Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1998 > Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport > Report on the meeting with the Director of Tele Reg

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Report of the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport on Meeting with the Director of Telecommunications Regulation

October 1998

HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Report of the Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport on Meeting with the Director of Telecommunications Regulation

October 1998

Contents

Introduction

The Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport was established following Orders of Reference of the Dáil and Seanad of 23 October, 1997. In addition, Standing Orders state that the following powers may be conferred on a Committee:

“(1)power to take oral and written evidence and to print and publish from time to time minutes of such evidence taken in public before the Select Committee together with such related documents as the Select Committee thinks fit;”.

This report of the Joint Committee was agreed at its meeting on 1 October, 1998.

________________

Seán Doherty, T.D.

Chairman

AN COMHCHOISTE UM FHIONTAIR PHOIBLÍ AGUS IOMPAR

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ENTERPRISE AND TRANSPORT

Déardaoin, 12 Feabhra, 1998

Thursday, 12th February, 1998

The Joint Committee met at 2.30 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Deputy Michael Ahern*,

Deputy Martin Brady,

Deputy Michael Creed,

Deputy Austin Currie,

Deputy Liam Lawlor,

Deputy Dick Roche,

Deputy Emmet Stagg,

Deputy Ivan Yates.

Senator Peter Callanan,

Senator Liam Fitzgerald,

Senator Tom Fitzgerald**,

Senator Fergus O’Dowd.

Deputy Seán Doherty in the Chair.

Chairman: I welcome the Telecommunications Regulator, Ms Doyle. Please introduce your colleagues to the Committee.

Ms Doyle: With me are Mr. John McQuaid, the director of technology in the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation or ODTR, Ms Regina Finn, the head of the licensing section, and Mr. Robert Jackson from my private office.

Chairman: Your office was established as a result of EU regulations and as a means of implementing Government policy which requires that the regulation of the telecommunications sector should be transparent, objective and, most importantly, independent of the Minister’s role as majority shareholder in Telecom Éireann. Perhaps you could give us a brief outline of your role and functions and of the current position on the provision of multi-channel television. This will be followed by a question and answer session with Members.

Before we start, I point out that while Members of the Committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to you or any of your colleagues and therefore I will not expect you to answer questions in respect of specific cases, if any are put to you. Members should have regard to the Standing Orders concerning matters which are sub judice.

Ms Doyle: Thank you, Chairman, for your role in arranging this meeting. I indicated in our discussions I would be happy to come here to assist the Committee, in so far as I can, in clarifying the role and functions of the ODTR. As noted, I am aware Members are concerned about multi-channel television broadcasting and from the time the office was set up last July it has been a major and pressing priority for us. We have worked hard on this tangled issue which has eluded resolution for many years.

In our review we determined the first thing we should do was to commission a major study, which had not been done before, on the future of television transmission and re-transmission services. This is near completion - it will be ready in ten days at the most - and, as I have committed, it will be published shortly after. I expect the report to be substantial, so allowing for printing time it should be available three weeks later at the maximum. A period of one month after that will be allowed for comment, and after that again it is our intention that decisions will be made on the general issue in so far as they are within the responsibilities of the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation.

Members will be aware of legal proceedings which started last summer in respect of the Carrigaline deflector case. An interim judgment was made by the High Court on 23 January but the final decision is outstanding. I am precluded, therefore, from commenting on that case or on any impact it may have on general issues.

As I understand it, Chairman, you wish me to stop at this point, rather than continue with the presentation.

Chairman: You may continue until a Member wishes to put a question but if Members wish to interject they may.

Deputy Yates: Will Ms Doyle be turning to another topic?

Ms Doyle: As arranged for this meeting, I will talk about the role and functions of the office.

Deputy Yates: Will that take long? Our time for questions is limited. Is Ms Doyle reading the handout she gave us?

Ms Doyle: I am talking to the issues in the handout but I am at the Committee’s disposition.

Senator Callanan: I have two matters to raise concerning the Carrigaline case and am disappointed that Ms Doyle is precluded from comment. If that is the case I will wait for another day.

