Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011

Vol. 739 No. 3

Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Bill 2010 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Martin Ferris

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 15, lines 35 and 36, to delete "authority for the purposes of the Directive" and substitute the following:

"authority. The Minister shall reserve the right to veto decisions of the Commission where it is deemed to be in the national interest.".

This amendment is self-explanatory and any Minister would, in almost all circumstances, put the national interest before any decision of an outside body like the commission. In this context, will the Minister take on board the amendment?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I support the amendment.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte)

I regret I cannot take on board the Deputy's amendment. I will reiterate some points we have already discussed about the Bill's origins.

Under section 11 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002, the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, is statutorily independent in the exercise of its functions. A regulator independent of postal service providers is an explicit requirement of article 22 of the directive. Where member states retain ownership or control of postal service providers, the effective structural separation of regulatory functions from activities associated with ownership or control is required. Since the post office is in State hands, it is a requirement that we must separate regulation from ownership. For this reason, I cannot have conferred on me power to overrule the regulator in this regard.

I understand that an issue aired in the debate in the Seanad and on Committee Stage in the Dáil concerned the perception of a lack of accountability by ComReg to the Houses. I assure Deputies that the 2002 Act, which established ComReg as an independent statutory body to regulate and take key decisions on the electronic communications and postal sectors, also provides in section 34 that ComReg is accountable to the Oireachtas concerning the performance of its functions. Where it is strategically necessary, the Act allows the Minister to issue policy directions to the regulator.

As I stated last week, the proposed amendment would create uncertainty around ComReg's operations and could compromise its independence. ComReg's statutory functions and objectives, as amended by sections 9 and 10, respectively, of the Bill, require it "to ensure the provision of a universal postal service that meets the reasonable needs of postal service users". Thus, any decision taken by ComReg must take account of the reasonable needs and interests of postal service users. Under the Bill, the regulator's decisions on postal services can be appealed to the High Court.

Deputies will have noticed that a Government amendment to section 17 tabled and agreed to on Committee Stage provided that certain decisions made by ComReg relating to the designation of a universal service provider would be subject to the Minister's consent. I hope this gives Deputy Martin Ferris some comfort in terms of what he is trying to do.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The Minister started by stating that the regulator was statutorily independent and he could not be given powers to intervene. Then, at the end, the Bill provides for the Minister to intervene in certain circumstances.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

In certain circumstances.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Deputy Ferris only proposed that, when it was in the national interest, the Minister could intervene. He did not propose the Minister would intervene willy-nilly. It would only happen when it was in the national interest. It would have to be an issue of overriding national interest and it could not be in the interest of An Post. The argument, therefore, that this is impossible because the regulator is independent is untenable. The Bill is full of provisions where the Minister's consent is needed.

The only way ComReg can be brought to heel by the House if it disagrees with what ComReg does is by changing the law. We can ask ComReg to appear in committees and we can debate with it forever. If ComReg then decides to ignore us, it can and there is no sanction. The only sanction on ComReg is that we change the law or allow for cases where the Minister's consent or direction is needed. That is how simple this is. Many of us have experienced bodies that come in for meetings and give an account of what they are doing but we have little influence on what they do because they can do what they want.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy)

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 15, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(2) In regulating the postal market the Commission must take into account the unique value that post offices have in Ireland, with its substantial rural population and that particular care should be given to ensure that the interests of a competitive market will not take precedence over, or put at risk, the network of post offices which are part of the fabric of our community and which are essential in maintaining social cohesion.".

I will not delay the House because we are going round in a circle with this Bill. This amendment seeks to ensure the commission, otherwise known as ComReg, takes into account in all its decisions the value of the post offices and the nature of the country we are legislating for, and that it would not make decisions that would jeopardise that fabric. It is important to provide for that in the Bill. We cannot over-emphasise the need, in the national interest, to try to direct ComReg from this House in the direction we see fit. Most people believe that for the vulnerable in society especially, those who do not use digital media, the post office is an important service and that should be taken into account in all decisions made by the commission.

Deputy Martin Ferris

This amendment would ensure the interests of the market do not take precedence over the social value of the service or put that vital public service at risk. We spoke last night about the value of and contribution made by that service. Opposition TDs want to ensure that service is protected and not compromised by market value. There are more important things than the market when it comes to services for those who are most in need and those who depend on those services.

Deputy Joan Collins

I also support this amendment. Last night there were references to the Dutch postal services, with someone mentioning there had not been deregulation. The Minister said yesterday that we are all afraid of competition but postal workers have a right to be afraid of competition judging by an article on the Dutch postal service in The Guardian on 29 April:

Somewhere in the Netherlands, a postwoman is in trouble. When I visited her, bad health, snow and ice and a degree of chaos in her personal life had left her months behind on her deliveries. She rents a privatised ex-council flat with her partner and so many crates of mail had built up that it was getting hard to move around. Twice a week one of the private mail companies she was working for, Selektmail, dropped off three or four crates of letters, magazines and catalogues. She was sorting and delivering the fresh crates but the winter backlog was tough to clear. I counted 62 full mail crates stacked up in the hallway [...] The postwoman had a similar problem with the other private mail company she works for, Sandd, a few years back. "When I began at Sandd in 2006, I delivered about 14 boxes of mail every time," she said. "I could not cope and at Christmas 2006 I had about 90 of these boxes in the house. By New Year's Day we had 97." [...] Each week, Dutch households and businesses are visited by postmen and postwomen from four different companies. There are the "orange" postmen of the privatised Dutch mail company, trading as TNT Post but about to change its name to PostNL; the "blue" postmen of Sandd, a private Dutch firm; the "yellow" postmen of Selekt, owned by Deutsche Post/DHL; and the "half-orange" postmen of Netwerk VSP, set up by TNT to compete cannibalistically against itself by using casual labour that is cheaper than its own (unionised) workforce. TNT delivers six days a week, Sandd and Selekt two, and VSP one. From the point of view of an ardent free-marketeer, this sounds like healthy competition. Curiously, however, none of the competitors is prospering.

