Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 14 Nov 1996

Vol. 149 No. 7

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

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

There are three main purposes of this Bill, which are: to provide for the establishment of an independent regulator for the telecommunications sector; enable the sale of equity in Telecom Éireann, thus allowing the formation of the equity based strategic alliance with the KPN/Telia consortium to be completed, and provide for a new system for the control of telecommunications tariffs. These provisions represent significant changes in the legislative base underpinning the telecommunications sector in Ireland and they will have a major impact on its future development. The Bill lays the foundation for the transition to competitive markets in the provision of telecommunications services and is designed to enable Telecom Éireann to meet the challenges it faces in that new competitive environment. Before outlining the provisions of the Bill, I will explain the background to the legislative proposals contained in it in order that the significance of these proposals will be better appreciated.

The telecommunications industry is a rapidly evolving sector throughout the world and it will have an increasingly important role to play in all aspects of modern society. There are a number of forces driving this rapid change. Developments in technology are increasing capacity, reducing costs and extending the range of services on offer. The growth of the services sector throughout the world requires an increasing number of information transfers. Communications are becoming a necessity in the modern world, not only for economic reasons but also for social, personal and leisure purposes. Taken together, these forces of change are calling into question the current structure of the telecommunications industry and are creating new opportunities and threats for all players in that industry.

In the past the most widespread organisational structure for telecommunications was an integrated State-owned monopoly operating solely in the home market. Arguably this was the most efficient system available, given the state of the technology, investment risk, resources and the state of economic and market development at the time. New service providers now have the technical and economic means to compete against the public telecommunications operator. Alternative telecommunications networks can be developed and operated separately but be integrated with the public network. The globalisation of business requires advanced international services. Growing demand for telecommunications services requires speedy responses to customer needs.

Governments throughout the world are responding to and facilitating these developments by restructuring the ownership and control of telecommunications operators and by opening markets to competition. These developments are facilitating, and are being facilitated by, the development of the information society which will fundamentally transform major aspects of the modern world: work, lifestyles and Government services. The information society is generating a wealth of debate and study worldwide. There are many uncertainties about the nature of the evolution of the information society at present, but it is clear that it will generate opportunities and threats for economies in addition to telecommunications operators. It is important that Ireland seek to maximise the opportunities presented by the information society and minimise the threats. It is also clear that a top-class telecommunications sector is required if Ireland is to capitalise on the opportunities presented by the information society.

The Government's key objective 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. In adopting a strategy for the achievement of this objective, the Government must have regard to the policies of the European Union on the sector and implement the agreed EU legislative provisions. The European Commission has been the driving force behind the liberalisation of telecommunications in the European Union.

The liberalisation process commenced in the latter part of the 1980s when the Commission proposed, and the Council adopted, a first tentative step involving the removal of monopoly rights in relation to the supply of terminal equipment. However, political agreement on full liberalisation of services was not achieved until June 1993 when the Council of Ministers agreed that the key voice telephony market would be opened to the full rigours of competition from 1 January 1998, in the EU generally, but with scope for deferment for certain member states including Ireland. A further political agreement was reached in December 1994 on a similar timeframe for liberalisation of the telecommunications infrastructure.

The Commission adopted a series of directives which provide for the removal of monopoly and special rights in the sector on a phased basis. Data and value added services were liberalised in 1990, satellite telecommunications services in 1994 and mobile telecommunications services in 1995. Provision was also made to enable cable television network operators to provide services other than voice telephony over their networks. A directive is now in place which obliges member states to implement full liberalisation by 1 January 1998, subject to the deferment provisions which apply to Ireland and others.

The actual process of achieving the transition of the sector, from the traditional monopoly structure to a competitive regime, requires the development and implementation of a comprehensive regulatory package. The task of developing the regulatory package to ensure that competition is effective and that regulatory measures are uniform throughout the Union falls to the Council and the Parliament. This package includes, in particular, measures to ensure that new service providers have access to the networks of dominant market players, namely, the former monopoly operators. It also includes the establishment of a framework for commercial agreements between competing operators to ensure inter-operability of networks and services. A further element of the package is to ensure the provision of universal service on a clearly costed and transparent basis. Finally, it is proposed to ensure a harmonised approach to the licensing of telecommunications services to ensure there are no bureaucratic barriers to market access. During the course of the Irish Presidency, the Minister is actively pursuing these initiatives so that they can be adopted at EU level and transposed into national legislation before liberalisation.

It is clear that developments at EU level require fundamental changes in the regulation and administration of telecommunications in Ireland. These changes must take place against the background of the Government's objective of achieving a top quality telecommunications sector for Ireland. Before outlining the strategy which is being pursued to achieve this objective and the role of this Bill in this strategy, I will 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. The company has the exclusive privilege of offering, providing and maintaining the public telecommunications network and voice telephony services. In addition, Telecom 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 EU member states. However, investment continues to be required to meet the growing demand for new services such as mobile communications and to enhance the ability of the network to provide widespread advanced services. In particular, this requires further investment in the customer access network.

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 has 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.

Apart from Telecom Éireann, the Irish telecommunications sector includes a number of other service providers. These operators are entitled under licence to provide services that are outside Telecom Éireann's exclusive privilege. Approximately 40 per cent 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 wish to 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 customer focused company, providing high quality telecommunications services; the establishment of an independent regulator for the telecommunications sector and the liberalisation of the market to allow competition to take place.

In order to accelerate the further development of Telecom Éireann the Government and the company have agreed that it should form a strategic alliance with a major telecommunications operator. Furthermore, it was agreed that 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, 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 approved the signature of an alliance agreement with KPN/Telia in July of this year. This agreement involves the payment by the KPN/Telia consortium of £183 million for an initial 20 per cent stake in Telecom Éireann, the payment of a further £200 million for a further 15 per cent at the option of the consortium after three years and, finally, through a profit-sharing scheme, the State will receive 60 per cent of the gain on the consortium's investment over a certain threshold. This sharing formula will apply to the entire stake purchased by the consortium. It is expected that, based on the likely business performance of Telecom Éireann over the three years, the deal will produce overall proceeds to the State in excess of £500 million.

A key element of the deal is the fact that 85 separate strategic initiatives have been agreed between Telecom Éireann and the consortium. These provide a comprehensive strategic support programme involving technical support, expert and managerial assistance, software and system improvements across all business categories.

