Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 1996

SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, subsection (4), line 29, after "the Minister" to insert "or the Director".

Section 7(4) states: "For the purposes of this section, the Minister may request in writing a provider of telecommunications services to provide information to him or her about the services provided by that provider." The subsection confines this requirement to the Minister and my amendment extends that to the director after he takes over. I propose this on the principle of seeking to broaden the powers of the yet to be appointed Director of Telecommunications Regulations. Throughout the Bill there are elements where the Minister is not extending some of his powers to the director. This amendment seeks to redress that. Why does the Bill not propose this extension of powers?

Section 7(4) provides that the Minister may request information from a telecommunications service provider about services provided by that provider for the purposes of the section. Any successful price cap must be based on a clear understanding of the economics of service provision. That would apply equally to the Minister or the director. Amendment No. 5 proposes to extend to the director the powers which will apply to the Minister under subsection (4) when the transfer of functions to the director has taken place in accordance with the provisions of section 4.

The Deputy may have missed the provision in the Second Schedule, Part I. The functions of section 7 will be transferred to the director. Accordingly, "the Minister" in this subsection will become "the director". The director will have these powers automatically transferred to him on vesting day and on that basis the amendment is unnecessary. What the Deputy seeks to achieve is already in the Bill in the Second Schedule, Part I.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, subsection (5), line 33, after "order" to insert "by the Minister".

Section 7(5) provides that two years after the making of a price cap order the Minister may direct the director to review the order and the director may modify the order. The current wording of subsection (5) refers to any price cap order, including an order made by the director. Therefore, it could be interpreted as enabling the Minister to direct the director to modify an order made by the director. As it is the intention on the Minister's part that the power to direct the director to review a price cap order should apply only to a price cap order made by the Minister, it is proposed to make it clear that this power refers only to an order made by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, subsection (6), line 38, to delete "five years" and substitute "one year".

Subsection (6) states:

The Director may not make an order modifying an order made by the Minister under this section until the expiration of the period ending five years after the making of that order unless he or she has been directed to review such order by the Minister.

This amendment proposes to change the five year stipulation to one year. The powers of the new director should be broader than they are in the Bill. Limiting the director to a period of five years before an order could be modified is to seriously limit his powers. The amendment proposes that he should have that power after one year.

Section 7(6) provides that the director may not make an order modifying the Minister's price cap order until five years after the making of that order unless he or she has been directed to review the order by the Minister under the provisions of subsection (5). After that five year period the terms of all price cap orders will be a matter solely for the director. When the initial price cap order or orders are made by the Minister the sole function remaining with the Minister under this section is the power to order a review of that order or orders.

Amendment No. 7 transforms what is in effect a five year price cap, reviewable by the director after two years at the discretion of the Minister into a one year price cap. The price cap is designed to achieve a number of objectives of which one of the most important is the regulatory certainty for this vital period. Under the price cap regime Telecom Éireann will be enabled to position itself to adapt to competition. The price cap is also designed to give incentives to the company by setting a benchmark for the achievement of internal efficiency on a year by year basis.

Additional growth in business and achievement of greater than anticipated efficiencies result in improvement in the bottom line which can in turn feed through to lower prices. The setting of the price cap is of crucial importance to the ultimate success of the mechanism. It is important while offering a real incentive for the company to make improvements in its operating efficiencies that there is scope for reassessment of the contents of the basket and the absolute level of the price cap. The Government is determined that the price cap should work to the long-term benefit of consumers as well as the company.

In that context the first price cap order which will be made by the Minister will provide for at least a reduction in prices of 6 per cent in real terms each year for five years, which over the period of the price cap order will result in a 30 per cent reduction in Telecom Éireann prices to the consumer. It has been determined that the cap may be reviewed after two years by the director at the discretion of the Minister.

The amendment proposed essentially undermines the careful structure which had been set out in respect of the first price cap. It signals a year by year approach to Telecom Éireann's pricing devoid of any longer term strategy designed to introduced significant regulatory uncertainty and, thereby, hamstring the company in the run up to liberalisation. It flies in the face of the philosophy and the practice of any price cap applied internationally of which I am aware. The minimal interval between price reviews makes price control very similar to profit control and destroys the critical incentive properties of the mechanism. Price caps in the UK have tended to last four years. This Bill provides for half this term. By providing for a review at the end of two years, the Government is being consistent given the need to grant the company scope to provide for a flexible pricing mechanism.

