Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I would like to be able to welcome the Bill because for the past four or five years there has been much debate about the need for regulation that benefits the consumer in the telecommunications area. The Bill, however, is ineffective because it is too little too late, and the proposals it contains are unlikely to reverse the slide that has taken place in this area over the past six or seven years. I do not blame the Minister for that but it is opportune for us now to examine the extent to which this country has fallen so far from its leading position ten years ago. It is now trailing among the back markers. There was no reason for that to happen.

It happened because the regulatory system of EU law transposed into Irish law does not protect the consumer. Instead it creates situations in which the consumer suffers considerably. Last year, for example, at the time of the Smart Telecom problem, we on this side of the House approached the regulator to find out what went wrong, and why the Minister had not been aware of this beforehand and issued a warning to the 80,000 or 100,000 customers left without service overnight. While I mean no disrespect to the regulator and recognise the difficult position it was in, the response we received was that the regulator was aware of the problem and had tried to bring it along as best it could. That is not good enough.

In parts of the country the local overground cabling for broadband and other services is tied up by a piece of rope to a tree. I can bring photographic confirmation of that into the House if necessary. That in itself is not the issue but indicates a more deep-rooted problem, going back to 1969, 1970 and 1979 when the telecommunications industry here was falling apart and needed major investment. That has been forgotten. The regulatory system over the past eight or nine years has allowed the infrastructure to drift to such an extent that many customers around the country are screaming for assistance to get broadband. I am informed that in some parts of the country ducting for cabling has been put down but nothing else has happened. Provision has been made in theory but the connections have not been made.

A former Member of this House was asked many years ago to provide a telephone kiosk in a particular constituency, which he duly did. When people complained that the telephone in the kiosk did not work he asked why and they said there were no cables. His response was that nobody said anything about cables. They were not part of the deal. The situation today is similar. I do not blame the Minister for that but he is in the driving seat and somebody must accept responsibility for whatever happens. If Deputy Broughan or I were sitting in the Minister's place and he was in ours he would be one of the first to point the finger and ask what we had been doing and why we had not delivered the goods. He would ask the cause of the late conversion and activity to deal with issues that should have been dealt with before now.

Business people and industries around the country are moving from one location to another because they cannot get access to modern broadband facilities and a proper telecommunications service where they are. That is an appalling indictment of the country in the 21st century, when it should be one of the leading lights in Europe. Where has it all gone wrong? Why was action not taken sooner? The regulator, sadly, is the meat in the sandwich, not being a Minister, a regulator or a service provider. He or she is, sadly, in all camps and in none. After all, the regulator cannot offend the Government. Who could offend the Government and expect to live after it? That would be an appalling thought. Nor can it be seen to offend the service providers too much. There are a number of potential service providers and offending one could enhance the position of the other and vice versa. That is a difficult situation. Who suffers at the end of the day? The unfortunate consumer pays the price.

There was outlandish carry-on in the communications committee recently. A major investigation took place into how to provide telecommunications services in some parts of the country, such as the Black Valley in Kerry, parts of the midlands and other areas where there are no communications whatsoever. If they had a mobile telephone service, they might get some other services. An internal investigation took place as to how best to deal with the situation. In God's name, what are we at? Surely we should know these things. It should be possible to make a telephone call and inquire from somebody how the service will be provided and when it will be provided. We should not have the current stupid situation where there is a stream of reports, Ministers running around the constituencies and even the poor chairman of the communications committee being dragged down on a wet afternoon to walk around the countryside in an effort to find out why proper communications cannot be provided in, for example, the Black Valley. There are other parts of the country where battery systems are still being used for communications.

It is appalling that in the century after humans put a man on the moon we are unable to provide communications on land in a relatively small country. I accept there are deep ravines in Kerry and along the western and eastern seaboards, but I am sure there are equally deep ravines on the moon. However, we succeeded in putting communications on the moon and receiving a signal back from there. What, therefore, is going on here?

A number of issues are not dealt with in the Bill, even though they could have been dealt with. The Bill should be broader and should encompass far more than it does. The same problem applies to the broadcasting Bill. We have been discussing that Bill for the past four or five years. When it appeared, however, it was merely a truncated version of what we had hoped for and intended in the first instance.

Let us consider how competition has and has not worked in this sector. Look at Smart Telecom, for example. A large number of customers were discommoded and instantly left without services. They did not know that there had been an ongoing row between two service providers for some time. It should not have been allowed to go on for that time. The customers should have been alerted to what was happening. The Minister should also have been alerted. I do not know if he was but if he was, he remained silent. He should indicate why he remained silent. What happened afterwards? My information is that 80% of those whose service was discontinued at that time returned to one service provider. Is that competition and regulation? Is that how they should work? I think not. It is a serious indictment of how this system is working.

It is generally agreed that to provide a proper communications system there is an ongoing requirement for annual investment in line with the value of the company and in keeping with the requirements of the modern consumer. It is necessary to bring the company's infrastructure up to date on an annual basis by ensuring there is an annual investment that will keep that company sharp, at the leading edge and in a position to deliver high quality service to the consumer. There is nothing about that or even remotely associated with it in the Bill.

It seems to be possible to do it in other countries. I am sick of listening to people tell me that we cannot have things here because of regulations, European legislation or some other reason. Eastern European countries came late to this industry but they are now ahead of us. It affects a plethora of disciplines. In medicine, for example, a modern, efficient and effective telecommunications system is vital. It is important that video case conferences can take place. Operations can be performed on one side of the world while advice is simultaneously received from the other side, provided communications are readily available. The financial services sector is also dependent on communications.

So many areas need attention in terms of modernisation it is embarrassing. In the past 12 months I was talking to a group of people who, ten or 15 years ago, hosted people from the business and banking sector abroad who came to this country to see what was happening and to get inspiration and advice. Now, however, they are being told by their hosts that this country is not as up to speed as it was formerly. Sadly, that is the situation.

I put down numerous questions, which were disallowed, regarding the relevance of the communications sector to, and asking the Minister to take action on, the use of the Internet for pornographic purposes and for the abuse of children either through bullying or being pursued by paedophiles and so forth. The Minister indicated to the Taoiseach today that legislation is already in place. It is not. The technical know-how is available to track these activities, which are the subject of much discussion at present.

Policing is a separate matter; it occurs after the event. To be able to spot a risk before it happens or before it becomes an epidemic is when the technology is called into play. The EU Commission has already indicated its preference that the industry adopts the most modern technology to ensure that sexual predators on the Internet are spotted at an early stage and put out of business. It is that simple. It is not rocket science. We talk about these problems and say something should be done, yet nothing is done. Children and women become victims as a result. A great deal more could have been included in this Bill to cover a huge range of areas. Instead, it barely touches the surface of those issues when it could be far more effective.

I already referred to ComReg as the meat or jam in the sandwich. I do not wish to be offensive to ComReg. However, the unfolding situation requires something different to address the issues I have mentioned. We have options. We can do nothing, avoid the issue, say everything is fine and claim that in five or seven years we will be better off. I have bad news for people of that view. The communications area is part of the backbone of our economy and if we do not take action at an early date we will give the wrong signal — no pun intended — to those involved in this and other industries, which are huge investment areas in this country at present. Many large international business concerns see our telecommunications system as a weakness. While it is fine to recognise the weakness, the means and wherewithal to address it are more important. Our telecommunications system is from an old-fashioned era, while across the world, the telecommunications industry is rising to the challenge, meeting the requirements and attending to the needs of its customers.

Applying for a telephone line to one's house is a similar process to what it was in 1979. Then one had to be gifted to get service. What has gone wrong?

See this speech in context