This is a very good deal and on the basis of the financial return from this deal, it is an excellent outcome for the State, the company and the Irish public. Adding the value the company will receive in strategic benefits from the deal, it is an even better outcome. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Minister and the officials who negotiated the strategic alliance agreement for a job well done.

The second major element of the Government's strategy for the sector is the establishment of an independent regulator. To date, 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 is 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 a feature of telecommunications development in most of our EU partners and is also a requirement of pending EU legislation. It is all the more appropriate, given the strategic alliance deal in which the Minister, as Telecom Éireann's shareholder, will have a shareholding relationship with a consortium of international public telecommunications operators.

The third element of the Government's strategy for the development of the telecommunications sector is the liberalisation of the market to allow competition in all areas of the sector. The Government has decided to remove all remaining restrictions on 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 EU, 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 by all consumers 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 situation.

The Government believes that the ongoing transformation and development of Telecom Éireann as a customer focused and market oriented company will have reached the stage by 2000 where it will be in a position to effectively compete against new entrants to the liberalised Irish telecommunications market. On that basis, the Government has sought a derogation from the EU Commission in relation to certain aspects of the liberalisation programme so that full liberalisation of all aspects of the market will take place in Ireland from 1 January 2000. The Commission's decision is expected shortly.

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 contained in the Bill can be grouped into three main areas. First, the Bill provides for the establishment of the director of telecommunications regulation and it transfers the Minister's existing telecommunications regulatory functions to the director. Second, it makes 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 telecommunication 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 of the Bill and further provisions regarding the director are set out in the First Schedule. The post of director will be 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 be staffed by 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 the approval of overall staff numbers by the Minister for Finance.

Sections 3 and 4 set 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 the tariff order is made by the Minister. I will outline the tariff regulation provisions later. Section 12 of the Bill includes powers for the director to appoint authorised officers to obtain information necessary for the performance of the director's functions under the Act.

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 of the Bill provides for the financing of the costs incurred 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 made by the director and will be 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 — any surplus will be surrendered to the Exchequer.

Even though the independence of the director in the performance of his or her functions is assured, there are sufficient provisions to ensure the appropriate accountability of the director. These include the requirement on the director to submit an annual report to the Minister and the laying of this report before the Houses of the Oireachtas, the audit of the annual accounts of the director by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the control by the Minister for Finance over the number of staff in the director's office. Furthermore, the Minister retains policy responsibility for the overall development of the sector.

The second main purpose of the Bill is to provide for Telecom Éireann's strategic alliance. Section 8 of the Bill removes restrictions contained in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, on the issue and transfer of shares in Telecom Éireann, thereby enabling its 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 Minister and the company to enter into agreements relating 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 sets out the framework for the relationship between the Minister 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 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, it indicated that, subject to certain conditions, it was 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 continued improvement of the company's customer service, quality and commercial success. Detailed negotiations with the staff on the 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 the future development of the company and if such an agreement involved practical and feasible arrangements by the staff to purchase shares in excess of 5 per cent, the Minister will be prepared to put appropriate proposals to Government.

Section 10 of the Bill provides for the restructuring of the worker participation on the board of Telecom Éireann in the light of the strategic alliance. 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. Under those Acts, the number of employee directors of Telecom Éireann is one third of the total number of directors of the company, which has been set at 12.

In restructuring the board, the Government sought a solution which would satisfy the need to preserve effective control for 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. On the basis of agreement with the strategic partner and following intensive discussions with the trade unions in Telecom Éireann, the Government has agreed a board structure as follows: seven members, including the chairman and the chief executive, appointed by the Minister, three members appointed by the strategic partner, four employee representatives of which either two will be appointed under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988, or one will be so appointed where a member is appointed under an employee shareholding scheme established under section 8(3) of the Bill. The other two employee representatives will be two alternate employee directors who will be entitled to attend all board meetings but not to vote except in the absence of an employee director or the employee shareholding scheme director where one is appointed. These alternate directors will be appointed on the basis of the results of an election under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988.

This formula ensures the maintenance of the Government's majority voting position on the board, the strategic partner's representation and four seats remaining at the table for the employees.

The third main purpose of the Bill is to introduce a new method of regulating telecommunications tariffs. 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 Telecom 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. This is to provide an incentive, in the absence of competition, to improve efficiency in the provision of those services and, thereby, reduce tariffs. 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 customers 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 a strong incentive to increase efficiency.

Section 7 of the Bill provides that the Minister may make an order specifying a price cap for a specified basket of telecommunications services provided by the 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 real terms.

This function will be transferred to the director along with the Minister's other regulatory functions. However, in order 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 by 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 initiative.

The first price-cap order, which I expect to be made by the Minister on 1 January 1997, will specify an adjustment factor of 6 per cent. This means that Telecom Éireann's prices will fall by at least 6 per cent in real terms each year for the period of the price-cap. Over the five year period of the price cap, Telecom Éireann's prices will fall by at least 30 per cent in real terms. These reductions will apply to all consumers, whether they be domestic or business.

Apart from the three main areas covered by the Bill, which I have just outlined, the Bill 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 Telegraphs 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 of the Bill deal with offences and penalties for breaches of provisions of the Act, repeals of provisions of certain enactments, the procedure for the 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 90 days after it is passed.

I have outlined the background to and the main provisions of the Bill. In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of Senators 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 which are provided for in this Bill are essential to enable this target to be achieved and I commend this Bill to the Seanad.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his comprehensive review of this legislation. When the Minister introduced the Bill in the other House it was met with a wave of hostility from Members of my party and other Opposition spokespersons. Their criticism centred on what they perceived to be a lack of value for money in the deal concluded by the Minister for the sale of 35 per cent of Telecom Éireann to a Swedish and Dutch consortium. The Minister is more knowledgeable than most about the increased turnover and profits generated by Telecom Éireann over recent years. A figure of £2 billion was mentioned in debate on the Bill and set against that, the purchase price of £183 million paid by the consortium for the initial 20 per cent stake seems a little on the low side. The Minister expanded on this in his Second Stage speech, stating that a further payment of £200 million will be made for the 15 per cent stake on which the consortium has an option after three years; and that, under a profit sharing scheme, the State will receive 60 per cent of the gain on the consortium's investment over a certain threshold. The Minister indicated that, over a period of five years, overall proceeds to the State from the deal will be in excess of £500 million. That seems an impressive amount of money but, as the Minister indicated, the liberalisation of the telecommunications market, in spite of Ireland's derogation post-1998, will mean that the changes which will, and are, taking place will be so rapid that one will need a crystal ball to say whether the valuation will have the same impact in five years' time as it has today.