The article outlines how many workers are sorting the mail in their apartments on their beds and that, curiously, when such backlogs build up, there is no system for complaints about delayed mail. That is why postal workers are fearful of competition and that is why I fully support the amendment. The Minister should take this on. It is not about trying to protect a corner. It is about providing proper, regulated and safe conditions and that postmen and women are provided with proper gear for the weather. These workers get a bag and a jacket and that is all. We should take this more seriously.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I agree with the spirit of the amendments but I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that there is no requirement or necessity to put this into primary legislation because the cornerstone of the Bill is the universal service obligation, which is the real tacit recognition of the importance of the role of the postal service. I fully acknowledge the social function of the postal service and agree with it. The postal network is not affected by this Bill.

Deputy Ó Cuív cannot argue that his Government introduced a regulator for the postal service, the electronic communication service or the energy service and then say the Government can overrule those regulators when it feels like it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I did not say that.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

The Deputy cannot have it both ways. Either we set up a statutorily independent regulator or we do not. The requirement behind this is that An Post is a State-owned postal company and we must separate regulation from ownership. Either he accepts that basic principle or not but he cannot argue for both sides.

I accept the importance of the social role of the postal service in Ireland. As Deputy Ferris said, it was the subject of much debate during the evolution of this Bill and on Committee Stage. Of course I recognise the important role of the postal service in this country and I accept the spirit of the amendments. I would point out to Deputy Ó Cuív, however, that the post office network does not fall within the remit of the postal directive and is not affected by the provisions of the Bill. I am sure the Deputy will be glad to hear that section 12 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 is remaining unchanged. An Post will continue to be statutorily obliged to provide nationwide counter services both for its own business and that of the Government. That has not changed.

The social importance of a universal postal service is encapsulated in the universal service obligation, the essential element of which is the collection and delivery of mail to every home and premises in every corner of the State on every working day. This key principle is enshrined in the Bill, which designates An Post as the universal postal service provider. Designating An Post offers certainty to postal service users and the universal service obligation will be met throughout the country with no urban-rural divide.

In addition, ComReg, as the postal services regulator, is charged with ensuring the provision of a universal postal service that meets the reasonable needs of users. Deputies will be aware that the Bill augments the functions and objectives of ComReg to promote the development of the sector, to promote the interests of users and, subject to these two objectives, to facilitate the development of competition and innovation in the market. These are not equal objectives and I believe this hierarchy of objectives adequately addresses the concerns Deputy Ferris is seeking to address in this amendment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

When the Minister talks about an independent regulator, is he referring to one that is totally independent of direction either from the Oireachtas or the Minister? Unless we change the law, it is independent of the Oireachtas and that is why I have very little faith in this so-called accountability to the Oireachtas. It is true to say, however, that this Bill is full of cases where the Minister's permission is needed and therefore this independence is not absolute. The idea that An Post or the regulator can do what they want is clearly constrained by the Bill. Presumably the Minister's officials have advised him this is all kosher. The simple question then arises as to when the Minister should have the right to intervene, because it is clearly stated in the sections every time the Minister's consent is needed. How far should the Minister retain control and over what?

All that Deputy Ferris suggested, and I support him, is that where the national interest is involved — not An Post's interests — the Minister should step in. That is what was proposed. To rubbish that means the Minister thinks ComReg's independence is more important than the national interest. The Minister has made his point and so be it. We have clearly heard where he stands on that issue. It is his decision and we will remember it.

The Minister said this does not affect post offices but of course it does, although it is not directly related to them. It is like saying that if the wall falls down it does not necessarily bring the window with it. If An Post loses the universal service in future, the post offices will follow.

Deputy Martin Ferris

The spirit and principle of my amendment are to protect the postal service indefinitely. That is the reason I have tabled the amendment. We either have faith in politics or we do not. In his reply, the Minister said ComReg will protect the service in future, but I would dispute that. What we have seen from past regulation in other spheres has certainly not been in the national interest. It is so important that a service which is provided in the national interest continues to operate as such. We can be proud of the postal service that has been consistently provided across this island. I have major worries going forward, despite the fact that, as was stated yesterday, ComReg can continue for a further 12 to 20 years. I do not believe that to be the case.

I am not pointing the finger at the Minister in any way, but this Bill is all about the liberalisation of the postal service and its privatisation in the long term. That will be a huge disadvantage to people who are most in need of the service, including those living in isolated areas who are dependent on that social contact. Effectively, privatisation or liberalisation is all about profit before anything else. Therefore any protections we can insert in the legislation to assure postal workers, as well as the recipients of the service, need to be taken on board. I would like the Minister to reconsider the amendment.

