Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I propose to take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. As outlined by my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Kyne on Committee Stage, section 28(1) of the Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Act 2011 sets out the principles with which the universal postal service provider’s tariffs must comply. These principles are enshrined in Article 12 of EU Directive No. 97/67/EC as amended by EU Directive 2008/6/EC, and provide that the tariffs must be, inter alia, affordable and cost oriented. These directives are transposed into Irish law by the 2011 Act.

Article 12 of the directive provides that member states shall ensure that the tariffs for each of the services forming part of the universal service obligation comply with the tariff principles. The requirements are clearly intended to apply only to the universal postal service, and it was on this basis that the 2011 Act was drafted.

It appears that the intent of the proposed amendment to section 28(1) is to widen the scope of the tariff principles beyond the universal postal service. It had been argued on Committee Stage that the extension of the regulatory measures in this manner is not appropriate and would require detailed consideration as well as consultation with affected stakeholders. The position remains unchanged.

Regulatory measures are generally introduced to address issues arising in a particular market and, in line with the principle of proportionality, should only be introduced where necessary. There has been no signal from the market of the need for regulatory measures in terms of tariffs outside of the universal postal service. In the non-universal service obligation areas such as parcels and publicity post, PostAim and Express Post, there is competition in the form of DHL, FedEx, Nightline, Fastway, CityPOST, Lettershop and the Leaflet Company, to name a few.

With regard to the amendment proposed by Deputy Dooley, I am advised by the Office of the Attorney General that the amendment does not have any material impact as the provision still clearly only applies to the universal postal service. The proposed wording would dilute the clarity of the provision and could have unintended consequences were it to be accepted. The Office of the Attorney General advises that as the amendment has no effect and it should not be accepted. I accept the point being made by the Deputy but the amendment, as worded, does not add any clarity to the Bill. I cannot accept the amendment.

See this speech in context