Developments in telecommunications are moving at a rapid rate. Hardly a month goes by without a new technological innovation being introduced to an enthusiastic public. We are passengers on the information super highway whether we like it or not. It seems like a long time since the mobile phone was introduced, although it is only a few years. When it was first available, it was deemed the "yuppie" telephone. However, on the streets of Dublin or any of our towns there are people using mobile telephones who could not be called "yuppies" by any stretch of the imagination. Given the increase in technological developments, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the base stations from which these telephones operate will be expanded to such a degree that it will be as normal to carry a hand held telephone as it is to carry a pen. Such are the changes taking place that the Government and Telecom Éireann had little choice but actively to seek a strategic alliance in order to compete more effectively with deregulation and the overall liberalisation of the telecommunications market in Europe. However, the figure of £183 million is surprising, to say the least.

Another aspect of the sale is the inability of Irish pension funds to invest in the proposed sell-off. It has been pointed out that if Irish pension funds, other institutional fund investors or private investors wish to take a stake in Telecom, they will have to do so by way of the Swedish or Dutch stock exchange by investing in the two companies in the consortium when they come to the market, as seems likely. The performance of world equity markets in the last number of years has been nothing short of astonishing. The Irish Stock Exchange has advanced by several hundred points in that period. However, there is a general consensus that while there is great liquidity of cash in Irish companies and pension funds, the small nature of the Irish Stock Exchange inhibits many of our cash rich companies from investing in Irish companies and, therefore, they reluctantly invest in the London Stock Exchange and European bourses.

This was an ideal opportunity for the Government to open up a major public utility to stock market investment by Irish citizens. Lest I be criticised for supporting outright privatisation, I believe there is a role for the private investor to take equity in what is effectively his or her own company, in this instance Telecom Éireann. I have no ideological hang-up about Irish people investing in their own public utilities. This is a far cry from privatisation and I would not wish my remarks to be misinterpreted by mischievous politicians, none of whom is on the other side of the House at present, who might think that I, too, have been bitten by the bug of privatisation.

Public utilities should remain within the public sector. However, that should not prevent the privatisation of a percentage of those utilities to allow Irish citizens purchase shares in a company to which they have contributed their hard earned money over the decades. I am interested in the Minister's response to this ideological argument. Does he believe there could be an opening for Irish institutions and individuals to invest directly in the shares of Telecom Éireann at some point in the future? I raise this in the context of the remaining percentage which the Minister indicates can be sold at some future point without further reference to the Oireachtas.

We are alone among European countries in having a stock exchange which does not allow our citizens to invest directly in State owned public utilities. I appreciate that we are starting out on a very long road here by dismantling and deregulating some of our public utilities in the face of increased European competition, specifically the telecommunications sector, in which there seems to be the greatest level of interest across Europe. However, it is no longer an ideological argument. Governments in western Europe of all political hues are dismantling public utility companies. Over the last couple of years there were several instances of major European communications companies and other public utilities being deregulated and more are in the process of being deregulated. One of the major German public utilities is being deregulated at present.

I do not wish to suggest the imposition of Thatcherite policies on the Irish body politic. We are a different culture and we have a different attitude to these things, but there is no doubt that as Irish people become more affluent and as the pressure on Government to provide essential services becomes more acute, specifically in the area of pensions, we will find it very difficult to meet our obligations in some 20 or 30 years' time. This is not scaremongering — I hope Ireland will not have a difficulty in that regard. But, as the Minister is aware, there is a European wide debate on the whole issue of whether Governments will be able to provide an adequate State pension to their employees because of the age bulge now developing.

The Government, irrespective of its political complexion, should look at whatever means possible to reduce or remove its liability in this regard. What better way than to use Irish pension funds in which the vast majority of our employees' contributions are invested? What better way to have a stake in our own future than to allow those pension funds to invest directly our own money in Irish publicly quoted companies? The fact that the Irish Stock Exchange is so small inhibits a great deal of investment here and there is no doubt that there is a case for opening it up. I wonder whether at some point in the future there may be an opportunity, in much the same way as Irish Life when it was deregulated, in which Irish investment institutions and the Irish private investor had an opportunity to invest in one of their own companies.

This is nothing to do with privatisation. There is general agreement that we need to look at the whole range of State utilities. We have a unique concept in this country, which I would stoutly defend, of semi-State bodies. I would hate to see any Government dismantling that concept. But there certainly is a case for allowing a certain percentage of the stake of successful public companies, while still being retained in public ownership, to be opened up to private investment.

I am interested in the appointment of a regulator who will grant licences for retransmission rights. This matter has been aired and continues to be controversial in some parts of the country, especially on the west coast and in County Donegal. I deplore any attempt to sabotage or destroy privately owned equipment in order to advance an argument. Nobody in this House condones the destruction of private property or of property owned by a company just because people do not like that company or what it is doing. I know I will be joined in condemning outright any attempt to introduce that sort of anarchy into Irish society. I have great sympathy, however, with the people in Donegal, Carrigaline and other parts of the country who found they were soon to be deprived of multichannel television.

The decision to grant franchises in 1988 under the MMDS system and to create regions around the country without due regard to the existence of those deflector systems was, in hindsight, incorrect. I remember well, as do my colleagues on all sides of the House, when that legislation was being debated. My party was in Government at the time and I was aware, as were many of us, that deflector systems were already in existence and that it would not be easy to identify different regions in the country and then put out to tender the right to provide a multichannel television service in each of those regions.

I and many others made the argument at the time and we were told the era of illegal deflector systems was over and that this was an opportunity to regulate an illegal situation. Sadly, that has not happened. I warned at the time that the commercial franchise holders would not expand their activities to many parts of rural Ireland due to excessive cost caused by the topography of those regions. I further inquired at that time as to what the status of the community television committee would be under that legislation. The Government was quite flexible on that point. It was a simple matter that franchises were awarded after a tendering process and those franchise holders were then subsequently legally entitled to provide a cable service for the people living in its franchise area.