Deputy Robert Dowds

I have listened to much of this debate because I have considerable concerns about the postal service. I agree with the Minister that the main threat to the service comes from email and other electronic forms of communication. I have sought assurances on a number of aspects of the legislation, but I wish to read into the record one such aspect. There are provisions in the legislation dealing with an industrial levy which are designed to ensure that if there is cherry-picking of profitable routes and An Post — as the universal postal service provider — is left with the unprofitable ones, it will be compensated by way of contributions from the profitable commercial sector. That is an important aspect of this Bill. The Minister has done his best to protect An Post and our postal services generally. It is important that should be done and I entirely accept the importance of having a good postal service for the country. I also acknowledge the social aspects that Deputies Ferris and Ó Cuív have mentioned, but it is not simply a straightforward liberalisation of the market.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I agree with Deputy Ferris that the service provided by An Post across the country is very important and is appreciated by the people of Ireland. I have no doubt about that. The universal service obligation enshrined in this legislation will protect that important aspect of An Post. Deputy Joan Collins quoted an example from Holland, but I have no intention — neither does the Government — of privatising An Post. It will not happen while this Government is in office.

Deputy Ó Cuív states that the law is not absolute, and of course he is right. The Minister has reserved rights under the legislation to give a policy direction if he or she thinks it is appropriate to do so. It is entirely proper that the Minister should reserve that right, but it can be only exercised consistent with the law. Deputy Ó Cuív asks how I can argue that there is absolute independence while the Minister's consent is called for, but he has been advocating that the Minister's consent be enshrined in the Bill since we started the debate.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Exactly, and a little more than that.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I have made a number of concessions to him to put into the Bill where the Minister's express consent is required, for example, if there was any question of ComReg trying to shut down the universal service obligation after seven years. This was the situation in the Bill when I inherited it from Deputy Ó Cuív's party. The Minister can intervene and say "Sorry, we are not wearing that."

The protection of the service is one of the objectives of ComReg under the law. Given that it has been regulated since 2000, why has no decision of ComReg ever been challenged? It has consistently protected the universal service obligation. I am aware of people in An Post who think that the imposition on them to deliver the mail every day to every house in the country as required can be extremely costly and extremely severe, but they do it because ComReg insists they do it. That is the position.

I accept the spirit of the amendments, but it is carefully provided for in the legislation. As Deputy Dowds said, in so far as one can do it in law, it is in law. That will continue and it is not the intention of this Government to privatise the post office. Whatever threat there is to postal services and to future employment in the post offices, it comes from matters other than this Bill, such as the pervasive electronic substitution.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I move amendment No.8:

In page 16, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(4) The Commission will take into account the unique value that the postal service has in Ireland with regard to the substantial rural population and that particular care should be taken to ensure that the interests of the market will not take precedence over, or put at risk, this vital public service which is part of the fabric of communities and which provides a sense of national and social inclusion.".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 16, to delete lines 42 to 45 and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 7.

The Minister keeps telling us he is taking a minimalist approach to complying with European law. Why is there a provision that the universal service obligation can be reduced from 20 kg to 10 kg? I just do not get it. Perhaps the Minister can explain why he is not willing to delete this and insist on the 20 kg figure. It is a black and white issue. I have no good explanation for this other than to assume that this is unnecessary creeping liberalisation. The Minister said he is all for keeping An Post as a universal service operator, but I do not think this Bill will do that.

I am interested in hearing that An Post would like to get out of this area, because it shows us that even within the citadel, there are people who think it is too onerous to go to every house every day. That will become much more vociferous as the good parts of the market are taken away. An Post management will keep coming back and say that mail is declining and it is not profitable any more, and that the good parts of the market in Dublin 2 and Dublin 4 are gone. The Government will try to levy the private sector but it will not be paid, as we saw with the VHI. The pressure will come on ComReg and it will be said that it is ridiculous to go to a house every day if there is no piece of mail every day. Then the service will begin to diminish step by step. That is the scenario and the Minister is adding to this by reducing the service obligation from 20 kg to 10 kg. It is very simple; he just needs to remove those parts from the Bill.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I declare an interest in this. I am the local post master in our small village and that is why I fully appreciate and value the excellent service provided over the years in rural areas. I remember Deputy Harrington giving a very eloquent speech on rural post offices one evening in the House.

I fully accept the Minister's bona fides and that he may not think that this is what will result, but I am afraid that if this is opened up and others come in to cherrypick, they will not understand that the service as carried out in the past was more than just delivering mail and was more than just a business. An Post and the postal people who ran our post offices over the years are like social workers. It might seem like a miserable letter to some people, but the act of going to meet a person in a rural location is more than just delivering the mail. The postman might inform the person about who died that week, tell a bit of gossip, or have a debate about politics or football. If that kind of social interaction is taken away in the future, then it is another death knell to rural Ireland. It is losing something that we have cherished and appreciated. That is why I am concerned about the content of this Bill and that is why I put forward an amendment and support other amendments in the same area. They are in the interests of rural Ireland. I am not saying for one minute that the Minister does not have the interests of rural Ireland in his heart as well, because I know that he does. I just have a deep concern about this, as someone who worked in the post office and who knows how important the service is to people in rural locations.

