First I should like to thank you, a Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me the opportunity to raise this very important issue, which has caused very considerable public debate and disquiet. The decision by the Minister to allow the sale of Cablelink to a company which was not successful at tender raises some very serious issues, particularly for him as Minister. His change of mind on this issue lays him open to the accusation that was made earlier in the day that it was a trade off by him for a rethink by the Government on the Broadcasting Bill, 1990.
This decision runs completely counter to everything the Minister for Communications and his party have stood for and indeed their partners in Government claim to have stood for. They have all consistently campaigned against political interference in the tendering processes. They have also campaigned consistently against the notion that political pressure should be brought to bear on State boards to reverse decisions they have taken. There is an onus on the Minister of State to tell the House whether the advice of the Attorney General has been sought on whether the Government have exposed the taxpayer to a legal claim by Pactel — as has been indicated in the media. Their tender was originally accepted by RTE but was overturned in favour of another company. I ask whether any future tender will be taken seriously by this Government if they are going to overturn the results of the competition entered into in good faith by different parties for the purchase of the company. This seriously damages our international reputation for propriety in the handling of our commercial affairs.
The Minister should now tell the House the compelling reasons why Telecom should be the successful purchaser over the heads of the competition? If there are genuine public policy reasons I would ask why these were not known at the time the Minister for Communications approved the original tender procedure. I would like to believe it was just another case of bungling by the Minister for Communications and nothing more suspicious, but I was far from convinced by his earlier performance this evening when he dealt with this issue. I believe the Minister has been quite economical with the truth when he said RTE was only engaged in the market testing operation at the time. It is well known that RTE first tested the market, as he said, but they then appointed a special sub-committee for substantive negotiations with a limited number of companies that had come through the initial testing period. The Minister had made it clear to all those involved that he had no predisposition to Telecom. As a result, the procedure was gone through by RTE, and the sub-committee selected Pactel as being a significantly better company than the other contender, Telecom Éireann. The RTE Authority endorsed that view. They took the view that Pactel were superior in management; had a greater intention to upgrade the system; offered the possibility of opening new markets to RTE as their partner, and were better for the consumer. All these points were taken into account when the RTE Authority reached their decision.
Earlier in the day the Minister for Communications said he did not force the RTE Authority to sell their shareholding to Telecom Éireann — that may be technially true but I would ask the Minister for Communications if he were here why the RTE Authority took the decision to sell to Pactel and, subsequent to having a meeting with him on 19 July, reversed that decision. That is the truth of the matter and while the Minister may be technically accurate in saying that he did force them, he certainly brought considerable political pressure to bear. As I have said, if there were genuine public policy reasons, which the Minister seems to think there are, why Telecom Éireann should be the successful contender, he should have known those at the outset and should have made them conditions of sale when RTE sought tenders.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce has always advocated the expansion of competition in all sectors of industry, I believe he is open to the notion of competition in telecommunications. Why does the Minister now believe that the existing telecommunications monopoly should be extended to control of the Cablelink network as well? Is it not just one protectionism for that monopoly? Everyone knows that the cable network could develop competitive services and give the consumer a choice in certain areas of telecommunication services. I believe it was a pre-emptive move to stifle potential competition in telecommunications in Ireland and I believe the Minister should have taken this into account when he examined the question of whether this represented fair trading in Ireland.
The truth is that Ireland would gain from a more competitive telecommunications network. Ireland could develop as a centre for telecommunications services in a free competitive market if we could seize on the major international opportunities for value-added network services. These are massively growing sectors in Europe. It is forecast they are growing at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and they will double as a proportion of GNP in about ten years' time. This is a growth sector, which Ireland could have seized. Instead of promoting a system which is competitive and having open access, we have gone backwards in this regard. Telecom Éireann are taking over Cablelink, which offered the potential for alternatives.
The Minister's conditions attaching to the sale of the company to Telecom are half-hearted recognition by him of the way in which competition is being undermined by his decision. The Minister has said there will have to be open access on the cable network but that belies the fact that Telecom Éireann have refused to allow open access on their own core network in the telecommunications sector. He has asked Telecom to invest in this sector, but when RTE examined this issue they plainly recognised that the alternative offer was willing to develop the cable network by an investment of three times the amount Telecom Éireann were willing to invest in it. The Minister has also required that they be at arms length, which is only a fob to give a feeling there will be competition in the market. Telecom Éireann will be the controlling interest in the cable company and we cannot expect there will be true competition between a company that is 60 per cent controlled by Telecom Éireann and the parent company, Telecom Éireann.
I believe the Minister's recommendation to go ahead with this sale, subject to these conditions, is a very poor decision and I ask the Minister to say publicly that he will publish the report of the Fair Trade Commission on which this decision was based. I, like others, went to the Library believing that we would get the opportunity to see what the Fair Trade Commission had said about this decision and that we would be able to judge for ourselves the sense of the Minister's decision. Apparently this report will not be made available to us and I cannot but think that a bad decision has been taken. It has been hamfisted from the very start. There was no proper consideration of the public policy issue at the beginning and now we have a rushed decision on competition law and this House is not going to get proper access to assess the facts.
What is the position of the ordinary consumer? What mechanisms will be put in place to protect him from excessive charges by the new super monopoly in the area of telecommunications and cable television? As far as I can see, there will be none. As things now stand, Telecom Éireann are unique in that they are exempt from consumer law and are not answerable before the courts for failures to the consumer. I fear we will have a non-competitive market with poor services for the consumer and poor forms of redress for him. I would like to see the full report of the Fair Trade Commission so that the Members of this House can be party to the decisions and assess whether the Government are making a decision which is in the best interests of the public.