I do not believe that any MMDS system can adequately address the physical characteristics of the island of Ireland and adequately cover every crossroads and every community in a country that requires multichannel television. It certainly cannot be done by granting a franchise or countinuing to renew franchises to large companies who will, I suggest, concentrate only on the larger towns and villages which are easy to access and where MMDS is more cost effective than cable. However, many communities around the country need to be provided with multichannel television and the franchise holders will never receive a commercial return in those areas.

The Minister should nail his colours to the mast. He can avoid taking a stand on the issue due to the litigation in the Carrigaline case, but he must recognise that the deflector systems have been a success, that they are broadly acceptable to the people and that there is a total lack of support for the extension of the existing franchise holders brief. There is a consensus across all sides of the House. Mistakes were made; I will not defend what has been done. Other mistakes have been made and continue to be made in the area of telecommunications, one of which I will touch on in a moment, including mistakes relating to local radio.

If there is a mess there, somebody has to clean it up. I hope that once there is a decision in the High Court action with the Carrigaline community company, an attempt to do so can be made. It is difficult for any Minister to move, having regard to the present legal status of those franchise holders, but they must be coming close or near to the end of their franchise. They were introduced in 1988 and 1989. I am not sure how long they were given, but there should be a root and branch reform of that whole area of MMDS, deflectors and multichannel TV in this country before any attempt is made to send out more tenders for a renewal of those franchises.

I emphasise that I am not condoning the breaking of the law as it currently stands. I am merely pointing out reality, not only a commercial reality which the franchise holders have long recognised in certain parts of the country, but also a political reality. This is a political hot potato, irrespective of what party is in Government. It was our Government some years ago, it is another Government today and it may be some other Government next week. We cannot continue to duck and avoid the issue. A firm decision will have to be taken in this regard. It is obvious that the weight of opinion has come down in favour of some form of strategic alliance, to use the Minister's words in another context, between the current franchise holders and the community television committees.

I also wish to refer to the recent introduction of Teilifís na Gaeilge. It is my impression that the head office of Teilifís na Gaeilge has been inundated with telephone calls from potential viewers who are unable to receive the signal. I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of publicity surrounding this issue. Teilifís na Gaeilge has placed advertisements in the national newspapers explaining how to tune into the new station but has not indicated what one should do if one cannot obtain the service.

I live in County Leitrim between two major RTÉ transmitters: Truskmore is located to the west in County Sligo and Cairn Hill is located to the south east in County Longford. One mast operates on VHF and the other on UHF. Teilifís na Gaeilge operates on the UHF waveband and, although I understand it is technically possible for the VHF transmitter in Truskmore to receive and retransmit the Teilifís na Gaeilge signal, this has not yet been done by RTÉ. I have been informed that RTÉ is planning to convert all transmitters to avail of the new technology. However, that matter should have been addressed prior to the setting up of Teilifís na Gaeilge, or certainly in the immediate aftermath. Does the Minister have any function in that matter? After all, he is currently responsible under his brief for the retransmission of radio and television signals. I would be grateful if he addressed this problem as it has some bearing on the issues which are being debated in this Bill.

I also wish to refer under section 2 to the status and role of the new regulator who is to be appointed. In the absence of this appointment, the Minister will continue to be responsible for those functions. If there are citizens who wish to avail of Teilifís na Gaeilge, and who require a new television aerial to do so, the Department, Teilifís na Gaeilge or RTÉ should consider subsidising the purchase of new aerials. Before anybody says I am demanding another pile of money from the hard pressed Exchequer, I understand the cost of the erection of a new aerial is between £12 and £20, which is not a great deal of money. With most of the country availing of multi channel television, with a minimum of six channels in most cases, the lack of an extra channel in the Irish language will not motivate a sufficient number of people to spend even that modest amount on the perceived hassle of setting up a separate aerial.

I wish Teilifís na Gaeilge every success and it is in that context I am making this proposal. I appreciate this proposal could pose financial difficulties but I am just attempting to alert the Minister about the technical problems. Perhaps he could take steps within the brief of his Department to alleviate and eliminate that problem. It seems strange that people cannot receive an extra TV channel which is being beamed out of Galway. Teilifís na Gaeilge is an innovative station and the creativity and excitement it has conveyed since it opened should ensure its permanency in our viewing habits.

The other main area of contention centres on the representation of worker directors on the board of Telecom as a consequence of the new strategic alliance. This matter has been very well aired and I would appreciate the Minister's view on how he intends to proceed in the area. However, I gather he went into some detail in his Second Stage speech on how this has been restructured as a result of wide consultations with the trade union movement and various other bodies.

I welcome that because the concept of worker directors on State boards is uniquely Irish and has served us well. Worker directors in all semi State bodies have taken their duties very seriously and have not, in a sense, gone native. They have continued to represent the interests of those who elected them, which is how it should be, and have not been in the pocket of any one Minister or Government. I am concerned that this independence would be somehow eroded as a result of the new strategic alliance. With the best will in the world, people appointed to semi State boards by Ministers, irrespective of political complexion, always have a residual loyalty to that Minister when it comes to crunch issues. That is not to impugn their integrity in any way but to acknowledge the human frailty which exists within us all. The Minister is aware that such a situation has developed on a number of boards for which he has responsibility since he took office.

Has the Minister given any consideration to the setting up of a users' council or a consumer council which would act as a public watchdog in the area of telecommunications? We are dealing here with substantial amounts of public money. The figure mentioned of £2 billion plus is beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of people. This business generates huge amounts of income, which will increase in the coming years. Perhaps the Minister might see a role for such a body under the office of the newly appointed director. There is a similar office in Britain. I think it is called OFTEL. Such a consumer committee would act as a bridge. The director and his office will be responsible to the Minister, who is, in turn, accountable to the public through the Dáil and Seanad. However, in the fast moving area of communications — and the Minister dwelt to a large extent on the pricing structure which will be introduced over the next few years — perhaps there is a need for some form of public watchdog to protect consumer rights. That is not to cast aspersions on any Minister.

Under section 3, one of the powers transferred by the Minister is that of management of the radio frequency spectrum. While the Minister's powers in relation to the management of the radio frequency spectrum are being transferred to the director, it is intended that in view of the nature of the spectrum and that it is "a finite natural resource" the Minister should retain a policy role in this area.

