Vol. 940 No. 1
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
“ “(bc) to undertake a review of terminal dues with particular regard to the requirements of section 29(1) of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011 and to report to the Minister within 6 months of the commencement of this Act. Further such reviews shall be undertaken at least every two years, thereafter,”,”.
Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 10 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 3, line 30, to delete “following subsection” and substitute “following subsections”.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 8 are technical amendments that are required following the inclusion of wording to take account of the review of terminal dues in section 10 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002. Amendment No. 10 is inserted for clarity to ensure that the term “terminal dues” has a consistent meaning in relevant legislation.
If the amendment relates to the review, is the Minister agreeing to introduce "terminal dues" in his amendment No. 4, to which these amendments refer? Will the Minister of State confirm that the review is similar to the review I sought in amendment No. 5? The amendment is technical and I have no problem with it. It is a very similar review of the terminal dues, which is very welcome.
The Minister, Deputy Naughten, dealt with it yesterday. As discussed on Committee Stage, ComReg already has a role regarding terminal dues and as recently as June 2016, ComReg published a review of An Post's terminal dues agreements in the context of complying with section 29 of the 2011 Act. Terminal dues are rates paid for delivery of international inbound mail items. The Minister is mindful of the concerns expressed regarding the impact of terminal dues on An Post. In this regard, the Minister has instructed his officials to liaise with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to draft an amendment along the lines proposed by Deputies Dooley and Eamon Ryan.
As was outlined on Committee Stage, the clear advice of the Attorney General was that an amendment of the nature proposed would create legal uncertainty and would likely have an impact on ComReg’s existing powers under the 2002 Act. More worryingly, it could potentially leave previous actions undertaken by ComReg on terminal dues open to challenge. It was on that basis that I was unable to accept the amendments tabled on Committee Stage.
Since Committee Stage, officials have continued to work with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to develop a provision which will go some way to addressing the issues raised regarding the review of terminal dues. The result is the Government amendment tabled this evening. The proposed Government amendment will require ComReg to consider any consequential impact of the repeal of the price cap on terminal dues as part of the review of the repeal of the price cap provided for in section 3 of the Bill. ComReg has advised that it will continue to review terminal dues agreements against the provisions of section 29 of the 2011 Act. Having regard to the Attorney General's advice, I cannot accept the amendments proposed by Deputies Dooley and Eamon Ryan. I hope the Government amendment will be accepted as a compromise.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, line 33, after “appropriate.” to insert “The Commission shall complete this consultation within a period of 42 days”.
As we outlined on Second Stage and Committee Stage, we recognise that action needs to be taken.
We want to see An Post continue as a strong semi-State company. We recognise also that the problems highlighted as far back as 2002 and 2003 were not addressed. These issues, combined with the decline in traditional mail services, have created a lot of pressure on the company. We must be careful how we do this. We do not want to see long, protracted consultations. We have tabled amendment No. 7 to put a limit of 42 days on the Minister in this regard and we hope he will accept the amendment. We cannot see any reason for objections to it. We all know that reviews and consultations can go on and on. We must try to make things more efficient in the State. An Post has to be able to sustain itself, and this is one of the reasons for the main thrust of this Bill as put forward by the Minister, Deputy Naughten. To leave a consultation period open-ended would be a retrograde step and could cause problems for An Post down the line, no matter which Government body is given the task, be it ComReg or another body. It is very important that they would have those time limits put on them. It is important to protect the jobs in An Post and protect the five day delivery service.
I will now turn to amendment No. 9. We have concerns about this Bill and have articulated these very clearly, especially the fact that ComReg is taking on the role of spectator rather than regulator. We accept that urgent action is needed, as I said in relation to amendment No. 7, and I accept the current Minister was not in the post in 2003, 2004 and 2005, but the Ministers with responsibility at the time were asleep at the wheel right throughout the past 13 or 14 years. I know that Ministers are busy but it is very important to maintain An Post.
An Post is a very important semi-State company that provides one of the best postal services in Europe. Its service is reliable and people use it every day. The company is a significant employer in the State with good unionised jobs, and we discussed workers' rights earlier in the Chamber during a debate on the Sinn Féin Industrial Relations (Right to Access) (Amendment) Bill 2016. An Post's workers are represented by the Communications Workers' Union, the CWU and they enjoy the rights of trade union recognition. Millions of euro come back into the State in PRSI and income tax from An Post workers who are in good steady employment and who provide a valuable service to us all. It is very important that this is maintained.