This amendment is also incompatible with subsection (5) because it would leave the Minister in a position where he or she had to wait two years before telling the director to review the price cap. Meanwhile, the director could do as he or she liked after one year. I accordingly oppose the amendment.

I support Deputy Molloy's amendment because fixing or imposing a cap on prices five years in the future is totally unrealistic given that we will probably have a single currency, interest rates will probably be dictated by Brussels and certainly by the Bundesbank and Europe and telecommunications will be a whole new world. Price capping is extremely old fashioned. It is reminiscent of the old upper price limit on bread, cigarettes and other goods. We dispensed with that because we realised the best value for the consumer comes from market forces working out prices.

I understand the Minister has announced telephone price reductions from today. Will he confirm that the cost of telephone calls is to be reduced by six per cent?

Yes, I announced a six per cent reduction in the real cost of Telecom services subject to the capping order. This will result over a five year period in a 30 per cent reduction in the price of services provided by Telecom Éireann.

To what services does it apply?

Is the reduction for domestic consumers?

There is flexibility for the company within the cap, to apply a reduction of six per cent so long as it does not breach the overall ceiling. It can adjust its tariffs within that.

Six per cent in one year?

There will be a six per cent reduction in prices in real terms in one year.

That is after inflation of two per cent. It is a four per cent cut. A six per cent reduction would be eight per cent. When can we expect those?

As soon as this Bill is enacted, the Minister will make the order.

Has Telecom Éireann already announced this?

Telecom Éireann does not announce this. The Minister announces it first and the director subsequently. What I say is good news for Telecom Éireann consumers.

I am sure we all welcome it. I am pleased he has chosen this committee to announce it.

Telecom Éireann recently announced some reductions. I have forgotten the figure but it was between £60 million and £80 million. It announced last month some overall reductions in tariffs, possibly for international calls. Is that announcement included in the Minister's announcement today?

No. What I am clearly explaining to the Deputy is that, in the 12 months from the time the price order is made, the quicker it is made the better. There will be a reduction of six per cent in real terms in the cost of the basket of services provided by Telecom Éireann to the consumer under these regulations. It will have flexibility within that basket to adjust prices. Some might be reduced by 20 per cent and others might be increased.

Domestic bills may not be reduced?

The company will have flexibility. I do not wish to make the good news bad. It is extremely good news for consumers of Telecom Éireann.

It is not as good as we first thought.

That will always be the case when the Director makes a capping order. The company will be allowed to have this flexibility which is highly desirable for it.

This is a sleight of hand. I am not impugning the Minister's integrity. It is a sleight of hand from the Government.

It is not. It is a very real reduction of six per cent in real terms in the cost to consumers of these services.

This is a Government sleight of hand, despite the Chairman's welcome for it. This is what Telecom Éireann calls rebalancing. What it will do, given the Minister's flexibility will not reduce domestic consumers' bills, but those of large industry users. The figure of £86 million is equal to six per cent. Can the Minister tell me, as a domestic consumer, if my bill will be reduced by six per cent?

We will grant Telecom Éireann the flexibility to deal with the market in a flexible way.

It is disingenuous for the Minister to make this announcement today.

We will instruct Telecom Éireann to reduce its costs by six per cent. No matter what the Deputy does, that is extremely good news for consumers of Telecom services. The cost will be reduced by six per cent——

Not necessarily for domestic consumers.

——each year over a period of five years which is a 30 per cent reduction in the cost of Telecom services.

The domestic consumers are not guaranteed this.

We should not get into a wrangle over this.

There is no guarantee they will be denied it either.

That is a more honest assessment of the Minister's announcement, that domestic consumers may not necessarily receive reductions. They may, but they may not.

Telecom Éireann is being given flexibility in that matter.

What is the need for a price cap?

This is typical Fianna Fáil spin on good news from this Government. This is a welcome announcement by the Minister today and I congratulate him. It is outstanding news for consumers. We, the committee and the Dáil, should welcome it. The public will generally welcome it.