Loneliness is an awful problem in rural areas, and the postman calling and delivering the mail really means so much to people. As everything has become so money orientated, I could see people in the future saying that it does not make financial sense to deliver one letter to a person at the end of a long road. It might not make financial sense, but from a human point of view, it makes great sense and it might mean so much to that person. That is why I am worried about cherrypicking in the future and is why I wanted to voice my concerns. However, I am not trying to say that the Minister is the big bad wolf putting something through against the people, because that would not be the case. I certainly hope that my heartfelt views will be taken on board in this matter.

Deputy Joan Collins

Dutch mail is privatised and liberalised to a point where private companies can bring their mail to a delivery area, where it is then delivered by the workers. However, we are missing the point on cherrypicking. The Minister said that nobody wants competition. The reason we do not want competition is there for all to see right across Europe. The US does not allow private mail companies to work in their states as it is a public service. It is not a question of the profitable parts subsidising the unprofitable areas for An Post. It is a question of jobs being lost, what companies are picking up those jobs and the conditions those jobs entail. We have seen it happen in private companies in England and elsewhere throughout Europe where a postal worker is given a jacket and a satchel and paid much less than the postal worker employed by the State who has good conditions, reasonable pay, a pension to which to look forward and with the security of steady job he or she can possibly afford to go to a bank in the future to put a down payment on a house and take out a mortgage. That is what is being lost here. The security associated with being employed in a huge State body is being lost and that will have an impact. All the money in the world that is provided by a private company that has chosen to deliver a service in Dublin 4, in the inner city area where all the offices are based or in a high residential area will not save those jobs. That is why this Bill must be rejected.

In certain circumstances, we can bring this case to Europe and point out that this is not what we need here at this time. I am sure something can be done in that respect. The Bill must be opposed. I cannot accept the Minister's arguments in this respect.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I cannot and would not be able to get the kind of derogation Deputy Joan Collins advocates. It is not consistent with the directive which has been passed. It is not the intention of this Government to privatise An Post. An Post is a State company and it has a place of affection in the hearts of most people. The universal service obligation remains and we do not intend to go down the privatisation route.

I do not dispute what Deputy Healy-Rae said. We had that discussion with Deputies Ferris and Ó Cuív who drew attention during the course of the debate to the importance of the postal service, especially in rural Ireland. Deputy Healy-Rae is right in that the postman calling to a house can certainly be an occasion in the day for people who are isolated. As he put it, the postman is a kind of a social worker. Deputy Ferris had him collecting the messages and bringing them to the person in an isolated community.

Deputy Martin Ferris

It might be the Minister some day.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I accept there is a social dimension, interaction, gossip and all the rest associated with the postman when he calls. I acknowledge all of that but the postman's job is to deliver the post, not to be a social worker or to collect the messages. If he can do all those things as well, that is a matter for the postal manager, but I have no objection. The postman is not a multi-tasker like Deputy Healy-Rae, he is a postman. This reminds me of a famous former Deputy from County Kerry who had a row with the postman. It was thought a bit odd in the post office that every day without fail there was a letter for a Kerry constituent who lived three miles up a hill in an isolated farmhouse. The postman had to cycle up the hill every day to deliver the letter. It was very odd that the man got a letter with the Dáil stamp on it every day of the week. When the matter was examined it turned out it was the TD's way of getting his own back on the postman by having him cycle in wind and rain three miles up the hill to deliver a letter every day of the week, and sometimes there was nothing in the envelope.

Deputy Martin Ferris

We send many letters.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

That is true. To return to the amendment, Deputy Ó Cuív knows as well as I do that fashion changes. Some of things that were everyday occurrences in rural Ireland 30 years ago have changed dramatically. He knows that the marketplace here will change as well. He knows that change is coming down the tracks at the post office everyday and that it is in the interests of the postal service that An Post maintains flexibility in terms of its ability to adapt to those changes in the marketplace.

Deputy Ó Cuív's amendment would make the position of An Post less flexible and it would make the obligations on ComReg less flexible. It would put An Post into a straitjacket, so to speak, in terms of its capacity to adapt to the changes coming down the tracks. For that reason I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Section 16(3) relates to ComReg's power to review the minimum weight limits in regard to the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal packets that a designated universal postal service provider must provide. The directive sets out the parameters within which this minimum can be set — a range between 10 kg and 20 kg. The Bill sets the minimum weight at 20 kg, which is the minimum requirement set out in the current postal regulations and allows, rather than requires, ComReg, by order, to reduce that to 10 kg. In considering any change to the weight limits allowed, ComReg must take into account the reasonable needs of users and also must hold a public consultation in advance of making any change. There are therefore a number of built-in safeguards relating to any decision that ComReg might make to change the weight limits.

Deputy Ó Cuív's proposed amendment would remove a certain flexibility from the regulation of the market which is required to meet the evolving needs of users. This need for flexibility is particularly pertinent in regard to the parcels market which is fast becoming one of the more dynamic sections of the postal business. The reasonableness of this section, as drafted, was supported on Committee Stage by Deputy Harrington based on his experience and knowledge of the sector. I do not propose to amend this section as proposed.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Section 16 outlines what a universal postal service means. Among its provisions is the sorting, transportation and distribution of parcels from other member states up to 20 kg in weight. I cannot understand how a user of the service could benefit from An Post being able to say at some time in the future, with the approval of ComReg, that a package is over 10 kg in weight and therefore it does not have to carry it. How that would benefit the user escapes me. It might benefit An Post but it will not benefit the user. The regulation provides that any package weighing up to 20 kg from another member state must be sorted, transported and distributed but the Minister wants to allow for a scenario where some fine day, following public consultation and so on, and we know all about public consultations, ComReg will be able to say that if it weighs between 10 kg and 20 kg it does not have to carry it. The Minister has the gall to stand up and say that benefits the users.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I do not know if it is Deputy Ó Cuív's long years in government that has made him so cynical of all exchanges that take place between the elected Oireachtas and institutions established by the Oireachtas. I have not got that cynical yet. I believe ComReg takes into account the sensible views of Oireachtas Éireann and sensible views argued with it by other interests. Why would ComReg approve a change that would be deleterious either to postal users, whom it is required to protect, or to the interests of An Post? It is unlikely to happen. The reason we are putting this in the Bill is to ensure that there is flexibility on the part of An Post to react to changes that take place in the market. I cannot see how the regulator of the service would impose a change that would damage the interests of users and harm the commercial potential of the postal company.

