: get this Bill through, promise to look after them in the next Bill and hope they do not crowd the Gallery in the meantime.

The Irish pension funds which contain Irish workers' money have already put forward a plan as to how they could participate in the opening up of the Irish semi-State sector. If Irish pension funds want to buy a slice of the Irish telecommunications revolution they have to take a stake in a Dutch firm, KPN. According to The Financial Times, it is likely that the Swedish state company, Telia, will shortly go on the stock exchange. Again, Irish pension funds will have to get access to Telecom Éireann shares by buying shares on the Swedish Stock Exchange. This is crazy. Irish fund managers seeking investment in Telecom Éireann will have to buy into a foreign company in order to get a diluted second hand investment in Telecom Éireann, a company built up by Irish taxpayers. That is why I described this deal as scandalous.

Irish pension funds add up to about £15 billion and about 40 per cent or £6 billion is invested abroad. About £240 million of that £6 billion is invested in overseas telecommunications companies such as British Telecom. It is ludicrous that £240 million of Irish workers' money, Irish pension fund money, can be invested abroad in Telecom companies but cannot be invested in our Telecom company. That is difficult to explain. Why are they being excluded? Why are Irish pension funds being told to get lost, that they cannot invest in Telecome Éireann while foreign, private and public investors are being included by this Government? The Minister has excluded the funds of Irish workers, Irish pension funds, from the telecommunications revolution. It is exciting but, according to the Government, no Irish need apply. If you want shares in this company you will have to buy them on the Swedish Stock Exchange or in the long-term on the Dutch Stock Exchange. That is the gift of this Government to the people who built Telecom Éireann.

The left wing parties in this Government have had an interesting conversion to privatisation. They have not said a word about the sell-off of 35 per cent of Telecom Éireann. If a Fianna Fáil Government was sitting on the Government benches flogging a stake in a State company to foreign investors, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Rabbitte, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, would be hanging from the rafters seething at the mouth in protest at the selling of the State's silver. I understand from my Chief Whip — I am open to correction — that they do not propose to speak in this debate as neither Democratic Left nor the Labour Party appears to have speakers listed. They are leaving it to the Minister, Deputy Lowry, to make the sale to the foreigners while the Irish cannot get involved and the left wing keep their heads down. That is a cosy cartel.

At the time of the sale of the shares in Irish Life, Deputy Taylor said it would be a gross dereliction of the public interest if the privatisation of Irish Life, in whole or in part, were to be allowed to proceed without full disclosure of all the facts and all the options considered by the Government. He went on to say that one of the critical issues in relation to Irish Life was the value of the company and how that value was arrived at. He said that in 1986 the then Minister for Finance reported to the Government that the company had substantial reserves and that this company was floated in secret. It is almost inevitable that it will be sold on the cheap and that the initial investors will make a quick killing. Would he say that now about Telecom Éireann? He said the public was not being well served when fundamental decisions which could ultimately affect our economic sovereignty and independence were made behind closed doors. These decisions are being made behind closed doors because the Minister does not propose to publish the documentation or deal or tell us how he calculated the value. He should not try to tell me that the market decides the value because there is no market when there is only one bidder for the shares in the company: that is not a market, it is a secret deal.

Will the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, a Cabinet colleague of the Minister, Deputy Lowry, undertake to make all the facts surrounding the Telecom deal known to the House and the public? Will all the secret consultancy reports and studies which we have demanded for more than 12 months be placed in the Oireachtas Library today? Will the Minister, Deputy Taylor, come into the House this morning, this evening or tomorrow and tell us about the sale of Telecom Éireann and his views on quick profits, secret deals and initial investors who make quick killings? I would also like to hear his views on the differences between the sale of Irish Life and the sale of Telecom Éireann.

Many times on the Order of Business I have asked the Taoiseach the number of Bills which will be brought forward to regulate Telecom and this famous strategic alliance. This is not a strategic alliance or a sell-off, rather it is a sell-out and the more one analyses it the clearer it is that it is a scandal. Two foreign companies, not even a group, are being sold a big slice of one of our most successful State companies for a knockdown price. This is happening in secret and without a whimper from the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, or the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. No reports have been published. The public and workers in Telecom Éireann should ask those parties why they are not here today. I would like them to contribute to this debate and to explain how the price was arrived at and the part they played in arriving at this scandalous deal.

