Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I note and acknowledge the rationale for the Bill and its background, dating to when it was first flagged in 1988. The first EU directive came forward in 1997 followed by a second directive in 2002 and a third in 2008. As Deputy Buttimer said, there was a gradual phasing in of competition before the third and final directive. A total of 60% of the sector has been open to competition and the directive will bring that up to 100%.

This Bill came before the Seanad in December and, briefly, before the last Dáil prior to its dissolution. We have had the public consultation process and consultation with stakeholders in a forum. The Bill was published by the previous Government. The current Government recently produced its programme for Government. The fears I expressed, only briefly, when contributing to the debate on the programme for Government are evident again with regard to this Bill and the comments made by the Minister, which I will refer to presently. Specific commitments published only weeks ago in the programme for Government, not only in this regard but in many others, appear to be fading, particularly when one listens to Leaders' Questions and looks at parliamentary questions, both written and oral. With regard to the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte's, comments in his speech last Thursday week, I noted his language, tone and demeanour. He spoke about various aspects of the Bill "in the context of the directive", "in the context of this Bill" and "in the context of our obligations". He was not very convincing, to say the least.

We are aware of the main provisions of the Bill. It provides for a regulatory framework to be managed by ComReg. It seeks to safeguard universal services and facilitates competition in a liberalised postal market. An Post is to be the universal provider. The Bill further clarifies offences and provides for the establishment of a national postcode system. I welcome that aspect. I doubt that it will be allowed to interfere with the sense of community and place that exists throughout the country in both rural and urban areas. It is essential that a system such as that being put in place should run side by side with our emergency services, so they can operate at maximise response times and so forth. I am thinking in particular of fire service and ambulance service responses.

Everybody recognises the history and value of An Post in their respective communities. I am glad the Bill does not impact on the rural post office network and post office banking and saving services. The delivery of Government financial services is also a pivotal part of the delivery of governance throughout the country, and I note those services are also secure within the post office network. I agree with the Minister that An Post must continue to be dynamic, forge new partnerships, innovate, re-invent and re-invigorate. Having listened to speakers in the House who are involved with the system, and being familiar with the system in my community and beyond, I have no doubt it has the leadership, capacity, willingness and ability within its ranks to meet and, indeed, lead the demands of this new and ever-changing digital communications age.

The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said ComReg would be accountable to the Oireachtas and that it will act on his and the Government's direction on policy issues. While I welcome what appears to be this double accountability, the Minister should clarify whether it is to be one or the other or both. If there is this notion of directing State bodies or semi-State bodies with Government policy, if I may digress briefly, I ask the Minister to elaborate on the programme for Government's initiative on the sale of non-strategic assets. Is there to be a similar direction from him on Government policy on the part or whole-sale of ESB, the part or whole-sale of Bord na Móna or the part or whole-sale of Coillte? There have been biting remarks across the floor in this regard, not only by myself but by many others, and it is almost time that the Minister made an unequivocal statement in this regard.

The reference to commitments in the programme for Government pertaining to this Bill, and the worrying matter of tone and the apparent softening of attitude, may be clarified, as Deputy Calleary states, by the Minister at the culmination of our comments and in his response. The programme for Government states specifically that the universal service will be assigned to An Post for 20 years. This is a bold statement, considering the Bill has given a guarantee to An Post of seven years upon which ComReg might further lengthen the period based on the success of scheme and the delivery of service to the public in an efficient and cost-effective manner because that is the bottom line of the Bill. It must be done on a cost-effective and social-inclusive manner. All of those issues combine to allow ComReg to make a decision as to whether it continues for a further period.

The Minister, in his comments, stated: "The duration of An Post's designation is something I will also consider in the context of the programme for Government proposals". The word "consider" is vastly different from the word "insist".

Exchequer funding is not an option currently provided for in the legislation. I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív when he spoke on the matter last week. He stated that the Bill contains the power to fine and take profits from those who cherry-pick at the expense of, not necessarily but more than likely, rural or unprofitable areas and that funds raised in this regard would be for onward payment to the universal provider. While the Minister might not necessarily agree with this aspect of the Bill, can he or the Government afford not to? To highlight the apparent contradictions, the programme for Government contains a proposal to provide Exchequer funding but the Minister stated he "will consider this in the context of introducing amendments on Committee Stage". It is that word "consider" again. It is not "insist"; it is "consider".

I note the Government has made big commitments in the programme for Government. It has made big commitments in the first weeks of office, claiming to make serious inroads in the first 100 days with a jobs initiative, a jobs budget or whatever it is called - it changed today. It is an admirable commitment. I doubt its ability to deliver such an arduous task. I further doubt, on foot of the news we learned today about the growth rate being halved, an extra €1 billion being required and the same jobs initiative perhaps costing €0.5 billion, where and how the Government can find Exchequer funding for this when the Bill, as I stated, contains the capability of raising funds.

Returning to the Bill, and specifically to the commitments relating to it, I would appeal to the Minister, both on the commitments he made here and on those his party has given on semi-State bodies and State assets on many occasions, to stick to the principles that he honed when in the Workers Party, in Democratic Left and in the Labour Party, and to not be swayed or convinced by Fine Gael, now that he is coalescing with it, by that party's opinions on semi-State bodies. Looking on at the Minister, who is Dublin based, who is at full Cabinet and who is from Mayo, in the context of the geography of the Cabinet, surely he can succeed in maintaining the service and facilities.

See this speech in context