Chairman: I had in mind that the totality of the presentation would be made and then we would take questions and answers. The regulator has come here and it is fair that we should grant her the courtesy of allowing her to make the presentation.

Ms Doyle: I draw Members’ attention to the folder. This contains a brief note outlining the role and functions of the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation, a second note outlining highlights of our first six months of operation and a copy of our first substantial but not our first publication, a table of frequency allocations for Ireland. That table sets out the types of radio communications which can be used in each frequency range in Ireland. It is the first such publication. From next week we expect to have our website up which will give information on our operations.

I will turn to the role and functions of the office. Why is it there? One should start from the point of view of consumers, both business and private. They need the highest quality and widest range of cheap and advanced communications to maintain and improve the competitiveness of the Irish economy. The main players in that are the companies in the industry. The Minister for Public Enterprise and her Department play a major role in promoting the industry. They are responsible for developing the framework within which the office I hold operates. The Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation is a regulatory agency. It is an enabler for the sector - one of several. It is a licensing authority charged with ensuring compliance with licence terms and legal requirements in respect of market liberalisation and management of the radio spectrum.

I will go into those functions in more detail. As a licensing authority within the framework of the law passed in 1996 and statutory instruments adopted in accordance with EU directives, it licenses telecommunications service providers, the alternative companies to Telecom Éireann. Telecommunications network providers are companies which since last July are entitled to set up their own networks and cabling system for delivering telephone calls from one place to another. It licenses also the use of the radio frequency spectrum, anything from business radio, taxis or commercial companies which want internal radio systems to licensing the radio frequency spectrum for broadcasting infrastructure. It also licenses cable TV infrastructure.

In terms of ensuring compliance, first I will refer to the telecommunications market. There are conditions for ensuring that liberalisation operates in Ireland. They are set down in EU directives and set out in statutory instruments implemented here under them. A number of responsibilities were passed to the office to ensure the rather bumpy playing field that now exists can be levelled out for the players so that competition can take place and the services consumers need can be delivered. Second, in relation to the radio frequency spectrum, we seek to ensure a highly efficient use of the spectrum is available and that interference and other complaints are dealt with. Third, I will deal with the area of the retail price cap on Telecom Éireann. Telecom Éireann is beginning to be in a competitive market, but in many areas it is significantly the monopoly service. To ensure consumers benefit from reduced prices under the 1996 Act, the Minister introduced a statutory instrument setting a price cap. That price cap is set by the Minister but validated by the ODTR. At the end of 1997 we had done our calculations and the cap was met. We will publish a very short paper on that in approximately a month.

Regarding the licensing decisions of the director, the delivery of licences are reasoned and subject to review by the courts. Under EU directives there are particular requirements which have been transposed into Irish law to ensure there is particularly defined references to the courts in relation to mobile telephony licences and other licenses issued thereunder. Also, under the new interconnection statutory instrument adopted by the Minister at the end of January, special provision was made for reference of decisions made by the office to the courts within a short period after they have been made to ensure fair play.

I will move away from the formal functions and say something about our start-up operations. It might put more light on some of what I said. We had a hectic start-up since we began on 30 June. It was one day before the major liberalisation in the telecommunications market, the opening up of the market for networks, the cables or lines on which telecommunications can be delivered. However, I am pleased that in our first period we have some notable achievements to our credit. We succeeded in forcing substantial price reductions for telecommunications service providers, Telecom Éireann’s competitors, to enable them to compete effectively in the market. We have a second price review under way at present. Second, at present the market is partly liberalised and is of benefit to mainly major companies. We sponsored the introduction of a new mechanism in the market called switchlink which benefits somewhat smaller companies in a legal context in the circumstances of the current derogation. Third, there is now clarity on, what I might refer to as, “the vexed voice telephony issue” which gave rise to a good deal of trouble when the office started up operations. As I mentioned, we verified the price cap on Telecom Éireann. We launched a third mobile tender and we expect the tenders to be in by the end of March. Last year we launched four consultations mainly with the industry in technical areas. One of them was a public one on the mobile tender competition which we did in July. We launched the second one on the voice telephony issue, the third one on the levy required to fund the office I operate and the fourth one on the second round of price reductions we are currently completing. We have two more open at present, one is on cable technical instructions for the relay of TV on cable and the other is on radio links. Radio links are very important for the industry in developing alternative infrastructure. We had to introduce the system very quickly last July. We are now talking to the industry to find out if we can improve the system as it operates. We have a major audit of non-ionising radiation emissions under way and are currently at the stage of assessing tenders for the hiring of independent experts to carry it out. We expect it will be finished around May and we hope to publish results in June. Thank you, Chairman.

