Communications Minister Austin Gatt told Parliament yesterday that the postal service in Malta would have to undergo a restructuring process so that it would be able to face new challenges once the EU directive regulating the postal service and liberalising the market came into force in January 2013. Under the directive, there could be more than one universal provider.
Introducing the debate in second reading on the Communications Laws (Amendment) Bill, Dr Gatt said the Bill repealed the Radio Communications Act and amended various other laws relating to communications sectors enforced by the Malta Communications Authority, including the Postal Services Act, the Electronic Communications (Regulation) Act and the Malta Communications Authority Act.
Referring to the Postal Services Act, the minister said that a liberalised postal market would mean that users would enjoy a better service. Access to a good postal service was crucial to the user and to the competitive economy. Malta Post would be more motivated to be more efficient and increase its services.
The amendments reflected the EU directive. E-commerce had greatly increased, with many more people procuring goods through the internet. This meant that this service was in need of restructuring.
Dr Gatt said that the Radio Communications Act would be repealed but reintegrated within the Electronic Communications Act. The changes would be complemented with a number of amendments in related legal notices.
The Malta Communications Authority (MCA) had held wide consultations on these changes. Only Malta Post had made its proposals, with many of them being accepted.
Minister Gatt said that the key communications players had not responded to the government's proposals, but he was sure they were consonant with the proposed changes. As such they were tacitly agreeing to the amendments.
The MCA would have more functions, drastically decreasing ministerial intervention in the sector. This included communications licences which would now be issued by the authority.
The amendments also aimed at reducing timeframes and administrative burdens under the Postal Services Act. The sector, which was highly competitive, needed an administration which enhanced competition. Although the focus of the legislative changes was on postal services and on radio and telecommunications equipment, there were other amendments which aimed at making the functions of the MCA more uniform.
Other aims of the Bill were to revise the timeshare regime and to change various criminal sanctions into administrative ones to reflect today's realities.
Dr Gatt said that electronic communications equipment would have to be licensed if installed and used; possession only did not require a licence. Another amendment aimed at obliging internet service providers to forward e-mails sent to clients who registered with a new provider.
Opposition spokesman on telecommunications Chris Cardona said the Communications Bill would change the parameters of the sector's regulations, where the infrastructure would be better able to meet local and foreign investment.
While the government had engaged in a wide consultation process, there had been minimal reaction from stakeholders. The Bill also recognised the need for amendments with regard to traditional means, such as postal services.
The opposition welcomed the Bill, even because the need for ministerial intervention would be scaled back.
While Parliament was discussing this Bill, the House Social Affairs Committee was discussing the problem of viewing certain services on television, he said. People had complained that to watch football matches they had to install both service providers' services, with a substantial increase of tariffs.
There should be a legislative structure, where the regulator would ensure there would be no abuses. Parliament should ensure that the authority was vested with the necessary clout to regulate the market while cutting down on abuses. Such changes would benefit the consumers, he said.
Several issues before the Social Affairs Committee could not be answered because the MCA was not well equipped to investigate such issues and reply accordingly. This was not a political issue but an issue that protected consumers.
Winding up the debate, Minister Gatt said that on becoming an EU member, Malta had had to decide on the direction the Malta Communications Authority had to take on the regulation of competition.
There had been two models in the EU, one which allowed the state's communications authority to regulate the competition in a technical way and another suggesting separate systems. Malta had opted for a separate authority to regulate competition instead of giving the Malta Communications Authority that same function.
The decision had been taken because of the small size of the country, in order not to have the policy divided between various authorities. He continued to say that other small states, members of the EU, had also taken a similar policy.
Reverting to television rights and football matches, he said it did not make any sense to impose the question of television rights on the Communications Authority. By law, the authority did not regulate the television sector.
Dr Gatt also asserted that citizens did not have a social right to watch football for free - he himself had had to pay €40 a month for the service. And Melita had had to pay the Malta Football Association for the right to broadcast football matches.
Referring to a recent OFCOM decision, the minister said that care should be taken when reviewing important decisions. OFCOM had decided that Sky had to license both Sky 1 and Sky 2, and give a licence to a cable operator. This, when Sky had earlier refused to issue licences to certain cable operators. Care should also be taken now to see that operators paid a licence in order for citizens to be provided with a television service.
The Bill was unanimously approved in second reading, committee stage and third reading.