After more than six hours of debate that ended late last night, the long-awaited telecommunications reform legislation was passed in the National Assembly and although opposition speakers expressed support for it, they also tried without success to have it sent to a special select committee to correct what they said was its deficiencies.
The Telecommunication (Amendment) Bill 2016, according to Minister Cathy Hughes, is not only a step towards bringing Guyana on par with sister Caricom countries but it would also liberalise the sector, allowing for new entrants and creating an environment which is fair and competitive.
A total of nine MPs from both sides of the House agreed that the bill was a step in the right direction. The opposition MPs reminded the House that it was while the PPP/C was in government that the legislation was crafted and that it had their support as they wanted to see an end to the existing monopoly. Some took the House down memory lane, while others said that some sections of the bill still raised concerns and, therefore, needed to be re-examined.
At yesterday’s sitting of the National Assembly, Hughes read the bill for a second time, paving the way for a debate and the subsequent vote that ended in its passage.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the bill provides for an “open, liberalised and competitive telecommunications sector that will be attractive to new market entrants and investors while preserving the activities of the current sector participants.” It says that by creating this environment, the bill is expected to result in “greater choice, better quality of service and lower prices for consumers.”
In an effort to further national and regional social economic development, the bill also specifically addresses the expansion of telecommunications networks and services into unserved and underserved areas through the institution of a new universal access/universal services programme.
The bill, along with a consolidated Public Utilities Commission Bill 2016, is expected to create a “clear, harmonised framework and a level playing field for the sector that is lacking in the current laws and is similar to that found in other countries in the world including most Caribbean countries.” It says that the new legal framework is to be characterised by transparency and non-discrimination in the issuance and monitoring of licenses and authorisations to use the spectrum “seamless interconnection and access between and among telecommunications networks and services and price regulation where required to ensure competition and protect consumers.”
‘Absolute and unconditional’
Hughes, in her presentation, told the House that the bill is a most “significant and tangible” indication of the commitment of the government to the progress and development of the country as it has recognised the tremendous and increasing impact that the telecommunications sector has on the advancement of economies and societies around the world.
“The government recognises the potential of Information and Communication Technology to be the transformational agent for the overall improvement of our citizens and the building of a 21st Century economy. Critical to this improvement, therefore, is the creation of a telecommunication sector that is competitive and flexible enough to meet the needs of a modern, rapidly evolving technological environment,” she said.
With the other government MPs nodding their heads in support, Hughes stressed that this transition is long overdue.
“Our telecommunications sector must be an open one so that Guyana could progress in this area of service provision and delivery, not lag behind other sister Caricom countries and most of the rest of the world. Let me assure this House and the nation as a whole that the government’s focus and commitment to this process is absolute and unconditional,” she said.
She advised the House that the bill, in its current form, emerged from the “deliberations” of the Special Select Committee that was convened during the Tenth Parliament to review it. She held up a large pile of papers as evidence of the meetings of the committee, which was chaired by then opposition MP and current Foreign Minister Carl Greenidge.
Hughes said that the bill was thoroughly examined by the Special Select Committee during the Tenth Parliament over a period of several months. “The Special Select Committee conducted a holistic review of the bill and also conducted a detailed clause by clause review of the bill, considering intent, purpose, impact and context of each clause. The committee received detailed technical advice and they considered numerous relevant reports and articles from stakeholders in Guyana, other territories and international organisations,” she informed.
She added that the telecommunications operators, the Public Utilities Commission, the National Frequency Management Unit, the consumer’s representative bodies, stakeholders and the general public were invited to submit oral and written comments on the bill. She said that the committee received written submissions from the Guyana Telephone and Telegraph Company Limited (GTT), Digicel, the Public Utilities Commission, Brainstreet, the Consumers’ Association and the University of Guyana. Additionally, detailed oral presentations were also received from GTT, Digicel and the Consumers’ Association. The committee took into consideration all of the comments presented to it, she argued.
“It is my understanding that it was the general feeling of members of the committee that the work of the committee was conducted in a collaborative and productive manner and resulted in revisions to the bills that were generally accepted by the members of the committee. It is my understanding also that by the time of the dissolution of the Tenth Parliament and the consequential lapsing of the bill, what remained to be done to the bill was the drafting in legislative language of the revisions decided upon by the committee,” she said.
Hughes explained that after assuming office, the current government caused the numerous changes made by the Special Select Committee to be incorporated into the bill, resulting in the version that now exists
The bill, she said, will be supplemented by significant, detailed regulations in seven areas: licensing and spectrum authorisation, pricing, spectrum management, interconnection and access, universal access/service, telecommunications-related competition matters and telecommunications-related consumer protection matters. It has 14 Parts, with 95 Clauses.
Also being prepared, she said, are model licences for the main types of networks and services that may be licensed under the new law, thereby creating a comprehensive framework for an even greater level of fair play among operators and service providers.
‘From monopoly to a dictatorship’
PPP/C MP Irfaan Ali, leading the opposition’s contributions to the debate of the bill, said the PPP/C’s position is that it should be ensured that the local private sector be taken into consideration when “we are going to implement the new bill with such stringent measures that might very well exclude the private sector.”
He said the history, as detailed by Hughes, was probably a necessary step but there were some “aspects” that were excluded or overlooked.
Ali said it was clear that the former government had a very well-thought out strategy in relation to the liberalisation of the telecoms sector and at this point he gave the House a timeline of what he said were the PPP/C’s attempts at reform.