Deputy Yates: To facilitate the Committee I will put all my questions to Ms Doyle and she can reply to them all together. I join the Chairman in welcoming her. First on the question of accountability of her office, her letter states that under the multi-channel area and so on it is independent. Deputy Stagg, one of the authors of the legislation which established it, informed us at an earlier meeting that he took the 1996 legislation through the House and was under the impression, as were others, that the Director was accountable to the Dáil and independent from the Minister. I would like to hear her view on to whom she believes she is accountable. Second, I have heard complaints of delays emanating from her office in dealing with certain matters. Does she consider the office is adequately staffed or did all the staff come from the former Department of Transport, Enterprise and Communications? Will she clarify if the office has external staff with external expertise?

In relation to multi-channel TV, I refer Ms Doyle to an answer given by the Minister for Public Enterprise to a Dáil question I tabled on Wednesday, 12 November. I asked her about a licensing system for deflectors and the licensing of digital TV. The Minister, Deputy O’Rourke stated, the initiative therefore in relation to the introduction of a licensing scheme for community deflectors rests entirely with the Director. She went on to say, she could not be precise about the manner of the timing of the introduction of digital television broadcasting because that would be a matter for the Director of Telecommunications Regulations. She also said that in any event as Deputy Yates is aware matters relating to the issue of licences from MMDS or any other form of radio transmission have now been transferred to the Director of Telecommunications Regulations. The context in which I ask these questions is that we have been referred by the person who was previously accountable to Ms Doyle. The track has led to Ms Doyle and seems to lie totally with her at this stage. Do you accept that householders have a right to multi-channel television? If so, will that be your guiding principle in deciding whether or not to introduce a system of licensing UHF or VHF operators, other than MMDS franchised operators?

Does the judgment by Mr. Justice Carney of 23 January not allow you to make some comments on some of these issues. As I understand it, no study has ever been done of MMDS coverage. We hear reports that some people have coverage in wintertime when the leaves fall off the trees, yet they have no coverage when the trees are in leaf. Despite the topography of certain parts of the country, there is only line of sight technology and, therefore, people are told that when deflectors close down the MMDS people cannot provide a service. They may do a test signal but cannot install a beam-bender for just one house. Have you included that aspect in your study? What percentage of people cannot get a service because of the technical nature of MMDS technology? Do you feel the exclusivity of the MMDS licence is for all forms of transmission, including digital terrestrial?

I understand that digital satellite broadcasting is universal, but have you studied it? If you were to license a digital satellite facility, anybody throughout Europe - all our emigrants, for example - could get a service if there was an investor. Have you examined that because that would give universal coverage?

The big change in broadcasting and telecommunications is the advent of digital television services, which are superior to analogue as they provide more channels and better quality. Given the Minister said it was up to you to examine this, when do you envisage making decisions on digital television? We have a proposal from RTE to establish a digital television service. Last week the cable and MMDS operations announced they will spend hundreds of millions of pounds investing in digital television, but they are under the impression they have exclusivity on that also. Will you, as director, or the Minister, Deputy O’Rourke, make that decision?

Deputy Stagg: I welcome the director to this meeting. Why did you previously refuse to attend a meeting of this Committee, yet subsequently agree to attend? What happened in between?

I am happy with your original decision not to attend because it gave rise to a wider debate about the nature of regulation, the power of the regulator, the democratic deficit which is automatically constituted within the present system of regulation that we are putting in place, and about the need for the regulator to be accountable to the Oireachtas in a clearer way than in the legislation I brought through the House establishing your office. That important debate, which was sparked by your refusal, will be something in your CV for the future that you might not have considered. It will bring about major changes to what we intended to do with regulation. It brought an immediate and direct realisation to this Committee that both it and the Dáil have given away a large chunk of their power to people outside the democratic process who are no longer accountable to the Oireachtas in the sense we thought they would be. The Oireachtas, on behalf of the people, will now demand that power comes back into its own remit. Your refusal was important in precipitating that debate.