The list of legislation shows that two Bills similar to this one are being proposed by the Minister. Yesterday on the Order of Business the Taoiseach told me that the new telecommunications Bill will not be introduced until 1997 and that the utilities regulatory commission Bill will establish a regulatory commission which will be responsible for the independent regulation of the energy, communications and transport sectors. If the commission will have overall responsibility for regulating the communications industry, what is the purpose of the provision in this Bill which will set up a regulator for the telecommunications industry? How can one get both these proposals to get and say, as was stated in the House yesterday, that in order to put the strategic alliance in place a new Bill will be needed in 1997? I understood that this was the Bill which would allow the Minister to sell the shares in Telecom Éireann. How many Bills will be introduced to deal with this issue? I wonder if the way in which the price was arrived at and the three-headed nature of the Government is behind the proliferation of Bills and the attempt to conceal what is really happening — the sale of shares in a major State company in as surreptitious, quiet and secret a way as possible? The issue is being shrouded in complexity by the use of nice phrases such as "strategic alliance" and "regulatory systems", but as we know this is a good old fashioned flog-off of shares to overseas companies.

There is a number of other fundamental flaws in the Bill. I am aghast at the provisions in section 7 which the Minister held out as very useful. In short, section 7 provides for telephone price increases. At a time when there is huge pressure for price reductions, it is ludicrous to include in a Bill a clause which in effect says that the Minister may allow price increases up to and including the rate of inflation. In other words, the Minister will not sanction increases above the rate of inflation. At a time when prices in telecommunications companies all over the world are tumbling like the Berlin Wall, the Minister should include in the legislation a provision for price reductions by Telecom Éireann and other companies. By including a provision for price increases, that is precisely what will happen.

The Dutch and Swedes got this company on the cheap, secretly and without the approval of this House specifically as regards the price and it has been suggested that allowing prices to float up to the level of inflation year in, year out was part of the deal with KPN/Telia. I am interested to hear whether the Minister discussed future prices in the economy with the KPN/Telia consortium. Did it have an interest in section 7 which, in effect, does not force the introduction of price reductions? The danger of this provision is that it almost guarantees the introduction of higher prices, which will be disastrous from the point of view of the economy.

The Forfás report "Shaping our Future" notes that Ireland's telecommunications costs have fallen significantly but are not as low as those in the UK where there is strong competition. The report concludes that with the effective use of advance communications, approximately 40,000 jobs could be created in the economy by the year 2010. I agree with the Minister that this highlights the importance and potential of this sector. However, one cannot develop this sector with this type of legislation. The Minister may argue that the price provision will not have any effect. However, based on a recent Financial Times report that may not be the case if the regulator is also appointed.

On 23 September the Financial Times reported that Oftel, the British Telecom regulator, stopped British Telecom cutting prices. British Telecom was offering small business access to the information super highway at a special rate but the British regulator stepped in and refused to sanction a decrease in prices. If that is what regulation means then we do not want it. Instead of legislation which seeks to keep prices up let us have competition and let the market decide and force down prices. The proposed capping mechanism will not work — rather it will encourage higher prices. This provision should be withdrawn from the legislation and replaced, if necessary, with a clause which helps to force down prices and does not allow them to rise.

Apparently the regulator will be a civil servant. As a Minister I worked with civil servants for more than eight years and have great respect for them but how can the regulator be independent if he or she is a civil servant who is under the control of the Minister of the day? How does this fit in with Civil Service and public service Acts?

A matter of extreme concern in Telecom is the Minister's decision to reduce the number of worker directors on the company's board. Under section 10 the Minister will halve the complement of worker directors to two which means only one trade union will have the necessary numbers to elect worker directors and the other five trade unions will be disenfranchised as their board seats are being given to two foreign companies, the Swedes and the Dutch. Given the recent comments by Democratic Left in support of worker representation, how does the Telecom decision fit in with the Government's policy or is it a case of saying one thing but deciding another in Government? What is the position of the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, on this issue? He has not said anything either in the House or publicly.

Yesterday the Communications Workers Union put forward a good proposal for an additional director to represent separately the workforce's shareholding in Telecom. The idea of a substitute director to represent the smaller unions has also been proposed. The union proposed that candidates for the worker director elections need not be employees. This is a sensible suggestion as the role of director is becoming increasingly complex and external experience can be useful on a board with that kind of responsibility. The proposals put forward by the Communications Workers Union seem sensible and reasonable and the Minister should give a commitment to take them on board in this Bill.

Fine Gael was able to accommodate Democratic Left as far as seats around the Cabinet table were concerned. The Minister, Deputy Lowry, played a part in creating the formula to accommodate Democratic Left when it wanted an extra seat or two. He should have no difficulty using the same formula for Telecom Éireann to provide an extra couple of seats. The Minister appeared to have a particular skill in devising that formula and perhaps he could apply it to Telecom Éireann.

