Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Le cead an Tí, ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Seán Fleming.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis an Aire as ucht an cur síos cuimhsitheach a rinne sé ar an mBille. Glacaim leis nach bhfuil aon rogha ag an Aire ach an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach, ach is fiú dúinn an dia beag atá déanta ag an Eoraip de iomaíocht a phlé beagáinín sa Teach. Tá mé cinnte, lena chúlra i bPáirtí na n-Oibrithe, go mbeidh spéis ag an Aire ins an cheist seo a chíoradh agus a phlé.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. I accept that the Minister, no more than the previous Government, has no choice but to implement this EU directive, but it is important to reflect whether Europe has not made a little god out of competition as the resolution of all problems and the guarantee of top class services.

I do not necessarily think, particularly in an island such as ours that is on the periphery of Europe, that competition is the answer in all cases to quality services. It is interesting at this juncture to examine the impact the absolute fixation with competition has had on Europe. The banks are probably one of the best places to start because in setting up the euro it is interesting to consider the tight fiscal controls on states specified by the European Union. I refer to the 3% borrowing requirement. The EU did not specify any similar controls on the private sector because of the belief that the private sector would eventually regulate itself and control itself and that competition would provide the best service to the customer. We now know of course what competition did in that case. The excuse given by the likes of Rabobank, Allied Irish Banks and others for following Anglo Irish Bank in the property market was that competition and share price dictated that they had to follow in order to try to make competitive profits. I therefore think it is important to examine once again at a European level whether the structure it has put in place to govern competition is the appropriate model in all cases. I am not sure it is.

There is still a role for saying that certain essential services should not be open to competition, that the principle of universal service should be maintained and that it should not be subsidised by the taxpayer perennially. It is interesting to note the number of guarantees made in the Bill to ensure that in the event of cherry-picking by the private sector, which it will inevitably do, it must return its profits to the universal service provider so that it can provide a universal service. The Minister has given away that even he does not believe that because he said that he is now considering the possibility of including in the Bill the power to give Exchequer funding. In other words, no more than in the private health insurance market, the Minister is not sure that when push comes to shove the Government will be able to force private operators that will come into the market and no doubt be more than willing to provide services to big businesses in the city to hand over profits through ComReg to the universal service provider that must literally go from house to house in the most rural parts of the country.

It is important that we reflect on that point because I foresee what will emerge from the Bill is profit for the private sector in cherry-picked areas while the Exchequer funds services in rural parts of the country. What will happen over time is that there will be a campaign to say that it is no longer possible for the Exchequer to fund day to day services in rural areas. The Minister referred to the digital divide and the fact that those in more isolated areas could do with a two day or three day service or would have to pick up their own mail. That is the way I predict this will all play out in the next ten to 15 years. It is important that we look forward to see the inevitable path on which we are going to go.

Another interesting issue is the row-back already made by the Minister on the firm commitment in the programme for government that the universal service would be provided by An Post for 20 years. It is interesting to note that the Minister said:he would consider the commitment in the programme for government. We heard about the Treaty of Limerick. The ink was not dry on that particular treaty before it was broken. It seems to me from what the Minister said today that the programme for Government is a bit like the Treaty of Limerick — no sooner was it signed than the Government started rowing back on the very fine commitment it gave. I urge the Minister to honour the commitment given when he is considering the matter on Committee Stage and to ensure that the 20 year guarantee of a universal service to every house, every day of the working week will be guaranteed by An Post. If he does not do that, the credibility of the Government will be tarnished.

I was interested in what the Minister said about giving strategic directions to ComReg. I am sure that in his previous life as a Minister of State, the Minister felt many times that it was in the interest of the public to give direction to a semi-State body but he was told that he could not do that, he could not interfere. He would have been told that because the direction was not a strategic direction he could not give it. I suggest to the Minister that he might reflect on an amendment to the Bill and consider putting in a provision to the effect that the Minister can give any direction to ComReg that he sees fits subject to laying it before the Houses of the Oireachtas. While I believe one must have independent regulation, sometimes the regulators hide behind their independence and do not necessarily always act in the wider interest. There is no point in saying that the regulator must appear before a committee and give a great cur síos ar an obair a tá sé a dhéanadh, but that the Oireachtas does not have power to direct it if it believes that the service being provided and the competition being offered is not in the best interests of the people. Therefore, a direction would be useful, even if it was part of an armoury that would only be used in extreme circumstances. The Minister would retain that power subject to the relevant information being laid before the Oireachtas. Thus, there would be full transparency when a direction was given. Having that power would mean that if concerns were raised with ComReg by a Minister, the former would know that the Minister would have the power, in the extreme, to give a necessary direction in the public interest.

It is all fine to talk about independence, but we must consider every consequence. I understand the dilemma if the State, semi-State and private sectors are all mixed together and that there is a need for day-to-day independence. However, there is another element of independence that warrants considerable examination. Independence often means independence of the Oireachtas and the Government elected by the Oireachtas. This means people lose any control they may have over the actions of the bodies in question. That can often lead to frustration in the public mind. When something happens with which the public is not satisfied and about which it is absolutely mad and Members who are all elected to act on behalf of the people ask the Minister about it, they may hear a stock reply to the effect that he or she cannot give any direction on the matter because the body in question is totally independent of him or her. Having been a Minister, I understand this can be frustrating. We need to strike the correct balance. A direction, if given, must be transparent. All of the relevant bodies should be subject to the overwhelming will of the Oireachtas. I hope the Minister will consider this issue in more detail as the Bill passes through the House and suggest how he will ensure this measure does not take on a life of its own, thereby failing to achieve what people want and eliciting the response that he can do nothing about a matter because the regulator is independent.