It also gave rise to the activation of the Compellability of Witnesses Act, which the Government will have in place shortly, and whereby Committees like this will be empowered to summon people unless they have an excellent reason for not attending. Guidelines will be laid down for that. I see these moves as positive, so your refusal in the first instance was a good thing.

Chairman: I am sure the director did not expect that.

Deputy Yates: That could be a double-edged sword.

Deputy Stagg: I am aware the politicians, who had for quite a long time the authority you now have, did not deal effectively with the multi-channel problem we are addressing today. We are asking you to deal with the problem in a short time. Have you any proposals or suggestions about areas where an exclusive licence exists, the holder of which cannot or will not provide a service and will not allow anybody else to do so? It is what I call the “dog in the manger syndrome”, where the dog lies in the manger and will not eat the hay, yet it will not allow the cow to eat hay either. We have an exclusive licence holder preventing anyone else from providing a service, who is not capable or willing to provide it themselves. What can we do about that? We should have dealt with this many years ago when the matter was within our remit. We did not do so and it is now your problem. Maybe you will be better able to deal with it than we were. Perhaps, arising from that, we might change our mind about regulation again.

Ms Doyle: I thank the Deputies for their comments and questions. I will split the replies between dealing with the accountability of the office and a number of other questions relating to the operation of multi-channel television.

On accountability, the office has been set up by the Oireachtas under legislation passed here. It is governed by that statute and by the principles of administrative law. The Act makes some specific provisions in relation to consent being sought by the ODTR in respect of making regulations. For example, a licensing scheme under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts would only be done with the consent of the Minister for Public Enterprise. If the Minister for Public Enterprise wished to see public service requirements in licences, that decision would also be reserved to the Minister.

If the Minister wished to issue policy directives in relation to the radio frequency spectrum, they will be implemented by the director. There are a number of other consents in relation to staffing and other matters.

In relation to the Oireachtas - and I would ask Deputy Stagg to be patient because he knows all this even better than I do - there is specific provision for annual reporting by the ODTR on its activities in the previous year. This report is made to the Minister who, in turn, releases the report to the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is a similar provision for the office’s accounts, which are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and passed to the Minister who provides them to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

As I have already indicated in discussions with your Chairman, if this Committee or another one - whatever arrangements the Oireachtas wishes to make - wishes to consider either of those documents, I would be happy to assist it.

Statutory Instruments or regulations made by the director under the 1996 Act are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Should it be the case that within 21 days either House decided to annul those regulations, they would no longer exist.

In the consideration and adjudication of specific licence applications and complaints, the director and the office do not act without reference to the definite guiding principles of administrative law and the principles laid down in the Act and in EU directives. The most recent Statutory Instruments regarding making interconnection decisions, contain a page and a half of conditions to which the director must have regard in making decisions.

Deputy Yates: In your letter of 13 January you stated that your office did not come within the ambit of this Committee. Are you saying you cannot be asked to appear before it? You went on to state that it was particularly important that you recognise the integrity of the office and carry out your duties in an independent way. We are asking you to account for the decisions which have been made only. How does that amount to inference with your independence?

Ms Doyle: Having read the Committee’s terms of reference and consulted with my legal advisers, it appears that the office does not come within its ambit. That is the situation as I understand it. It is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide.

Deputy Yates: Could you be asked to appear before another Committee?

Ms Doyle: Having examined the Committee’s terms of reference-----

Deputy Yates: That is not what I asked you. Is there a more appropriate Committee?

Ms Doyle: I am advised that the office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation does not come within the ambit of this Committee.

