Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

The Ceann Comhairle turned down my priority question on the basis that the invigilation of NTL was a matter for ComReg but it is not. The matter is not dealt with in the Bill, which totally ignores convergence. It should be addressed in the Bill but its absence means the legislation has failed in this regard. When I met NTL's representatives, they informed me that they planned to invest approximately €85 million in their network this year and a similar figure next year. They should be encouraged to behave in a more competitive way, however.

Due to the major problems afflicting the telecoms sector, I have outlined a series of regulatory reforms in my document Enabling Ireland's Future, which should be undertaken urgently. The first measure I proposed was to reform the level of financial penalties that could be imposed, and to allow ComReg to fine any operator for breaches by up to 10% of company turnover without first seeking a court order. I therefore welcome the provision in section 15, which amends section 46 of the principal Act, to enhance the financial penalties ComReg can impose.

Section 15, the old section 46A (6), allows for fines of 10% of turnover or €4 million. Why did the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dempsey, choose the figure of €4 million? It seems a rather arbitrary and inequitable figure, given the €800 million to €1.5 billion in turnover posted by the largest mobile phone operator and largest land line operator in this country.

A key weakness of the Bill is the apparent inability of ComReg to directly levy significant fines without recourse to court action and I would like the Minister to address this. Will we have the prospect of more tortuous cat and mouse games between ComReg and various operators? I meant to ask the civil servants from the Department what will happen to the electronic communications appeals panel, ECAP. Obviously due process and the right to appeal must be taken into account but the current system is very cumbersome and favours the rights of telecoms operators to the detriment of the whole telecoms sector. I wonder if ComReg will still be quite hamstrung by the modus operandi presented in the Bill.

Would the Minister agree to ask the Government to establish a statutory division of court that would deal solely with regulatory matters and would be mandated to deal swiftly with any appeals to decisions made by regulators such as ComReg? This is a broader question than can be addressed today but it is something that could be investigated.

The other major plank of the Labour Party's regulatory reform policy was the implementation of concurrent powers between ComReg and the Competition Authority. In 2002 ComReg and the Competition Authority entered a co-operation agreement that formalised the existing informal relationship between the two organisations. However, the British regulator, Ofcom, has concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading to exercise competition Act powers for the communications sector. We developed this policy because we believe that co-competition powers for ComReg are essential and I welcome the section of the Bill before us, especially Part 4, which amends the Competition Act 2002 and gives ComReg co-competition powers in the telecoms sector. I caution the Minister to ensure ComReg and the Competition Authority are properly invigilated, given the farce we saw regarding Topaz and Statoil when the Competition Authority missed a key deadline that is also within this portfolio.

The principle within the new Part 4A is extremely praiseworthy but when one looks at the new sections 47G, 47E, 47F and 47G there may be concerns that the exercise of concurrent powers may be very cumbersome. For example, section 47G requires that the Competition Authority and ComReg avoid duplication and ensure consistency between their approaches but a co-operation agreement will still be required along with the involvement of the Ministers in the Departments concerned.

One of the key definitions of this Bill is the definition of the end user, the consumer, but the history of telecommunications, particularly over recent years, has been one of continual reports of the abuse of end-users and consumers. I believe that ComReg needs to be reformed to make sure that it addresses the negative and sometimes illegal behaviour that is carried out by some operators and experienced by individual householders and businesses.

Unlike the Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, ComReg has a consumer panel, yet many consumers are exasperated by the brick wall they face when trying to deal with problems in the telecoms area. I received a typical e-mail in this regard from a constituent yesterday. She said that ComReg was entirely useless in dealing with her complaint about the failure of one of the operators. How closely does ComReg work with the Office of Consumer Affairs and is this relationship something that should be included in this Bill? There is the callcost.ie website, run by ComReg, but in the UK Ofcom has developed a more comprehensive and efficient model for dealing with individual complaints against operators. The response to recent complaints is that there is nothing ComReg can do with its present powers.

I warmly welcome section 7 which inserts section 24A to section 24C and facilitates the protection of whistleblowers. I believe that these new sections will offer protection to any well-intentioned citizen to make ComReg aware of uncompetitive or potentially illegal behaviour by telecoms operators. My party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, introduced the whistleblowers' Bill and wanted to apply a whistleblowers' charter to all public sector agencies. The Taoiseach said he would introduce the measure on a sectoral basis but at least we have it in the telecommunications sector.

I welcome the action plan in section 10 which amends section 31 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002. However I believe that the Houses of the Oireachtas should also have input into this action plan as representatives of citizens across the country so I hope it will be laid before the Oireachtas and that we and our successors will have the right to invigilate it.

See this speech in context