The Minister is aware of the growing clamour for the establishment of a short wave radio station. I wish to put on record my support for this concept. As a radio fan, of which I am sure the Minister is aware——

And not a bad one either.

——I have a genuine interest in this area. I have never been able to understand why Ireland has not taken the opportunity to introduce a short wave station, especially for the huge diaspora. Everybody cites the BBC World Service as the epitome of international radio services on short wave and other frequencies. It is an excellent station and perhaps some of my colleagues, including the Minister, have tuned to it in the early hours of the morning as they travelled around the country to hear a deep analysis of world news.

Many other countries also operate short wave radio stations. The primary purpose of these stations, notwithstanding the excellence of their news coverage and analysis, is to publicise the country from which the signal emanates and to project that country in the best possible light. That is as it should be — if a state is providing the funds it should not be used as a stick to knock that state or government. Of course, it has an important news value. While everybody compliments the independence and integrity of the BBC World Service, the reality is that it is also the official voice of the United Kingdom abroad.

Therefore, in light of the turbulence which this island has experienced over the last 20 or 30 years, we have lost an opportunity to explain the Irish position to an international radio audience. The cost of setting up such a station would not be prohibitive. With the vast resources available to RTÉ and the new Radio Ireland, coupled with the development of the local radio sector in recent years, there is now a vast reservoir of material which could easily be re-edited and retransmitted to an enthusiastic international audience.

I am using the opportunity of this Bill to pursue the Minister on the question of setting up such a station. I do so in the knowledge that, in spite of all the wonderful developments in technology and communications referred to in this Bill, the simple fact is that many Irish people living in the United Kingdom still cannot receive a clear medium wave signal from our national radio station. That is an unacceptable situation and has been the source of great annoyance to the Irish in Britain for many decades. I lived in London for seven years and I found it almost impossible to pick up Radio Éireann, as it then was, on medium wave.

Repeated representations to RTÉ and successive Ministers for Communications have failed to elicit a rational explanation why people in this country have little difficulty in picking up stations from as far away as North Africa, Germany and the Far East on medium wave, yet when one travels to the greater London area and to the east coast of the UK it is impossible to receive RTÉ Radio One, never mind 2 FM, which is on the VHF wavelength.

When Radio Tara was established some years ago there should have been a decision to split the wavelength after 7 o'clock in the evening when it no longer transmitted and to use those late evening hours to either originate new programming or retransmit existing programming from the national station. While I appreciate that long wave covers only two thirds of the UK and cannot be heard in the south and south-east of England, this would at least have ensured the use of what has been referred to in the explanatory memorandum as a "finite national resource" to its fullest capacity. That opportunity is still there. I understand that Radio Tara shuts down at 7 o'clock in the evening. RTÉ, and the State through RTÉ, continues to have a significant stake in the station. Perhaps in this instance it would be possible to utilise what the Minister of State referred to in terms of the radio spectrum as a "finite national resource".

In making the case for improved reception in the UK, I am aware that we are inhibited to a large degree by our legal obligations under international radio conventions. I urge the Minister to take steps at the earliest opportunity to review Ireland's conventions in this regard and to seek an expansion of the signal that would at least incorporate the UK in its entirely, given that approximately five million people of Irish descent live there. I know from speaking on radio that they are constantly thwarted and frustrated from receiving the signal properly. The extraordinary lengths to which some of them go to receive it continually amazes me. They have written to me advising that, in the absence of a reception on their domestic radios, they have gone to the top of hills, placed aerials on the top of their cars and travelled half a mile from their homes.

These people have no axe to grind. They left the country through economic or other circumstances or, increasingly, they are first and second generation Irish who wish to continue to avail of and inculcate the Irish culture and ethos into their lives in their adopted country. They want a signal clear enough to enable them listen to the All Ireland Finals, Irish soccer internationals or the news.

Or to Senator Mooney.

Modesty prevents me from alluding to that. The Government would have a strong case on this, even if it requires a change in the permitted extent of the signal under international obligations. Signals from countries far removed from these islands can be clearly picked up here while the Irish signal is interfered with, in some instances because of the strength of the signals going into Britain. I do not believe that international telecommunications or the Minister of State's opposite numbers in the various European countries would object.

The medium wave transmitter at RTÉ has a capacity of 600 kilowatts. If it was operated at this strength it could be heard in the Indian Ocean. However, there is a cap on the technical ability to increase its power. I am not giving away secrets when I tell the House that considerate engineers in RTÉ have occasionally made the necessary adjustments to ensure that there is a large international audience for certain key events. I am sure the Minister of State will agree that this is not the most acceptable method under which to operate.

Will the Minister of State look at Radio Tara given the amount of material that is now available from RTÉ, the incoming Radio Ireland and especially the local radios, who have developed their own style and have elaborated on the concept of Ireland talking to itself to a marvellous degree? Broadcasters are legally obliged to keep all material on tape for a period of six months after transmission. In view of this, perhaps there could be a modus vivendi between the management of Radio Tara and the Minister of State's office with regard to developing the potential of the radio in the evening time. Again, this would be for the Irish audience in the UK and indeed for the UK audience itself.

From my own experience, an incredible number of non Irish people like our music and musical culture because they do not have such a culture of their own. They turn out in vast numbers when our Irish artists tour the UK because of what they hear on Irish radio. I do not make this suggestion solely out of altruism or misty eyed romanticism. There is a hard, practical edge to it in terms of the possible economic benefits to Irish companies.

Under the 1988 Act, certain defined limits were placed on the transmission area of the franchise holders. When the two Dublin stations, 98 FM and FM 104, were given a franchise I understand that their transmission areas were defined to a specific limit under the Act. The Department has not pursued this to any extent. We are a small country with 24 local stations, many of them operating on a wing and a prayer. Perhaps the previous and present Governments decided to let sleeping dogs lie for financial reasons. Radio Three operates out of Tullamore and has an audience of approximately 25,000 to 30,000. Surely it is unfair competition that listeners in its franchise area should also be able to receive what are essentially two local Dublin stations, which transmit between 50 and 70 miles in any direction out of Dublin? My understanding is that, under the legislation, the engineers controlling the transmitters in RTÉ are legally empowered to ensure that these stations do not extend beyond their transmission area limits. I do not wish to give the impression that I am attempting to curb the development of these stations; I merely ask that there be equity.