Throughout the debate Deputy Ó Cuív has posited the regulator as the big, bad bogeyman trying to do down the postal user. We have no evidence for that since 2000. A 2002 statute sets out a hierarchy of goals and objectives, in respect of which ComReg must function. I do not know where this is coming from. I hope the Deputy's 14 former Cabinet colleagues did not share his cynical view of the world because if that is the case, what is the point in any of us being here?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

To ensure the will of the Oireachtas predominates over the will of the system. Let me spell it out. There are powerful lobbies in Europe, mirrored in this country, which believe competition is an absolute good and the more unfettered it is, the better it is.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

The Deputy is beginning to sound like Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I agree with him on certain issues.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

Only since the Deputy went into opposition.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

No, I have been consistent on these issues during the years. If the Minister checks the record, he will find that I have been consistent on them. I have never bought into the god that the European Union and its followers in this country have made out of competition. Did the Minister ever think ComReg had arrived at an incorrect decision? Has he ever criticised a decision made by a regulator in this country? Did he ever think a regulator had failed in its national duty? I put it to him that on numerous occasions he criticised the banking regulator who was acclaimed as a great independent regulator. One of the lessons we learned in government was that giving too much independence to regulators made us vulnerable. We often discussed this issue and, if we made a mistake, it was to make these bodies too independent of the Government, the Oireachtas and the political system. The notion that the Minister has never criticised the decision of a regulator is laughable. I wish I had time to count all of the occasions on which he claimed regulators had got it wrong.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I concur with Deputy Ó Cuív's comments on regulators. It is an abrogation of political responsibility to give powers to regulators without giving the Minister of the day the right of veto. As we have seen in the recent past, the record of certain regulators has been disgraceful. While I accept the Minister's assurance that he will protect the postal service while he is in government and I want to believe the Labour Party has as its core a commitment to public service for the benefit of all the people, I do not have the same confidence in his partners in government. Elements of previous Governments pursued a privatisation agenda, whether for hospitals or whatever else. The privatisation agenda does not have the national interest at heart. The national interest and the common good have to be protected by elected representatives. It is not in the common good to erode or undermine a national service provider such as An Post. If we depart from the common good, we will allow a system of privatisation which has no interest in anything but making a profit.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

We saw what happened following the changeover from Telecom Éireann to Eircom. As Deputy Martin Ferris noted, pure profiteering has left the service in such a state of neglect that it is in complete disarray. Having studied the profiteering that milked millions of euro from Eircom, I am genuinely worried about the watering down of all that we cherish so dearly. Our experience has taught us a tough lesson about profiteering, which is why I dearly value our network of post offices and delivery services. That is the reason I see danger in this legislation. I bring forward my amendment because I do not support the Bill, as it stands. If we cannot learn from our mistakes, we will become very poor indeed.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 17, line 19, after "users" to insert the following:

"and any such exception shall only be with the consent of the Minister".

Under the amendment ministerial consent would be required where a watering down of the universal service obligation was proposed. The Bill is full of promises, but when we read the next section we find derogations all over the place. I propose that ministerial consent be required for derogations from the universal service obligation. It is a self-evident and simple amendment that would provide an extra safeguard at a time when the Government has made it clear that it intends to sell State assets to fund the NewERA programme.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I have repeated ad nauseam that the Government has no intention of privatising An Post. Deputy Healy-Rae is correct about the experience of Telecom Éireann, now Eircom, and the asset stripping which resulted in a legacy of under-investment in the network. However, he is wrong to make a comparison with the provision before us. The regulator or competition was not at fault in the case of Telecom Éireann. It was the privatisation of the company that caused the problems. We are not privatising An Post. It will remain in State hands. While Deputy Martin Ferris asked what a Government of a different hue might do, I do not think that position would change. Fianna Fáil has swung dramatically to the left and is now opposed to privatisation, even though it privatised Telecom Éireann. The Technical Group which is represented in the Chamber by Deputy Joan Collins might combine into a left-wing group with Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Joan Collins

I do not think so.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

If Deputy Shane Ross and a couple of others were stripped out, there would be a powerful left contingent in the House if this Government was replaced any time soon.

Deputy Joan Collins

There is a strong right contingent on the other side.

Deputy Martin Ferris

The Minister could come back to the left. We could have the first Taoiseach of the left.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I will protect An Post while I am here. I have every confidence that the left turn being taken on the benches opposite will protect it if there is a change in the Government.