I often wonder where the Opposition's real interests lie in this. We have had many crocodile tears today for Telecom and telecommunications. Privatisation interests are represented by the two Opposition parties. The leader of Fianna Fáil indicated at the weekend that he will privatise——

The Deputy's party sold 20 per cent of Telecom's business to private companies. This is hypocrisy.

Deputy Brennan's party wishes to sell 100 per cent of this company. We know the connections of other parties in the House with private companies. The Deputy's leader and the leader of the Progressive Democrats will privatise everything in sight.

The Deputy's party sold 20 per cent of Telecom Éireann for a knock down price.

Deputy Brennan's party will sell off all semi-State companies. That is its agenda and the public and semi-State workers should know.

The Deputy's party sold 20 per cent to foreigners.

Deputy Brennan's party will sell all our semi-State companies. That is what Deputy Bertie Ahern said last weekend.

I have given considerable leeway and my patience will run out if we continue along these lines. Everyone has had a fair say. I hope the Minister has no bad news for us.

The Minister of State should not introduce red herrings into the discussion and tumble over himself to be the bearer of good news. A six per cent reduction is nothing to be excited about. I quote the introductory speech of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Mr. Lowry, to this Bill:

As regards telephone tariffs, Ireland has historically had high average charges for telephony.

He also said that despite efforts at reductions

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.

It is clear that the prices charged to Irish telephone users have been far too high and there is a need for major reductions. The Minister of State has been trying to tell us a six per cent reduction is something major. It is not something I would get very excited about except that at least it points in the right direction — downwards. We spoke here about capping increases and when we see what comes out of the package one would be keen to see where the domestic telephone user comes in the whole package. There is a fear that reductions elsewhere may result in increases or minimal reductions for the domestic telephone user. That is so far down the road that we should wait to see what comes out of it in the end.

My concern relates to the power of the director to intervene in price-capping orders being restricted for a full five years after the orders are made or he comes into office. That is limiting the powers of the director and all my amendments so far have sought to broaden the director's powers. Here he is excluded for five years when my amendment suggests he should have the right to intervene after one year. It is indicative of the Minister's attitude to the director; the EU forces us to have one so if we do, it will be a minimalist role limiting his powers as much as we can. That is what the Minister is seeking.

I reiterate that 6 per cent in value and price is a very real decrease and that is the level of decrease that will be in the Minister's order. It is a major reduction and the whole purpose of the cap is to put downward pressure on prices. We will demonstrate that when this Bill is passed by the Oireachtas to enable the price reduction to work as soon as possible. That will lead to a minimum 30 per cent reduction in real prices over five years. On Deputy Molloy's other point, at the outset the director will have powers to make a price cap for anything not covered by the Minister. It is not an absolute five-year period. After only two years, half the international standard, the director can be involved in a review of the price cap order.

In what circumstances?

At the request of the Minister.

Where is the independence of the director? He is totally subservient to the Minister.

That is not true.

The director should be established as an independent entity and allowed to operate.

The Minister will be the authority on a temporary basis and the director will take over after that.

I refer to a passing comment made by the Minister this week, when he announced a viable gas find off the west coast. It was quoted in The Examiner——

I made no such announcement. I said that the find of gas was being tested for commerciality and I have no response to that. It is a red herring.

Then the Minister should correct The Examiner.

I have been as patient as I can with debate, but with argument——

It cost £4.5 million for this.

Is the amendment being pressed.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

This section is daft. The whole notion of a price cap is not very sensible and should not be in the Bill. If there was a totally independent regulator there might be a case for it but it is old-fashioned for the State to try to regulate prices. It is not in the philosophy of the European Union we are trying to build. It is old-fashioned to bring in a Bill to control prices. We got away from price control years ago and now it is coming back in this format. The Government will put a cap on through a rather powerless regulator. The formula is also interesting. It says that prices cannot go above inflation for a five-year period. If you have to have a price cap, then the type of cap which the Minister appeared to announce earlier, where the only formula is that it shall come down by x per cent per annum would make a lot of sense. Telecommunications is becoming very competitive and is changing all over the world. To provide a legal structure in which prices can go up by the level of inflation is an invitation to operators of telecommunications systems to do precisely that. It is a silly and old-fashioned device; the notion that one can legislate for prices is one successive Ministers and Governments have thrown out. I oppose its philosophy and feel it should be taken out of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share