Ali also noted that when the bill was previously sent to the Special Select Committee, Greenidge had said that “the wide sweeping powers of the minister needs to be addressed and that we cannot have a bill in this modern age that would give such enormous powers to the minister.” He said Greenidge was consistent in opposing all sections where he believed the minister had enormous powers.
He provided some examples as outlined in the bill, including the minister making “final determination regarding granting and denying of applications for amending renewing, suspending and terminating licences.”
Ali told the House that the minister is being given more powers now than in the bill which was brought under the PPP/C and sent to the special select committee.
“We are moving from a monopolistic position to a dictatorial position, where the monopoly of powers is now residing in the minister. We are going back in time, we are reversing the hands of time when we are moving from a monopoly to a dictatorship. When we are taking all the powers and putting it monopolistically in the hands of the minister,” he shouted above heated exchanges between the MPs from both sides of the House.
According to Ali, as a result of this “control freakism,” there is now a moral dilemma. “…The moral dilemma is this very government sent this bill to Special Select Committee to have these issues corrected and rectified and this very government who is in control of the process now has brought us back this bill with identical conditions, so we are faced in a moral dilemma,” he said, while questioning whether it was government’s intention to slow down liberalisation the first time around or to deny the people the opportunity “to move away from the monopolistic situation.”
Fellow PPP/C MP Odinga Lumumba also voiced support for the bill but expressed his hope that the minister would consider a few suggestions and possibly “a trip back to select committee.” He said that what is important now is that both sides must find common ground in order to enhance the development of the country.
He too spoke of the monopoly and the need for the liberalisation of the sector. “In Guyana, GTT was allowed to dominate the telecommunications industry in all areas even when the company was unprepared or unable to provide services in the Hinterland areas, small communities and very recently many new communities adjacent to Georgetown,” he said
State Minister Joseph Harmon challenged many of the comments made by the opposition MPs who spoke before him. He urged that his “friends reconsider this statement that we need to take this bill back again to a select committee and let us do what we gotta do and pass it here. The Guyanese people are looking out for that, they expect that and that is the least we can provide them.”
Harmon said too that there was extensive input from technical persons and the private sector, despite the utterances of the opposition MPs to the contrary. He said taking the bill back to a special select committee would be “wasting time” and noted that people cannot wait any longer for the bill to be passed as it is an opening to many benefits and opportunities.
Gillian Burton-Persaud, opposition MP, said it is important that the amendments are in keeping with the evolution of the sector over the years. “It must not in any way seek to create uncertainty and distrust in the minds of the service providers or the consumers,” she said, while adding that careful scrutiny would reveal that there is indeed areas for concern in relation to some of the amendments.
She then went through several of the clauses and identified faults and made suggestions as to how they can be remedied.
“This bill, as important as it is, is a very complex one. Its enactment, once properly managed, will see Guyana moving forward in the world of telecommunication technology. These amendments to the Telecommunications Bill will have great and lasting impact, not only on the industry but on the lives of all who reside in our country,” she later said.
She said that its implementation, once professionally, impartially and efficiently managed, will no doubt see Guyana going to the next level in the world of communications.
“The amendments to this bill have been long in the making, but due to shortened vision by some and the willingness by the PPP administration to ensure that its contents truly addresses the needs of the consumers while at the same time presenting a level playing field that is in conformity with the National Competitiveness Strategy, this bill is still being debated in this House today,” she said.
“We must ensure, therefore, that it serves its true purpose, and that there is no sinister motive hidden there in. Henceforth, it is overly important that we re-examine its contents and fine tune it, to meet the needs and demands of today’s society,” she stressed.
‘National interest’
Greenidge, in his presentation, urged those on the opposition side to let the bill pass in the name of national interest. “Remember how this bill got here, how the bill is going to be important for the modernisation of Guyana,” he said.
Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira, who was the last opposition speaker, asked a series of questions concerning the bill. She said that she brought a motion under Standing Order 15 that the bill go to a select committee. While it was seconded by Ali, the motion was not carried as the government side voted against it.
Joseph Hamilton and Charles Ramson also made presentations on behalf of the parliamentary opposition.
In closing off the debate, Hughes told the National Assembly that contrary to what was raised by the opposition members, the minister will not be acting on her own. “The bill in itself goes to the extent to highlight that the minister cannot act on his own,” she said
“I worry that maybe some members of the other side, because of their past experiences, might be worried as to how we will operate on this side,” she added.
Meanwhile, in response to concerns raised by Ali, Hughes stated that because the bill has been stagnant for years and technology has changed, Guyana continued to lag behind. “He [Ali] talks about them wanting liberalisation but yet they missed the most fundamental issue with regard to this bill. This bill sat down for years upon years and whilst it sat there the technology has changed rapidly and the only thing that we know for sure…Guyana has continued to lag behind,” she said.
“I wonder why you did not bring the same bill a lot sooner to this house,” she added.
Hughes also told the house that while the opposition spoke about their commitment to the private sector, this was not what was reflected.
“When we talk about the commitment to the private sector…I want to remind that it was the former president, the Honourable Bharrat Jagdeo…who closed down all the cable systems in 2010—so much for supporting the private sector—and who would later reopen the opportunity for licences, allowing new entrants, including a very very close family member of a friend of mine on the other side who today continues to be a very very dominant partner in our current system,” she argued. It was at this point that Teixeira called the comment a “blasted low blow” and stormed out of the Chamber.