Chairman: Following receipt of the invitation from this Committee, legal advice was sought to establish whether the director was obliged to attend. I assume the office would also seek legal advice should it receive an invitation from another Committee. On the question of accountability, the Comptroller and Auditor General is entitled to present a report on the office following which the director would be required to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

Deputy Stagg: It should not be taken as read that the director is not required to report to this Committee, if requested to do so. I do not accept the advice she received in that regard. Although this is not specifically stated, the intention of the legislation is clear, the director is required to attend this Committee and account for her stewardship. That does not amount to interference with her independence. The problem will be resolved when the compellability of witnesses Bill is enacted.

Deputy Yates: If the office is not accountable to this Committee, it is not accountable to the Oireachtas. This is a serious issue.

Deputy Currie: If you were responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts, that might soften the attitude of this Committee. Are you saying that in your deliberations with your legal advisers the question of whether you might be responsible to another Committee did not arise?

Ms Doyle: The office has been in existence for a short time. When the invitation was received the situation was looked at and the matter dealt with. Following discussions with the chairman I indicated that I would be happy to come today.

Deputy Currie: I understand that but are you saying that the question of whether you might be responsible to another Committee did not arise?

Ms Doyle: I received an invitation from this Committee-----

Deputy Currie: I am referring to your consultations with your legal advisers.

Ms Doyle: I responded to the invitation I received from this Committee.

Deputy Currie: Are you saying that the issue of whether you might be responsible to another Committee did not arise in your consultations with your legal advisers?

Ms Doyle: Will you explain why it should have arisen?

Deputy Currie: I think you know what I am getting at. When you considered with your legal advisers the question of whether you were obliged to attend this Committee did the issue of whether you might be responsible to another Committee arise?

Ms Doyle: We discussed the invitation from this Committee only. I was not looking at any broader issues.

Deputy Currie: I find that strange. Surely, the issue of whether you might be responsible to another Committee and the Dáil would have arisen.

Senator Callanan: On a point of order, there is persistent questioning. Following receipt of the invitation the director sought legal advice on whether she was obliged to attend this Committee. On foot of that advice she was happy to come. The legislation and the Committee’s terms of reference have been the subject of a lengthy discussion. Not for the first time, legislation has been found to be inadequate.

Chairman: I will call Members in the following order: Deputy Roche, Senator Callanan and Deputy Martin Brady.

Deputy Stagg: On a point of order, the director should be allowed to answer the supplementary questions put by Deputy Yates and me first.

Deputy Yates: The Chairman mentioned the Committee of Public Accounts. It looks at cases of fraud and irregularities in the spending of money only. Matters of policy are not discussed.

Chairman: The Committee of Public Accounts examines the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Deputy Yates: It is a red herring.

Chairman: The director indicated that when she received the invitation she sought legal advice and the advice was that she was not responsible to this Committee. It was decided that I should speak with her and, although she was not obliged to do so, she agreed to come. She has not sought advice on whether she is responsible to another Committee but I take Members’ point that if she is not responsible to this Committee on policy matters, she is not responsible to another Committee. Therein lies the problem.

Deputy Roche: Whether the director is present because of your legendary charm or because of a change of attitude is of no consequence-----

Chairman: Flattery will get you nowhere.

Deputy Roche: Whether the director is here because of your legendary charm, Chairman, or because of a change in her attitude is of no consequence. This is an arid discussion. I do not agree with the advice given to the director. We have taken a course of action and requested that any ambiguity be clarified. We should progress on that basis. Deputy Yates asked a series of questions on issues which should be answered by the director. I also have a series of questions to ask. The issue of whether the director comes before this Committee will be resolved by the Dáil when the special report is presented to it requesting that any ambiguity be clarified. As Deputy Stagg said, the incident provoked an interesting and worthwhile debate which is now closed because the director is here and we have decided to send a special report to the Oireachtas requesting that any ambiguity in our terms of reference be clarified. We should try to make some progress because we only have half an hour left with the director and we have other issues to discuss.

Chairman: The director should be allowed to answer the important questions put to her by Deputy Yates. Other Members can then ask questions. We have already discussed why the director was not here and now is here, so we will move on to more important matters.

Ms Doyle: I am pleased to be here to deal with the questions raised. Deputy Yates and Deputy Stagg mentioned multichannel television. A number of questions related to issues which are before the courts in the Carrigaline case. As I said already, Mr. Justice Carney’s decision to date is an interim judgment. He expects the parties to come back to court - I am not sure when that will be - before making a final judgment on that matter. I am precluded from commenting on the impact of that case in a broader context. I trust that Members of the Committee understand that.