This issue has not risen to the top of the agenda. However, it is important for anyone listening to a variety of local radio stations. The two Dublin stations have a virtual monopoly covering approximately one million people; this is outrageous. When the franchises are due for renewal after the second tranche at the end of the seven years I hope the then Minister will ensure that a wider variety of stations are available to people in the greater Dublin area than at present. Perhaps the Minister of State would indicate the legal position regarding transmission for local radio as it currently operates?

The Bill provides us with an opportunity to explore a very exciting area that is changing at an extraordinary rate. We are introduced to some new fad in the technological area weekly. The world is our oyster in this regard because we are geographically and strategically placed to take advantage of the global revolution in information technology. I hope the proposals in the Bill will enhance rather than diminish Ireland's position in that regard.

I welcome the Bill which should ensure that we will not encounter the problems which arose over the past 30 years in Telecom Éireann and other State bodies. Senator Mooney made many constructive points regarding local radio and television. The Bill also relates to cable television and I hope the regulator will ensure that the services Senator Mooney mentioned will be implemented. For example, he could examine how money can be collected from the people who are reaping the harvest in the profitable areas of communications.

In 1973 there was uproar about the amount of money spent upgrading telecommunications under the then Minister, Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien. The amount involved over the Government period of four years was £70 million. However, as a result of that investment, Ireland was way ahead in terms of communications in comparison to other European countries. I agree we must look to the future given the weekly developments in this area. I did not think I would ever use a mobile telephone but I readily admit that it is very handy and necessary.

Senator Mooney is correct when he says that we must look to the future. However, we must also consider competition. This aspect is covered in the legislation and I hope it will be effective. There should not be another cartel of companies in the future. There is a danger in that regard if licences are granted to particular companies which agree with each other. Will the Minister cover this point in his reply? In comparison to other companies which serve the public, there is a danger that cartels can emerge in this area. Does the independent regulator have sufficient authority to deal with this matter? I hope that will be the case in terms of the regulations which will be implemented.

I also hope the regulator will have sufficient authority when it comes to cable television. Many good points were made about this matter. Given the amount of money spent by RTÉ, its size, the number of people who work there and the money made by others who have licences to provide cable television, I cannot understand why RTÉ was not encouraged to get more involved providing such services to every household for a fee. There is a problem in Cork regarding cable television in the Carrigaline, east Cork and west Cork areas. This and similar issues in other parts of the country are difficult to overcome.

The problem in Carrigaline has been extensively mentioned. This area is over the hills from Cork city but facilities are available on the west side of the bills which do not involve the cable television services licensed by the relevant Government. I live in the middle of Cork city but just four minutes away by car, my son receives a much cheaper service. I do not suggest he should not have that service, but I would like to have it too. He has all the services and channels I receive for approximately £8 a week less; it costs him approximately £400 a year less than the people I represent.

If that can be done at local level, why did RTÉ not consider it long before now? The RTÉ facilities in Donnybrook are massive. There are many rooms and facilities there which are not used, and probably will not be used again. One should compare this to the facilities of the people who are making so much money providing multichannel television services. Why did RTÉ or the Government not consider moving into this area? It could have been done by increasing the cost of a television licence. RTÉ receives all the current licence fee. I do not suggest it should not get that money. It provides a costly service and it does not make money from the licence fee. However, it missed a golden opportunity to make a huge amount of money for the State by not getting involved in cable television.

People would be delighted to pay a licence fee if they could receive all the services which people like my son receive at little expense. We cannot blame people — young married couples in Carrigaline, Ballincollig, Ovens, west Cork and other areas throughout the country — for asking why they should pay large amounts when others do not have to do so. I hope the independent regulator will have something to say about this and that a fair compromise will be reached. The people involved are entitled to a fair compromise, although the implementation of EU regulations may make it impossible to meet the concerns in Carrigaline and other areas.

Given the television facilities which can be provided by local community groups at little cost, how can the multichannel operators charge so much for services? A good service is provided but there is no reason RTÉ should not have been allowed to provide all the services. It was a golden opportunity which unfortunately was missed long ago. If other facilities can be made available at less expense, the current structures should be examined.

I am particularly pleased with a major aspect of the Bill, with which the Minister dealt in detail. I always argue in favour of workers and this is the first time employees will have an opportunity to become involved in ownership of a State company. Points were made about allowing people in the private sector to invest in State bodies. There is no reason that should not be the case particularly in terms of the number of people who will seek money from the State when they become elderly and whether sufficient funds will be available. There will be major problems in that regard and every opportunity should be made available for people to invest in areas where money can be made, particularly semi-State bodies. Why should people with money not be allowed to invest in the ESB or Telecom Éireann, parts of which are being sold? Individuals with money should be allowed to become shareholders.

I am thrilled that under the Bill there will be a worker director and a shareholder director. Before final agreement is reached with the unions in the ongoing discussions, I hope more shareholder directors rather than worker directors will be involved in the 12 member board of directors. Why not? If more of the shareholder directors are workers, the workforce must see the opportunities in that regard. If it makes a profit, workers should be encouraged to seek a greater share than 5 per cent, which is only a start. I hope KPN will not decide who becomes shareholders because it owns 35 per cent of the company.

Let us look to the future. This deal is worth £500 million to the State over the next five years. Will we allow people to become shareholders in the semi-State sector? It would give people an excellent opportunity to invest in this country. Given the money spent on communications and on infrastructure, the Government would be foolish not to allow people purchase shares in semi-State companies. Telecom Éireann has spent £1.9 billion on communications in the past five years. Why not give people who want to invest money for old age the opportunity to invest in Telecom Éireann, CIE and the ESB? I do not agree with selling off of State or semi-State companies, but we should look at the British system where the public is allowed to purchase a percentage of shares. People are becoming more affluent and have more money to spare and we should allow them to purchase a percentage of shares in semi-State bodies. We should not sell off State assets, such as Telecom Éireann, of which I am proud. It has provided a good service because of money invested in it by Governments over the years.

We are now establishing a director of telecommunications regulation. I am glad there will be a cap on prices because I am conscious of costs. In regard to Eircell mobile telephones, one can avail of its services for a 12 month trial period. That offer is available because a competitor is coming onto the market. I hope cartels will not be created in this area. Although Telecom Éireann had many problems and maintained a dominant position, we had a service at a cost over which the Minister had control. Will the Minister have control over costs in relation to Eircell, which is a Telecom Éireann company?

