I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following new subsection:
(2) In carrying out the functions conferred by this Act, the Director shall at all times have regard to:
(a) the need for Ireland to have an advanced telecommunications system which is competitive internationally in terms of price, availability, range of features and quality;
(b) the need to regard the satisfaction of the interests of customers as the ultimate objective in providing and maintaining a telecommunications system;
(c) the need to ensure the maximum practicable level of competition in the provision of telecommunications services, consistent with the objectives of (a) and (b) of this subsection, and in particular to identify, prohibit and penalise any actions by any telecommunications provider which in the opinion of the Director might have the effect of raising unreasonably the cost of entry to the market by any potential competitor;
(d) the need to ensure fairness as between the providers or potential providers of telecommunications services, and in particular to identify, prohibit, and penalise any actions by any telecommunications provider which in the opinion of the Director may constitute the abuse of a dominant position;
(e) the need to provide for an arrangement under which all providers of telecommunications services contribute financially to the maintenance of the universal service obligation by the national telecommunications system overall, and for the Director to revise from time to time the definition of universal service obligation having regard to the national requirement for an advanced telecommunications system.
(f) the need to ensure, in the interest of facilitating rural development, that no part of the country is disadvantaged competitively by virtue of its location, and in particular to ensure that the universal service obligation is progressively extended to include an uniform tariff countrywide, and
(g) the need to ensure that "access to customers by both traditional telephone lines and cable systems is open to all licensed telecommunications providers at prices which the Director deems to be fair.".
This is a comprehensive amendment. Despite the harmless sounding Title to the Bill, this very important and path finding legislation will create a watershed in the history of Irish telecommunications. At present, the Minister and the Department control and regulate a vital sector of our infrastructure. Now, however, very important powers are to be transferred to an independent regulator who will need to operate within a broad policy framework.
If the regulator is to be genuinely independent as the Bill requires, he cannot rely on either the Minister or his Department to provide a policy framework. Equally, we cannot expect the regulator to make up policy as he goes along because this would put an inappropriate burden on him. If he is to have any credibility the legislation establishing his office must set out the broad parameters within which he is to work. The amendment seeks to do this.
We are ploughing new ground here. We are used to dealing with legislation which gives the Minister powers of one kind or another. In such cases we do not have to include a policy framework in legislation because that is for Ministers and it is a role they value highly. We are also used to legislation providing for the establishment of semi-State bodies. Here again it is sufficient only to set out the powers in legislation because the policy framework is provided by the sponsoring Department.
However, an independent regulator is different. It is not his job, as it is the Minister's, to make policy. However, because he is meant to be independent he cannot rely on the sponsoring Department. Unless the legislation provides the policy framework we are asking the regulator to proceed without guidance. This would be very unwise.
I do not suggest that we control the regulator's every move, rather I propose a broad policy framework within which he would have freedom of action. This is what the amendment seeks to do. It contains seven strands. The first sets an overall national objective within which the regulation is to take place. It is "the need for Ireland to have an advanced telecommunications system which is competitive internationally in terms of price, availability, range of features and quality". This makes it clear that the overall objective is to make Ireland competitive in telecommunications and also to make clear that "competitive" means more than just competing on price.
The second strand introduces the customer. It makes clear to the regulator that, ultimately, the regulation must be in the interests of the telecommunications customer, not the provider or the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. The legislation should tell the regulator that his boss is the customer, not the Minister or the shareholders of Telecom Éireann's companies. The customer's interests must be paramount first, last and always. This is the only way for Ireland to get the best telecommunications system, one that is run by the market itself. We must make the system customer driven because in the past it has been bureaucracy and technology driven. The regulator must be told this, but this is not, and will not be set out in the Bill, unless this amendment is accepted.
The third strand is about competition, which is the driving force for the changes in telecommunications. We must establish the principle that competition is good in itself and part of the regulator's role should be to actively encourage this. He should be given the responsibility of ensuring that existing players in the marketplace do not seek to restrict the amount of competition by making the cost of anything to part of that market so high that it will scare people off. This is a time honoured way of restricting competitive activity. For example, artificially low prices can be offered so competition is not worthwhile. This part of the amendment will ensure that new entrants come into the marketplace.