As regards the questions on how digital television might be dealt with and the future of MMDS, we have undertaken a comprehensive study of all transmission and retransmission systems which could operate in the future. I expect to have that study in the next ten days and I will make it public. It will take a short period to put it together but it will be available to everyone in this House and elsewhere.

Deputy Yates: I accept that some, but not all, of the matters I raised were sub judice.

Ms Doyle: Deputy Yates asked specifically about Mr. Justice Carney’s decision.

Deputy Yates: I accept that.

Ms Doyle: A number of questions were asked about the situation in relation to exclusivity and what we can do about it. That is part of the overall consideration of the issue. I expect I will have a decision soon on the parts of the problem concerning my office.

Deputy Yates: Does the study include the universality or otherwise of MMDS technology for coverage purposes? There are allegations by deflectors that 30 per cent of certain areas with topography is not coverable by the line of sight technology, while people involved with MMDS technology told me yesterday that only 20 households will not be able to get it.

Ms Doyle: The study deals with the future of the transmission and retransmission services. I am aware of the problem to which the Deputy referred but that is not specifically covered in the study. The broader issue of the delivery systems is included in the study.

Deputy Yates: The Minister referred me to the director. While I appreciate that a former Minister gave licences to MMDS and the exclusivity of such licences is currently being debated, does the director accept that her office must initiate any necessary change in that area?

Ms Doyle:Yes. In a response to a parliamentary question on 1 October 1997, the Minister said:

Clearly any decision the director will arrive at will be conveyed to me and on a broader policy matter the Government would look at it. The issue is complex and is ongoing in the courts. Therefore, my replies will be brief but to the point and containing information. The regulator is independent.

That is what has been provided for under the legislation. I am anxious to complete work on this area as quickly as possible. I am concerned about the issues involved which are extremely urgent. It is, however, a major complex issue which has not been resolved over a long period. I am close to having a major study completed which will have a significant input into the decision-making process. It will be made public and there will be a period for comment after which I will be in a position to make decisions. It would not be right from the point of view of dealing with all the issues fairly to give previews on certain things. I need to discuss the issue as a whole.

Deputy Yates: I am not looking for what is on a certain page in the study. Does the director accept that every Mrs. Murphy in the country has a right to multichannel television, irrespective of Mr. Justice Carney’s legal decisions? That is a guiding principle. The director did not answer my question on whether digital satellite has been considered as part of the deliberations.

Ms Doyle: A universal service is one of the key underlying principles of the work we have undertaken. Issues, such as digital satellite and digital terrestrial, are included in the study.

Deputy Roche: When cable companies were licensed to go into areas, they effectively created a monopoly. As I understand from work I have seen elsewhere, more space will be available on cables in modern systems, particularly when a new system of cabling is used. It seems the cabling would become a network down which different signals from different companies could go. There would then be more customer choice as, for example, will happen in electricity. The electricity grid will be regarded more or less as a road system which can carry many different electricity sources. As regards signal orientation or signal suppliers, will the cable system be used to give more signal choice?

Does the director envisage a situation where, in addition to the technical aspects of cabling, the office will supervise the manner in which cable operators deal with their customers? Some cable operators are legendary for their extraordinary anti-client attitude, their bad manners which is unprecedented and their general take it or leave it attitude. I could specifically mention problems people had with Cablelink and other cable operators in a number of areas in County Wicklow. Does the director believe the office would welcome responses from people who are linked to cable systems who have been treated discourteously, improperly or in an offhand manner

The third question is about pricing structures for mobile phones. Everybody has become aware of the bewildering array of pricing structures and special offers which are available in the mobile phone market. One would want a PhD in telecommunications, not to mention cost accountancy, to work out what is a good, bad or dud offer. Could your office enforce the operators to adopt some system whereby consumers would be able to compare prices and have a real choice? The whole idea of going from a monopoly to a duoply and then to a position where there are several operators was to open up the market and give customers a choice. If the operators persist, as the two main operators are doing, on producing gobbledegook, consumers will not have informed choice. I would like your office to address that matter.