We should allow pension companies to become involved in this area and to gain from semi-State bodies. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that. The workforce in Telecom Éireann should be happy about this move. Other semi-State bodies, such as the ESB and CIÉ will look at the type of agreement reached in Telecom Éireann. Workforces in semi-State bodies will be able to avail of opportunities which did not exist heretofore. I believe a similar shareholding arrangement has been set up in Aer Lingus. However, the arrangement in Telecom Éireann is better structured. The Government should encourage workers in Telecom Éireann to become worker-shareholders. Perhaps in five year's time we will not need to sell off part of Telecom Éireann to mainland European companies or will not need to look for more money to keep it going.

We are getting £183 million for the sale of a 35 per cent share of the company and there is an opportunity for a further £200 million with the sale of another 15 per cent over the next five years. Perhaps this money could come from within the State. While I recognise the opportunities which will arise from having KPN as a partner, and I welcome its expertise, I would not like us to sell off more of a stake than is necessary. KPN has an option to purchase another 15 per cent after which we should keep our options open. We should not be seen to be selling off shareholdings in this or in other semi-State companies too quickly.

I would like to know more about the powers of the director of telecommunications regulation. It has been said that the Minister will have the final say. Will the Minister or the regulator have the final say as regards price capping? Money received from licences will be used to run the office of the director of telecommunications regulation, which must present an annual report to the Minister. However, we receive many reports from semi-State companies and other bodies, including the VHI and the Free Legal Aid Board, which do not indicate if we are getting a better return. The Free Legal Aid Board received an increase of 25 per cent in funding, which is an enormous increase. Are such bodies really accountable to the Oireachtas and the Minister? That is a matter about which I am concerned.

The issue of price capping is important. The Minister said costs are still high compared to other countries, although local calls have been reduced by 40 per cent and overseas calls by 60 per cent. It is cheaper to telephone abroad on a public telephone than on an Eircell mobile telephone. Those operating in this area must be making an enormous amount of money. People are not unaware of this; but the impression given by Eircell, the company within Telecom Éireann, is that their service costs extra. I would expect the regulator to deal with that, and the Minister's regulations should demand that the director would do that. Otherwise there would be a real cartel between two companies and hence the need for the regulator to act.

On the services provided by private local radio in comparison to RTÉ, the services being provided in my area by private local radio are exceptionally good and 96 FM stands out as being particularly good. However, the services being provided by public radio are not getting recognition. If engineers in RTÉ who are allowing those in the private sector to go outside their designated areas, why are they not promoting RTÉ's local radio structure more? If anything they are demoting it and allowing it to deteriorate, which nobody likes to see. What is the policy within RTÉ on local radio? They provide more services and facilities than the private sector and they should be seen to be doing so in the area of news in particular. That area should be looked at and the Minister should give us his views on it.

I welcome the Bill. It is a Bill for the future and it brings everyone on stream as a team: the workforce, management, the director-regulator and the Minister himself. A fine structure has been set up by the Minister and I congratulate him on that. In the future we will hopefully see a situation where 65 per cent of Telecom Éireann will remain in the hands of the Irish public. We must never allow a situation to develop where we would lose that percentage because too much effort has been put into the infrastructure. But the opportunities are there, from the perspectives of pensions companies and private individuals with money, for involvement in semi-State bodies in Ireland. We should not be afraid to look at that.

Most importantly, there will be a shareholder on the board of Telecom Éireann as a director. If all workers became shareholders, which I recommend strongly as it is in their best interests, then one would have all workers as shareholders. That would be of great benefit to them. Then lessons could be learnt by other semi-State bodies such as Aer Lingus, who are looking to the future and deciding if they need to take on a partner. Of course, they must if they look to the future. Workers there, in Iarnród Éireann and in the ESB must get these opportunities also.

This is a fine Bill. It is making sure that we get the best from the future.

This is a very complex Bill in terms of its wording and in the construction of many of its provisions. Why is it so complex? The complexity is unnecessary and may only be there to confuse the Oireachtas and the general public. Why is this confusion necessary? Some of the sections are mindboggling, but I will return to that.

The heart of the matter is that the Minister agreed to sell 20 per cent of Telecom Éireann to a consortium composed of KPN of Holland and Telia of Sweden. The Minister should tell us who exactly these companies are? What is the strength of each on its own home market and on the international telecommunications market? How does each consortium rank as a world player in the international telecommunications market?

I was shocked to learn that at an early stage in the process of searching for a suitable international partner, there were ten international telecommunications companies potentially interested in purchasing a stake in Telecom Éireann. Will the Minister now tell us precisely why eight of the potential bidders dropped out of the race? If the Minister does not know the reasons in each case, then he should make it his business to ascertain why, in the interests of protecting the massive investment which the Irish taxpayers have made in Telecom Éireann. If eight out of ten potential bidders drop out of any competition it is time to ask why this should be the case. There is a public duty of accountability to ascertain the specific reasons when the Minister and the Government are dealing not with their own private assets but with a public company built by the investment of the taxpayers and the payments of the Irish telecommunications customers.

We are told that the sum of IR£183 million is being paid for an initial 20 per cent stake in Telecom Éireann, that KPN Telia have an option to buy a further 15 per cent stake and that the State expects to receive a further contribution through a profit sharing scheme. Who valued Telecom Éireann? On what precise basis was it valued? The citizens of this country have a right to know the answers to these vital questions. Why have the answers not been given in the clearest possible terms? In his speech the Minister of State said that the package is to ensure the provision of a universal service on a clearly costed and transparent basis. That is great if that is what is to be done.

It is done.

Let us have it in the open, because answers have not been clearly given. Is there something to hide? If there is nothing to hide, let us have the details. When we have the details of an authoritative valuation we will be able to see what should be the value of a 20 per cent stake. In addition, the Minister of State should state exactly what formula will be used to value the further 15 per cent stake which KPN Telia have an option to buy.

I accept that Telecom Éireann is a commercial enterprise and that it operates in what is fast becoming an international, global market, as the Minister of State acknowledged. Competition is already intense and is growing in that market. Against that background certain sensitive market information about the operations of Telecom Éireann cannot be made known publicly as that information would then be in the hands of potential competitors and could be used to the commercial detriment of Telecom Éireann. The information which I have sought from the Minister of State is not sensitive commercial information of the type which could be used by potential competitors to the detriment of Telecom Éireann. I seek information relative to the value of an asset which is the property of the citizens of this country. They are entitled to that information and the Oireachtas has a duty to pursue the Minister on these points until satisfactory answers are given by him.