Paragraph (d) of the amendment deals with the relationship between the players already in the marketplace. My aim is to establish the principle of fairness between competitors as the bedrock of the regulatory policy. This should be spelled out in the legislation. For over 70 years, Departments have regulated sectors in the interests of the semi-State companies under their aegis. Given that this must change, there is no point having a regulator because he must treat all competitors equally, regardless of whether they are State owned. He must be able to penalise competitors, State owned or otherwise, which seek to abuse a dominant position. The monopolist culture dies hard and State or quasi monopolies often play very dirty when it comes to competing in the marketplace. The regulator's purpose is to stop that for good.
Paragraph (e) relates to the universal service obligation. Telecom Éireann has such an obligation; it must provide a service to everybody, wherever they live. It is a vital national interest that this universal service be maintained in the free market environment. There is a great danger in that regard if this is not spelled out in the legislation. However, it would be impractical to demand each provider to deliver it. My amendment suggests that each provider should contribute to the cost of the universal service obligation although only one may use it. This would address the cherry picking problem but still open the marketplace to competitive forces.
It is also important to realise that it may be necessary to change the definition of universal service in the future. At present there is considerable pressure from the telecommunications providers for the notion that the obligation only applies to what they call simple dial tone and not to more sophisticated forms of telecommunications services, such as ISDF. By giving the regulator the power to define the obligation and redefine it as necessary, and by imposing on him the overall obligation to put the customer first, the universal service obligation will be protected in the future. It would be disastrous if the concept of universal access to telecommunications services was diluted as the telecommunications industry becomes more sophisticated.
Paragraph (f) addresses this vital regional issue head on. Anybody with an interest in rural development understands the importance of this matter in terms of the revolution in telecommunications. The industrial revolution resulted in the flight of people from the land towards cities and large towns where business and work were available. In recent years, various incentives have been given to coax industry away from urban areas but, as a nation, we have not been successful in that regard. The telecommunications revolution offers the possibility of arresting the drift from the land and perhaps even reversing it because sophisticated telecommunications can make location an irrelevant factor in business.
It is possible for a wide range of services — the sector where jobs will be created in the future — to be provided from afar. It is not necessary for them to be in the same room. This provides a potential opportunity to reverse the current balance of advantage between urban and rural areas, but the snag is that this vast potential could be completely destroyed by pricing which handicaps rural areas. The objective should be to have a uniform tariff nationwide and this should be set out in the Bill. There are already uniform tariffs for mobile telephones and access to the Internet. An objective for total uniformity across all telecommunications services, perhaps to be achieved progressively, should be set. If we are serious about rural development, this simple policy direction will create jobs in rural areas.
Paragraph (g) relates to the cable system, to which insufficient attention has been given. There has been much talk recently about who should own Cablelink. Many people say Telecom Éireann should sell it to somebody who will use it to offer competing telecommunications services. However, that is not the real issue. The key national issue is the same whether Telecom Éireann continues to hold Cablelink or is forced by the EU to divest itself of it. Will different providers be able to compete in cable? Under the current liberalisation, the local loop to customers' houses, which is owned by a telephone supplier, must be opened to all competitors who can but access at fair rates. Cable should be treated in exactly the same way.
No matter who owns it, cable should be a highway that it is open to anybody who is prepared to pay for it. The price should be set by the regulator. It would be bad for the country to take Cablelink away from one monopoly provider and give it to another. It should be opened to competition. This is particularly important because cable offers new technical possibilities which old fashioned telephone lines cannot provide. Within the next few years, probably within the next ten, cable will become the predominent means of delivering telecommunications services in urban areas. In addition, telephone lines will, in effect, be practically obsolete. If this happens, the cable franchise will become intensely valuable — much too valuable to restrict it to only one player. We can ensure that the future thrust of policy is in the correct direction if my amendment is accepted. I commend the amendment to the House. I am not wedded to a particular form of words and I will not press the amendment if the Minister is prepared to take my ideas on board and introduce amendments on Report Stage which will satisfy my deep problems with this matter. The amendment is necessary and I look forward to hearing the Minister's view. I may not have used the correct form of words or put it in the right place but nobody, including the Minister, will disagree with the amendment's objectives. I am anxious these matters are included in the Bill during Committee Stage. However, if that is not possible, I am anxious the Minister returns to them on Report Stage.