I heard an interview on national radio yesterday with an operator who wants to set up here, but I will not mention the name. He said that, with proper licensing, it would be possible for his company to provide a call structure for the entire country costing 5p per minute. When the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies raised this matter with Telecom Éireann it said that was not possible. He also said that if his operations were licensed, calls to the UK would cost 10p per minute and calls to the US would cost 15p per minute. That would be a good bargain. Are they spurious suggestions, a leverage to get into the market, or are they possible? If is would be profitable for that company to operate here at those rates, how can we justify the current level of charges?

Ms Doyle: In regard to cable signals, it is possible to deliver a far wider range of services through the same cable with a digital system. Telephone services could be delivered through the same cable. A question being addressed by the European Commission, in advance of it being implemented in Member states, is the convergence of the telephone system and the cable network for delivering a number of services. In future a number of companies may deliver their services down the cable network. There will certainly be far more television services and possibly data and telephone services.

I am aware that there have been many complaints about the quality of service provided by cable operators. The office has taken a number of steps in that regard. Consultation is taking place on the technical conditions for a cable TV relay. This would involve updating the conditions. In this regard we have consulted not only the suppliers and the deliverers in the industry, but also the Director of Consumer Affairs. We are anxious to ensure that technical requirements are properly covered by the licence.

Deputy Roche: I am sure the public is not yet aware that the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation exists. That is not the director’s fault, it is a new and highly technical office. The public should be encouraged to bring to the office’s attention instances of repeated bad service, discourtesy or anti-client behaviour. I apologise for being parochial, but the Town Commission in Greystones recently had to tell a cable operator that, as a corporate body, it will oppose any relicensing of that cable operator unless its gets its act together. That is an extraordinary state of affairs because of the monopoly it was given. It should be made clear to the public that the office would welcome complaints, particularly from community groups who do not generally make spurious allegations. I am pleased the director is apparently open to receiving submissions from the public.

Ms Doyle: The former Department of Transport, Energy and Communications received written complaints. We raise any complaints we receive with the companies concerned and we have had a number of successes in that context.

In a broader context, I have also spoken to the cable and MMDS companies about the general issue of service complaints. Tracing individual complaints is only part of the process, ensuring that a quality service is delivered on a broad basis is extremely important. The first people to do this will be the companies themselves. A number of them have contacted me about this matter and we are currently holding discussions with them and I would not like to prejudice those discussions by saying any more about them. As well as dealing with individual complaints, we must deal with the matter in a broad context. A number of organisations, such as the Ombudsman’s office and the Director of Consumer Affairs have responsibility for consumer complaints about the various services that come within the remit of the ODTR. There is a good case for trying to rationalise the matter. A system in which a specialised agency would deal with immediate complaints and we would deal with systemic ones would be the way to go forward. In the present circumstances, however, we would be pleased to deal with any specific complaints.

Deputy Roche: What about the pricing structure?

Ms Doyle: In relation to mobile phone pricing, initially it was thought that competition alone would bring down prices and increase the range of services. Competition has brought about significant improvements, but the European Community is carrying out a review of the situation. I will continue to monitor that review to see what can be done about pricing structures. The Director of Consumer Affairs takes a particular interest in consumer information and I will contact him about the matter of consumer affairs delivery, to which the Deputy referred.

Senator Callanan: Chairman, can we invite the Director to another meeting of the Committee because if she is precluded from making any comment on the South Coast-Carrigaline issue today, I do not intend to engage in a monologue.

Ms Doyle: I assure the Chairman and the Members of the Committee that I would be very pleased to attend another meeting at the appropriate time.

Senator Callanan: I was directing my question at the Chairman. If we invite you back, I assume you would attend, but I thank you for your positive answer. I expect, Chairman, that we will invite the director to attend another meeting when she has freedom to speak.

Deputy Yates covered much of what I wanted to say about exclusivity and choice. South Coast is operating illegally because it will not be given a licence. It did not choose to operate illegally. This has been the case for a number of years. I live near Carrigaline and understand what is happening there. The people whom I represent want South Coast. It is against the principle of democracy to deny a community based structure to the people, if that is what they want. It should not fit within the framework of democracy. I thank the director for her assurances.