I am interested in the issue of price mechanisms. I know there is a price cap, but this seems to represent the thin end of the wedge in respect of another major change that is to take place. I believe private companies will enter the market over time and cherry-pick all of the urban areas where they will offer very competitive rates and cherry-pick the easy business. They will undermine the cross-compensation we are used to in the postal service, whereby, irrespective of whether one posts a letter from Ballydehob to Malin Head or down the street within one's own village, the cost is the same. The private operators will provide very competitive services at very good prices in their designated areas. An Post which will have enjoyed cross-subsidisation in respect of a letter that travelled 100 yards and one that travelled 100 miles, will find itself losing money. Therefore, it will make the case that it should receive compensation because of the private companies. As I stated, my belief is that when it makes that case, the money will not be forthcoming. The case will have to be made to the Exchequer for funding for something that is now self-funding on a reasonable basis. I refer to the sending of a letter from one destination to another at a uniform cost. In time, the practice of posting a letter at standard costs to national and international destinations will disappear. It will be discovered that if one wants to post a letter to the far end of Ireland, it will be more expensive than if one wants to post it within urban areas. A system of universal service at a universal charge is being done away with subtly. I am not sure all these changes are for the good.

I am sure that the Minister, with his union background, will agree with me that there was a lot of sense to the idea behind a semi-State body providing a universal service, at a universal cost, that was vital to everybody in the country. We did see weaknesses in the system, however, and there was lazy management or management that was not innovative in some of the companies in question. However, others were incredibly successful. We also witnessed very restrictive labour practices, driven by unionised people who did considerable damage to the interests of the workers within certain semi-State bodies by refusing to modernise work practices quickly and move with the times. Given the Minister's background, I was very interested to hear him talk about the need to modernise. I agree with him in this regard. Reference was made to the need to use digital technology in conjunction with the physical letter which will always need to be delivered to houses, not only because of the digital divide but also because there are certain documents that can be posted more conveniently than sent by e-mail.

I do not agree with the European Union's view that the wholesale doing away with the approach we have had is necessarily good. The previous Government was very clear in its view that it had no intention whatsoever of selling off any of the basic State assets. I hear rumours about Coillte and I am totally opposed to selling it. I also hear rumours about the ESB. Any selling off of ESB Networks would be utterly disastrous for the country. I refer again to the idea of a universal service.

I understand it is intended to introduce postcodes. "Postcodes" may be the wrong word. Postcodes, be they for one's satnav or another purpose, would provide a unique identifier of every location or address in the country. For millions of reasons, this is a very good idea and should have been introduced years ago. An Post is one of the groups which need postcodes least because it already has a very efficient system of sorting the post. However, having a unique address in my part of the world would not be too bad because certain letters would not arrive at their proper destinations if the sender did not distinguish between recipients' names such as Páraic Micil Mac Donnchadha and Páraic Tomás Mac Donnchadha. If there were a unique code, it would make sense.

When this issue was being discussed by the previous Government, the concept of an alphanumeric code was raised. That gave rise to a further issue, namely, that if one were using the alphabetical part of the code, the letters in the code, one would have to ask whether the code should begin with a letter corresponding to the placename or whether there should be no easily discernible relationship between the code and the place. One could use the letter "G" for both Galway and Gaillimh without difficulty because they begin with that letter in the two official languages of the State. However, a difficulty would arise with other locations in that one would have to determine whether the alphabetical part of the code for Dublin should be "D" or "BAC", the latter being derived from Baile Átha Cliath. If one were to opt for an alphanumeric coding system that would make locations decipherable, there would be a dispute between those who believed the first official language of the State should be the basis of the code, those who believed the second official language should be its basis and those who believed it should be the choice of the user to use either language in the code. We saw this occur in respect of car registrations. I, therefore, ask the Minister to reflect very carefully on the issue. The former Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Mr. Eamon Ryan, received delegations on the matter.

The easy answer to the problem is not to use an alphanumeric code that relates in any way to the postal destination. I can never make out postal destinations from the codes used in Northern Ireland. I do not know if there is a relationship in the codes between places and letters.

However, if the first official language were chosen no doubt one would receive 100 arguments from public servants as to why it was not practical, although for the life of me I do not know why one would state it would not be practical. When I write letters to England I just write the alphanumeric code but it does not tell me to where I am writing; I never see the connection between the code and the place in London or Manchester to which I am writing. I just write the numbers and letters. This matter could be forestalled by a little bit of careful consideration. Will the Minister consider this issue carefully as I believe that a potential row could be forestalled by using a purely numeric code or an alphanumeric code that does not try to identify the area? My preference would be to use the first official language since I do not think it makes much difference. If the number for a house in Dublin was 5268BAC I do not think it would make any difference if one did not know from where the "BAC" came originally. It has never caused me any difficulties in writing to British addresses that I do not know how they derived the code; I merely copy the code.

See this speech in context