The effect of the amendments before the House would be to require the consent of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources with regard to any determination made by ComReg allowing the designated universal service provider any exemption to the requirements of section 16. ComReg is charged with regulating the market and has the necessary economic and regulatory expertise and knowledge to do so. If one reads the Bill in its entirety, one would appreciate that there is an onus on ComReg, through its augmented objectives and functions, to ensure the provision of a universal postal service that meets the reasonable needs of users and which must promote the availability of such a service that is affordable for the benefit of all users.

Any determination made regarding exemptions would only be made after ComReg had full regard to the reasonable needs of users. It would not be appropriate to require ministerial approval for any such decision by ComReg, first because of the independence of ComReg in the exercise of its functions and because it would require the Department to duplicate ComReg's work and expertise in the area.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

We are getting the same comments over and over again, read out by rote. It is interesting that if this power is exercised, the Minister, European Union and the national regulatory authorities in all member states must be notified. It is such a big issue that all these bodies across Europe must be informed. All I suggested was that rather than just informing the Minister, the consent of the Minister must be obtained. As the Minister has noted, ministerial consent is required all over the place in the Bill, so why not in this aspect, which is so important that everybody in Europe must be told? The Minister will not accept the amendment but I will press it.

Deputy Joan Collins

I support the amendment because this important point should involve ministerial consent. The Minister does not seem to get it as this is not about privatisation. We are not discussing that, although I am opposed to privatisation. We are not talking about what happened with Eircom. When the parcel service was deregulated, SDS was set up by An Post as its parcel service but it collapsed because competing companies were able to open a warehouse and pay workers low wages with no conditions, contracts or pensions. Hundreds of good jobs were lost when SDS closed down, and that is what I am talking about. Everything should be put in place to protect strongly the workers in An Post, which is why the issue should revert to the Minister for consent.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

Amendment No. 11 has already been discussed with amendment No. 10.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 17, to delete line 33.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 18, to delete lines 20 to 45 and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 18 and substitute the following:

"17.—An Post is designated as the universal postal service provider.".

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I will move amendment No. 13 to give the Minister one last chance to honour the commitment given in the programme for Government that he would designate An Post as universal service for 20 years.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy but if amendment No. 12 is dealt with and lost, the Deputy's amendment cannot be moved. The same applies to amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

That is my amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

Yes, and it cannot be moved if amendment No. 12 is defeated.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 21, lines 24 and 25, to delete "under comparable conditions".

I do not like to question procedure but the rejection of amendment No. 12 did not preclude the Minister from accepting amendment No. 13, which is completely different, and which proposed substituting "12" for "20" and making further deletions. They are completely unconnected proposals.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

The ruling is they are connected and because amendment No. 12 has been defeated, the following amendments cannot be moved.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are totally different.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

They refer to similar text in the Bill.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

If Deputy Ferris and I had known that such a ruling would come from the Chair, we would have called a vote on the amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

I take the point but the ruling has been made.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 21, line 27, to delete "approved" and substitute "published".

This amendment arises from amendments made on Committee Stage to the provisions relating to the terms and conditions of the universal postal service provider. It clarifies that a universal postal service provider must comply with its terms and conditions, which have been "published" rather than "approved" under sections 22 and 23 of the Bill. The change is necessary to cover the first six months after the passing of this Bill, during which the terms and conditions will have been published but not approved by ComReg. It is essentially a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 21, line 38, after "service" to insert "provision".

This is another drafting amendment which seeks to correct the omission of the word "provision", which in this context and in the interests of continuity should have been linked to the term "the universal postal service".

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

Amendment No. 19 is consequential on amendment No. 20. Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, and 26 are also related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 25, to delete lines 36 and 37 and substitute the following:

"(c) subject to any decision made by the Commission under paragraph (b) of subsection (2), prices shall comply with the uniform tariff referred to in that subsection;”.

Following our discussion on Committee Stage, I undertook to look again at uniform tariffs. As I mentioned in that debate, the reality is that there has been a uniform domestic tariff in place since the introduction of the penny post in 1840.

Having listened to Deputy Ó Cuív — not since 1840 — and explored the issue further, I propose to require that this will be the default in law. Under section 28, therefore, a uniform tariff will apply throughout the State to any postal service provided at the single piece tariff. The intention is to ensure An Post's ability to compete with other postal operators is not inappropriately restricted. Naturally, provision is being retained for the option to move away from this default position if the market develops in a way that necessitates it. Decisions in this respect would be made by ComReg, having regard to the reasonable needs of users and with the consent of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. This is in line with the postal directive that permits the imposition of a uniform tariff in the public interest. My proposal also provides that if it is decided to undo the requirement for a uniform tariff, ComReg may — again with the consent of the Minister — undo such a decision.

I have also re-examined the issue of a cross-Border uniform tariff, as requested by Deputy Ó Cuív. I am not proposing to change this option to make it the default in legislation. As we know, the 55 cent stamp that is charged by An Post for delivering single piece mail covers delivery for the whole island of Ireland. As pricing issues north of the Border are matters for postal service providers based there and are subject to regulation by a different national regulatory authority, it would be inappropriately restrictive to require An Post to have a cross-Border uniform tariff in primary legislation. It is more appropriate for the position to remain as it is in the current legislation, which provides that a cross-Border uniform tariff may be required by An Post or ComReg with the consent of the Minister. As I understand it, An Post has no intention of changing the position that has obtained.

