Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I admit I had not seen the amendment to section 47 which is an important one in that it provides for a right of appeal to the High Court. However, that does not take from my argument. As the Minister stated, if we can spare people going to the courts, we should do so. I note that he did not object in a theoretical or philosophical way to the idea of having an independent mediator. He and I had a discussion on a similar issue on which other legislation was silent.

The Minister is correct that he can issue policy documents. I have been on a number of boards which had to take decisions. Board directors are required to operate on the basis of legislative provisions. There is no direct flow between the Minister's policy statements and the issue about which we are speaking. In other words, if he were dealing with a really bad group of regulators, this would be a more appropriate discussion. However, I take his point. I am not referring to the current regulator's staff, with whom Senator O'Reilly and I have dealt. They are persons of the highest integrity, with whom I have no problems. I am speaking about what could occur in the future.

I accept that the amendment to section 47 includes a reference to section 28(4) and (5). There is an appeals mechanism, but it is an appeal to the High Court which can result in extraordinary costs over a period, something we should try to avoid at all times. I am suggesting there should be independent mediation or arbitration. The Minister does not have an objection to this in principle, but he is not prepared to accept the amendment. In this regard, there is a difference between amendments Nos. 30 and 31. It may be that the Minister is interpreting amendment No. 31 in such a way as to relate to current costs and he may be right. However, amendment No. 30 provides that it could be what the regulator determines should be the cost were things to be done in the most modern and technical of ways. In other words, what is a reasonable cost would be fairly decided. The only issue - I do not believe the Minister will disagree with this - is that in coming to a determination one would have to take into consideration the overall cost of the service. We should not reach a situation where all of the best bits would be siphoned off to particular private providers, with the universal service obligation to provide a service to remote and distant areas being left to An Post. That would not be acceptable.

When debating the broadcasting legislation, I made the proposal that members of boards be appointed in a particular way, namely, that they appear before a committee at a public meeting. The Minister was not amenable to accepting this proposal, but he did not object to the idea when I pointed out to him that legislation did not go against it. When I asked him if he would be opposed to it, he said he would not. Time passed and appointments were made by a committee, of which I was a member. We again went to the Minister and asked him if, recalling what we had previously discussed, while this was not provided for in the legislation, he would object to us proceeding in this manner. In fairness to him, he said he had no problem with this and we did it that way.

If the Minister is not willing to accept amendment No. 30, would he be prepared to, at least, inform the regulator that the use of an independent mediator in such situations should be considered and that overall cost, not necessarily current cost, of a perfect service should be taken into consideration when acting as judge and jury as regards section 28(4) and (5). The Minister does not object to the idea. Rather than having to go to the High Court, this would be an in-between stage that would save everybody money, be more efficient and quicker and a more market friendly approach. I am interested in hearing the Minister's response.