Deputy Brady: What conditions must be met for the issuing of a third mobile telephone licence? What safeguards are in place for the customer? Telecom Éireann is the service provider for payphones involving land lines. Is it compulsory for Telecom Éireann to lease existing lines to an alternative provider? There is one alternative provider which has installed its own system. Would the same rules apply? Is it compulsory for it to lease lines to another alternative provider?

How many new mobile licences will be granted in the next five years? Is there any account taken of the jobs which are at risk in an existing service provider? Many of these companies can provide a cheaper service. However, they can only do so because their overheads are much lower, they do not meet standards for staff working conditions. In some cases the conditions are atrocious - yellow pack workers are being paid buttons. Is any account taken of this? Is there any policy on the erection of mobile telephone masts?

Ms Doyle: One of the first issues we examined was the role of the office as a licensing authority on emissions of non-ionising radiation. We decided to systematically include in all licences that those operating radio installations must meet the international standards set by an international Committee which is part of the World Health Organisation. They must ensure that emissions are below these limits. We are currently engaged in a major compliance audit to ensure that these conditions are being met.

It will be essential that the third mobile telephone service operator provides coverage for 80 per cent of the population within four years. It will have to provide 30 per cent coverage within the first two years. It will also be required to provide a permanent service for the full 15 year period and to deliver its services on a non-discriminatory basis. As the third company into the market I expect it will deliver a somewhat different service to the two existing providers.

We will look at the issue of the number of mobile telephone companies in the context of a review of the spectrum which we are currently planning. There is only so much spectrum available for mobile telephone companies. That spectrum can also be used for other purposes so it is a question of seeing what possibilities exist. Payphone operators can lease lines from any provider. They must be entitled to do so. If there is a particular problem perhaps the company could contact my office.

Chairman: The Office of Director of Telecommunications has been established throughout the EU. Have you looked at the statutory basis of your office in comparison with other regulators? Have you similar authority, accountability and responsibility?

Ms Doyle: I would like to carry out the study you have referred to. However, we have been so busy getting things done for the market and the operators that we have not looked at this issue in detail. Under EU directives there is a specific requirement that the regulatory function should be separated from the shareholder function. This was one of the reasons for setting up the ODTR. This was included in the 1990 directive and reinforced in a second directive in 1997. A judgment by the Court of Justice in 1993 held against the French authorities on the grounds that the equipment approval was dealt with by the same ministry which handled the managing of the shareholder functions. A body of law exists and all Member states are operating on the same basis in setting up regulatory authorities. In some cases, radio communications is separate from telecommunications, particularly in the older agencies before the convergence which is now taking place. In countries such as Spain, radio communications, telecommunications and broadcasting are included in the same type of agency.

Deputy Yates: I refer to the questions I asked which could not be answered for legal reasons or because we were waiting the results of the study. We all look forward to receiving that study. My question related to adequate staffing and delays in dealing with this and other matters. Are all the staff of the ODTR internal from the then Department of Transport, Energy and Communications? In other words, are they the same people we might criticise for issuing or drafting the 1991 letter to Independent Newspapers in the name of the then Minister? Are the same people now advising the director or does she have external staff?

Ms Doyle: I am served by a range of people. I would immediately stress their integrity.

Deputy Yates: I was not impugning their integrity but their judgment.

Ms Doyle: I would like to refer to both integrity and judgment. Most of the people working in the office are civil servants who formerly worked in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. I have taken on a number of additional people and I am currently working on a major expansion of staff numbers. I hope to resolve this fairly shortly.

Chairman: I thank the director and her colleagues for coming before the Committee. It has been a worthwhile exercise. We now have a greater understanding of the relationships which exist. If the Committee so decides I hope the director would respond to a future invitation.

Sitting suspended at 3.50 p.m.

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

List of Members of Joint Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport

* Deputy Michael Ahern substituted for Deputy Noel O’Flynn.

** Senator Tom Fitzgerald substituted for Senator Des Hanafin.