Arising from these proposals, I have decided to amend section 28(2). A small number of consequential amendments are required to update cross-references. I trust that Deputy Ó Cuív will support these amendments, which arise from our discussion on Committee Stage. I cannot accept amendment No. 23, which proposes to add the words "which are less" to section 28(3). The section in question provides that the application of a uniform tariff does not prevent a designated universal service provider from negotiating and concluding individual agreements with users on prices. The proposed amendment is not necessary and may unduly constrain An Post in negotiating with other postal service providers.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I welcome this as far as it goes. I thank the Minister for having gone part of the way that I wanted him to go. I believe in the fundamental geographical and — I hope in the future — political and social unity of this island. Therefore, I would like it to be enshrined in primary law that the uniform tariff should apply to a letter posted from anywhere within the State to anywhere on this island. I am glad the Minister has come some of the way. I particularly note that despite all the Minister's protestations earlier that he cannot be directing here and there, amendment No. 20 provides for the phrase "with the prior consent of the Minister" to be included in sections 28(2)(b), (c) and (d). He has proved my point that it is easy to write lots of ministerial consents into the legislation. The idea that to do so would interfere with the independence of ComReg in some way is totally undermined by all these provisions requiring the consent of the Minister.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

There is absolutely no inconsistency between emphasising the statutorily based independence of the regulator and making express provision for the consent of the Minister to be required in certain circumstances or providing for the capacity of the Minister to issue policy directives. Deputy Ó Cuív used a good example earlier when he spoke about the banking regulator. He was quite right to say I criticised the banking regulator. I was right to do so. It is a great pity that his colleagues did not criticise the banking regulator. If they had done so, we would not be in the mess we are in. If I had a choice — I am speaking on the eve of the most momentous meeting in Europe since we joined the EEC in 1973 — I would prefer if the cock-ups that were made in the banking service had been made by the postal service regulator. We could have survived that. It remains to be seen whether we will be able to survive the legacy of Deputy Ó Cuív and his colleagues, who were asleep at the wheel when the banking regulator was failing to do his job. There was negligence of duty on the part of the various mechanisms that were built into the system, in terms of the Central Bank, the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance. That left us in the situation we are in this evening, on the eve of a meeting in Europe of a magnitude of importance that this country has never experienced in its time as a member state of the European Union.

There is no conflict here. The areas where the consent of the Minister must be sought have been carefully calibrated. The underlying theme in Deputy Ó Cuív's argument is that he is feigning not to accept the role of regulation. Let me take that back. I will take him at face value. He does not accept the role of regulation in the utilities that have been the subject of regulation in recent years. Ironically, the paternity of those arrangements lies with successive Governments of which he was a part. The regulation of energy, telecommunications, electronics, the postal service and so on has come with particular directives, one of which we are transposing into Irish law.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

When I was in government, I was always very wary of transposing power away from Ministers. I have always believed the Minister will get the blame, even if independent regulation has been provided for. There seems to be some amnesia within the Labour Party about its love affair with independent regulation. The Deputies opposite have forgotten that the demand for an independent banking regulator, separate from the Central Bank, arose from the Opposition benches. When it turned out that the system was not great, they emphasised the fact that it had been introduced by the Government. At the time, however, there had been great demand among Opposition Deputies for its introduction. They wanted everything to be independent. As Minister, I consistently made a different argument. In the Departments for which I was responsible, I was careful to act in a way that did not allow things to move too far away. I did that for the obvious reason that I was concerned about the problems we subsequently experienced. I was worried that regulators who were not answerable to Ministers could make their own decisions. I was aware, as the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has said, that Ministers would be held responsible for the actions of regulators at the end of the day even though they had not part in them.

I am openly sceptical about European regulations. The fetish that the regulated market would sort everything led to the banking crisis. The EU imposed strict controls on how much governments could borrow and what they could do, but it did not impose any controls on the private banking sector across Europe. Even if we had regulated the banks here, that would not have stopped the foreign banks from coming here, as they did, and engaging in crazy lending. I believe we should maintain maximum control here. The Minister has agreed with the principle here. All we are arguing about this evening, in large measure, is where the line between ministerial oversight and regulatory discretion should be drawn. We are arguing that the Minister has not gone far enough in ensuring ministerial oversight. We believe anything that is in the national interest should be the subject of ministerial oversight rather than being at the discretion of ComReg.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

Amendment No. 20 has already been discussed with amendment No. 19. I ask Members to note that if the question on amendment No. 20 is agreed, amendment No. 21 cannot be moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 25, to delete lines 44 to 47 and substitute the following:

"(2) (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (d), a uniform tariff shall apply throughout the State to any postal service provided at single piece tariff.

(b) The Commission may, having regard to the reasonable needs of users, with the prior consent of the Minister, decide that a uniform tariff referred to in paragraph (a) shall not apply, and shall publish any such decision.

(c) The Commission may, with the prior consent of the Minister, make a decision that a uniform tariff shall be applied cross border to any postal service provided at single piece tariff and shall publish any such decision.

(d) The Commission may, with the prior consent of the Minister, revoke a decision made under paragraph (b) or (c).”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 25, lines 48 and 49, to delete "a decision under".

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 26, line 2, after "users" to insert "which are less".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are related and alternative to each other and will be discussed together. I ask Members to note that if the question on amendment No. 24 is agreed, amendment No. 25 cannot be moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 26, to delete lines 7 and 8.