This is the spirit in which we submit, and I propose that Deputies accept, amendment No. 9. We suggest the Minister would have a role at the point when the price increase proposal would come to the Minister for final signing off. It is a semi-State company and the shareholder is the taxpayer, represented by the Minister. We are not talking about Tesco here. We are talking about a semi-State company. The Minister has a role to protect that service and to ensure we do not have runaway stamp prices. We see the predicament the company is in. We know a price increase is needed, but it cannot be a runaway price and we cannot give carte blanche to a company to do whatever it likes with regard to price increases. It is important the Minister represents the taxpayer and this House, and that the Minister has the final sign off on a price increase in postage rates. We ask that the amendment be accepted on that basis.
I propose to take amendments Nos. 7 and 9 together. Amendment No. 7 specifies a period of 42 days for consultation on the review of the repeal of the price cap. I should point out that ComReg is the independent regulator and the timing of any consultation period would be a matter for it to determine in the first instance. ComReg has advised me that it has very specific procedures in respect of consultation and these are set out in ComReg's information notice 11/34A, which is published on its website. I understand that the length of consultation depends on the complexity of the matter, what data or evidence are required and what data or evidence are available. I am advised that during public consultation, ComReg normally allows four weeks for interested parties to respond. Those responses to consultation are then considered by ComReg. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the legislation to define a maximum period for consultation. In any event, ComReg has advised me that the consultation timeframe for the review envisaged by this legislation will be informed by meeting the deadline of presenting the report to the Minister, as required by the Bill.
I will now deal with amendment No. 9. The purpose of repealing the price cap mechanism is to give An Post immediate pricing freedom to enable it to generate additional cash resources in the short term while a restructuring plan is being implemented. I believe there is agreement across the House on the urgent need for this measure. The repeal of the price cap will be effective on foot of a commencement order which the Minister expects to sign shortly after the enactment of the Bill.
This Bill allows for a review of the consequences of the repeal of the price cap mechanism after a two year period. ComReg will report to the Minister on its findings within six months. The Bill also enables ComReg to undertake such consultation as it considers appropriate in carrying out this review. The Minister currently has no role in approving pricing decisions by An Post nor is it the purpose of this legislation to allow for ministerial involvement on future price increases or decreases. For the reasons I have outlined, I am unable to accept the amendments proposed by Deputy Stanley.
When responding to amendment No. 7 the Minister of State spoke of ComReg's guidelines, but this House runs the show. We are talking about a public company and a public service. We must stop this situation where we have too many matters that come before the House and are referred on and everything is open ended. Our proposal is for the time period in this regard be tied to 42 days. Any other country that wants to do its business efficiently would not have a problem with this. We must try to move things on. We cannot have things dragged out endlessly. It takes an age to get anything done - the Minister of State knows this himself - and we have complaints in this House about it and the public are also on to us about it. Companies and unions are on to us about it too. We must make things more efficient and it is for us to make that decision. This is why Deputies were elected to this House. We are the law makers.
This amendment proposes a very small, timid measure simply not to have the process open-ended. They can consult for four weeks and then review the information, which becomes an open-ended process. How long does the Minister need to assess the information given to him? Consider this Bill. Large Bills have come before this House and have been put through in a matter of a couple of hours in an evening or a night. They were huge Bills with massive impacts, and they were put through without any great thought. This amendment is a very modest measure not to have an open-ended process. This is for the benefit of An Post, the workers and the public and we should do it in this House.
I thank the Deputy and I understand where he is coming from. Certainly, nobody wants to see this drag on longer than necessary. A decision has to be made within six months and this is reflected in the Bill. It is clear that the quicker this can be done, the better. I accept there is always a need for a period of consultation. On the other side, some of the representations I get on other issues from constituents suggest there is not enough time for consultation. We have come across this in our own constituency where extensions have been given for certain periods of consultation. It is normal for four weeks to be allowed. ComReg is independent and it makes the decisions based on the complexity of the issues and how much data is available. I cannot accept the amendment as suggested.
I will press amendment No. 7. If we pass the Bill as it is, then we are leaving an open-ended process around ComReg coming back and assessing the information after four weeks of public consultation. I do not believe this is acceptable. We need to start putting deadlines on issues. How long does it take to make up one's mind on something? We in this House have made up our minds with big decisions.
We made a decision to bail out the banks with €68 billion in a matter of a couple of hours in the House one night. Workers can see the effect when they look into their pay packets on a Friday night because their pay slips show the deductions covering the cost of that.
This is a modest and sensible proposal. I will be pressing this amendment and amendment No. 9.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 4, to delete line 4 and substitute “Commission.”.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, line 4, after “Commission” to insert “and after he or she has approved the price increase or decrease”.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(6) In subsection (1)(bb) “terminal dues” has the same meaning as it has in Part 2 of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011.”.”.