The Bill provides that the Minister will have the power to sell off up to 49 per cent of Telecom Éireann without it being necessary for the matter to come back to the House. The Minister wants to decide to whom he will sell it, who is the best partner, from what country they should come, whether it should go on the Stock Exchange and whether the workers should be involved. He wants a blank cheque from the House. If he finds somebody for the remaining 10 per cent, he wants to be in a position to put it through quietly at a Government meeting, make a public announcement, call in the cameras and call it a strategic alliance. However, it will probably be another sell off. My party opposes the Bill because it seeks a blank cheque to allow the Minister sell off the remaining percentage.

Another aspect of the deal which may prove unconstitutional is that the Government has made a generous PRSI gift to the Swedes and Dutch. At present, workers in Telecom Éireann pay the lower rate of PRSI while those in private companies pay the higher rate. The Dutch and Swedes will only be charged the lower PRSI rate and this is a multi-million pound sweetener in the deal. It also reduces the sale price of £183 million.

The Bill also transfers the licensing of television transmission from the Minister to the new regulator. The Minister is aware of the deflector debacle throughout the country and the Taoiseach is on the record as saying in Carrigaline that he would issue licences for community deflector systems as soon as he took up office. However, there is no sign of the licences. Section 127 of the programme for Government states that the Government will allow competition between community deflector systems and existing MMDS franchise holders. However, there is no sign of it as yet. What is the Minister's position on the issue? Fianna Fáil holds the view that, subject to resolving the legal and technical positions, the community deflectors should be allowed to continue in business. The Minister gave this commitment; when will he make it happen?

Why does the Deputy keep putting them off?

My party gave much thought to the Bill before deciding to oppose it. Full documentation should be laid before the House. The Bill sells off 20 per cent of one of the most successful State companies for a scandalously low price; it is worth three or four times that amount. The sale is to two foreign companies only, with no provision for Irish pension fund investors who must invest overseas. It is likely that high profits will be made by the foreign companies involved in a matter of months. The Bill provides for price increases in telephone charges rather than price reductions. The two board seats will be taken from workers and given to two foreign companies. The regulator will be a State employee rather than being independent.

Most importantly, my party opposes the Bill because it is a rotten deal for taxpayers. The shallowness and hypocrisy of the so-called ideology of the two left wing parties in Government has been exposed in the House. Instead of protecting valuable State assets, which have been built up by taxpayers and Telecom Éireann subscribers over many years, Deputies De Rossa, Rabbitte and Spring, with the assent of the Minister, Deputy Lowry, have agreed meekly to the sell off of a major State asset. It is a disgraceful decision and a sell out. It is a shabby deal and should not proceed.

The Progressive Democrats will vote against the Bill, not necessarily for all the reasons mentioned by Deputy Brennan but for some of them. I will deal with those aspects in detail during my contribution. For the telecommunications sector the Government should have a clear and coherent strategy which should be founded on four basic principles: first, it should put the interests of consumers first. Second, it should encourage the maximum amount of competition in the marketplace as quickly as possible. Third, it should end direct State involvement in commercial telecommunications, and fourth, it should ensure the industry is properly regulated by a regulatory body independent of Government.

The Bill deals with the fourth principle in that it provides for the establishment of an independent regulator to oversee the telecommunications industry. However, I am concerned that it appears the regulator will be a civil servant from the Department and that the staff will all be civil servants. This makes one wonder about the degree of independence. The regulator should be somebody from outside the public service who is appointed because he or she has, or is capable of having, a consumer orientation or background.

The Bill does not address the other three basic points I made. It appears the Government still lacks a clear policy on the development of the telecommunications sector. I would welcome the appointment of an independent regulator, if that is what he or she proves to be, because for too long the Government has confused the roles of owner and regulator. This is particularly the case regarding the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. This Department owns several billion pounds worth of corporate assets and is directly involved in a range of commercial activities, including hotels, airports, aviation companies, cable television, road haulage, rail and bus services, oil refining, natural gas, electricity generation and distribution, peat production, coal distribution and telecommunications. The Government has a regulatory role of some type in all these areas, but finds it has a conflict of interest given its ownership role.

In the key areas of transport, energy and telecommunications, the Government's main objective should be to encourage competition as far as possible to minimise the cost of these basic services to industry, commerce and individual consumers. Competitive services are the foundation of a competitive economy, increased employment and increased prosperity. International experience of recent years shows that in countries such as Australia, Britain, New Zealand and the United States, the liberalisation of the telecommunications market has led to a fall in charges in real terms and to a significant improvement in the range and quality of services available to consumers. Irish Governments have been reluctant to promote competition in these State dominated industries and we are now being forced to do so by European directives.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share