There was an interesting debate at Committee Stage on An Post handling of international mail and the levels of remuneration it receives for this mail. I undertook at Committee Stage to have a look at the issue again.

To remind Deputies, terminal dues is the mechanism used by national postal operators to settle with each other for the delivery of international service mail. In terms of international mail, given the reciprocal nature of terminal dues agreements, the handling of mail between national postal operators is inherently different to handling mail from non-designated or private postal service providers and consolidators who manage companies' large mail requirements. The directive acknowledges this difference by distinguishing between the regulation of tariffs for universal services generally and the regulation of terminal dues. I therefore concluded that the link between special tariffs and terminal dues was not appropriate and that section 28(5) should be deleted. I hope this meets the arguments advanced by Deputy Deering on the last occasion and Deputy Olivia Mitchell and others.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 25 not moved.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 26, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"(d) for the purpose of tariffs a uniform tariff will apply across the State and Northern Ireland.”.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 31, line 1, after "provider" to insert "up to the inward mail centre".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 32, to delete line 4 and substitute the following:

"(f) the feasibility of granting the access sought,

(g) the capital investment in the postal network made by the universal postal service provider concerned, and”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

Amendment No. 29 in the name of Deputy Ó Cuív. Amendment No. 30 is an alternative to amendment No. 29 and amendment No. 31 is related to amendment No. 29. Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Amendment No. 29 not moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 36, line 17, to delete "a decision under".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 31 to 33, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 56, after line 41, to insert the following:

"(6) In operating a system of postcodes the Minister shall have regard to the position of the Irish language as the national language.".

Go bunúsach, an t-údar atá leis an leasú seo ná go gcaithfear stádas na Gaeilge mar chéad teanga agus mar phríomh theanga oifigiúil na tíre seo a thógáil san áireamh nuair a bheidh na cóid phoist á réiteach. Tá súil agam go nglacfaidh an tAire leis an leasú seo. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the position of the Irish language as the first official language of the State will be taken into account in deciding the postcodes.

We saw the difficulty that arose many years ago with the registration of cars. We should lay down a clear direction from the Oireachtas to those who are developing this that the constitutional position of the language cannot be ignored in devising a postcode system. It is a simple, basic and fundamental concept.

There are those who argue that this poses great difficulties but in society nobody has a problem with Bord na Móna, CIE, FÁS and many other terms such as Oireachtas, Cathaoirleach, Ceann Comhairle. There was a good positive tradition in the State, which, unfortunately, in more recent years has waned, to ensure that in public nomenclature the Irish language was given its proper place.

It is important in this legislation that we ensure the position of the Irish language is protected. If the Minister checks the record of the observations made on this Bill, no doubt he will find observations made by the Department which I headed up when I was in Government on this issue seeking that this matter would be addressed. It was agreed by the previous Government that no decision was to be taken on this issue without the explicit permission of Government and the previous Government was quite clear that the Irish language had to be taken into account in any postcode system that would have been brought forward by the previous Minister. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is put down and that we come up with a system that is uniformly acceptable to people across the State.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

The amendment submitted by the Deputy would require the Minister to have regard to the position of the Irish language as the national language in the operation of any national postcode system.

While I am sympathetic to the aims of the proposal I do not propose to accept it on a number of grounds. The first is that a procurement process is currently under way for a national postcode system. That procurement is designed to produce a technical specification and an implementation plan for a national postcode system. The issue of what that specification will be and how it will take effect in an operating postcode will be determined through that competition. The issue of memorability or placename recognition by the general public will be an important consideration in any final recommendation to Government. The Government will take a view on the proposals emerging from the procurement process before committing to a postcode roll-out process. The language issue will be dealt with as part of the procurement but it is neither necessary nor appropriate to set language related conditions on the process at this stage.

My Department has published a notice seeking candidates to implement a national postcode system. That notice states that the conclusions and recommendations of the National Postcodes Project Board should be the basis of the implementation but that innovation with regard to the incorporation of the unique identification of properties should be investigated.

Although the procurement is being managed by my Department on a ring-fenced basis, any final go-ahead will require Government approval.

In making a final decision on the project the Government will consider a variety of issues, including financial, operational and technical issues. The position of the national language will form part of this consideration.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey)

As it is now 7 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and not disposed of, including those in respect of which recommital would in the normal course be required, are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed." Is the question agreed to?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

It is not. We wish to give the Labour Party and Fine Gael one final chance to honour their commitments in the programme for Government.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 102; Níl, 41.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Breen, Pat.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burton, Joan.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Catherine.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Áine.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coveney, Simon.
• Creed, Michael.
• Creighton, Lucinda.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Terence.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Humphreys, Kevin.
• Keating, Derek.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• Lyons, John.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McEntee, Shane.
• McFadden, Nicky.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Mathews, Peter.
• Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Dara.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Nash, Gerald.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
• O’Donnell, Kieran.
• O’Donovan, Patrick.
• O’Dowd, Fergus.
• O’Mahony, John.
• O’Reilly, Joe.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reilly, James.
• Ross, Shane.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stanton, David.
• Timmins, Billy.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Varadkar, Leo.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.
• White, Alex.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Browne, John.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Collins, Joan.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Healy-Rae, Michael.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O’Brien, Jonathan.
• O’Dea, Willie.
• O’Sullivan, Maureen.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Troy, Robert.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Lyons and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

Question declared carried.