If 20 per cent of Telecom Éireann is to be sold now and the purchaser is to have the option to buy a further 15 per cent in the future, why could the 35 per cent not have been made available to Irish investors? I do not understand this. Irish fund mangers who seek exposure to Telecom Éireann will have to buy into a foreign company such as KPN Telia and this should not happen. There are many potential investors, institutional and private, in Ireland who would have been interested had there been a public invitation to subscribe for shares in Telecom Éireann, as was the case with Irish Life and Greencore. Irish pension funds alone hold investments valued at more than £15 billion and 40 per cent of this is invested abroad including £240 million in overseas telecommunications companies. Will the Minister explain for the benefit of taxpayers why Irish institutional investors and the Irish public were not given the opportunity to invest in Telecom Éireann? A vague comment about the benefits of a strategic alliance is not good enough. The public need to be told much more by the Minister about the benefits and commercial merits of such an alliance.

The highly competitive nature of the international market in telecommunications is reflected in price competition. Those who read international business newspapers and journals will see advertisements offering huge discounts off international call charges. In the light of this, will the Minister of State explain what section 7 of the Bill, which purports to deal with tariff regulation, means? This section has eight subsections but I fail to see how prices can be set in the highly competitive open international market other than through the interplay of market forces such as consumer demand and the availability of choice of supply. Does the Minister believe that section 7 has any commercial reality or that it is in the interest of the Irish telecommunications customer? There is a businessman in the Seanad who would not try to run his supermarkets that way.

I am not trying to run it through the market.

Having abandoned potential Irish investors and left citizens in ignorance as to the value of the asset being sold, the Minister, in section 10, reduces the strength of employee directors. We have a complex formula of words which effectively sets to one side the key features of the Worker Participation (State Enterprises) Acts, 1977 and 1988. The Minister is reducing the number of employee directors from four to two. What is the reason for this? He is not here — he is probably out going through another semi-State company like a dose of salts. The Minister did this in CIÉ, Bord na Móna, the ESB and is now doing it in Telecom Éireann and it must be difficult for the Minister of State to defend some of his actions.

In 1990 the Labour Party objected to the part privatisation of Irish Life. Deputy Taylor said that it would be a gross dereliction of the public interest if the privatisation, in whole or in part, of Irish Life were to be allowed to proceed without full disclosure of all the facts surrounding the company and all the options considered by the Government. He further stated that in 1986, the then Minister for Finance reported to the Government that the company had very substantial reserves which alone would make a valuation of £400 million very modest indeed. He added: "if this company is allowed to be floated off in secret, it is almost inevitable that it will be sold on the cheap and that the initial investors will make a quick killing at the expense of the Irish taxpayer".

His concluding words are most important: The public is not being well served by a Government that makes fundamental decisions, which could ultimately affect our economic sovereignty and independence, behind closed doors.

That is happening in this case. The Minister of State said that this is a very good deal and on the basis of the financial return from this deal, it is an excellent outcome for the State, the company and the Irish public.

It is not, but it is a damn good deal for the companies which bought in, KPN Telia. What is their reputation on the international market? Where did the valuation on Telecom Éireann come from? According to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, a company that makes profits of almost £200 million is valued at £900 million. The real value of the company, even factoring in competition, must be around £2 billion. If this was the case, it would make 20 per cent of the company worth £400 million rather than £183 million. KPN Telia are not just getting the core business of £183 million but they also get a 35 per cent stake in Cablelink and Eircell which are potentially profitable enterprises.

This Bill is seriously flawed with regard to commercial and technical issues. The flaws will result in an adverse impact on customers, employees and on the Irish public who own Telecom Éireann. Even the basic principle of establishing the Director of Telecommunication Regulation as a position in the Civil Service is unacceptable in the light of the growing practice elsewhere for regulators to be independent of the Civil Service. Will the Minister of State explain this also?

There are too many fundamental issues left unresolved and far too many questions left unanswered for this Bill to be enacted in its present form. It would be in the interests of all concerned if the Minister went back to the drawing board not only in respect of the Bill but in respect of the far more fundamental issue of the future viability of Telecom Éireann.

I welcome this Bill which will set up an independent regulator who will take charge of telecommunications, radio communications and cable television. Under the provisions of this Bill there will be regulation of tariffs for certain telecommunications services. It will allow the transfer and issue of shares in Telecom Éireann and allow it to enter into an agreement in connection with the sale to ensure equity in the company and the formation of alliances with the group KPN Telia which is well known throughout the world for its work and advances in this field.

There have been terrific changes and advancements in telecommunications services over the past ten years. I was present a few years ago for the laying of a transatlantic cable which was brought in at Garrettstown beach near Kinsale, County Cork. The amount of technology involved demonstrated the advancements which had been made in telecommunications.

Under EU legislation monopolies are not allowed. This aids free competition. However, it is necessary to make changes in Telecom Éireann. I welcome the setting up of an independent regulator's post to deal with matters formerly dealt with by the Minister for Communications. No doubt consumers will benefit from the advent of new service providers. The Minister said in his speech that there would be a substantial reduction in the cost of telephone calls in the future and I welcome this.

Regarding the sale of equity in Telecom Éireann and the deal with KPN/Telia, questions were asked about the value put on Telecom Éireann. As we know, special advisers are consulted in such matters and the market also dictates the price. No doubt a proper job has been done by the Minister in this respect to get the best for Telecom Éireann and the people of Ireland from the people who are taking over.

I also want to stress that in providing a telecommunications service we must take special consideration of outlying and remote areas. The case has been made continuously that if people living on the western seaboard and in areas a long distance from Dublin want to contact Government Departments, many of which are based in Dublin or further afield in County Mayo, County Donegal and County Sligo, for example, the cost is prohibitive for people who may be looking for their entitlements. It is my firm belief that people telephoning for such services should be charged at the local call rate. Social welfare recipients in west Cork who have difficulties with their payments, for instance, must ring County Sligo and this involves a long distance call which these people can often ill afford. We must examine the matter carefully to see what can be done to provide cheaper calls to people living in isolated areas and on the islands.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn