26th March, 2002
Dr. Henry: I thank the Minister of State. What worries me is that, again, there is a reference to the Minister for Finance. It has been a complaint of mine throughout the Bill that the Minister for Finance - I have had a chance to look at two of the other Bills relating to regulators - seems to be much more in evidence in this Bill compared to the others. Frequently one would complain, because the commission is supposed to be independent, that perhaps too much notice was being taken in the Bill of what the Minister for Public Enterprise thought, but in this case the Bill states that all payments to the commission in pursuance of this section shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance may direct.
Given the levies it will charge, the commission will be self-financing. I cannot understand why the Minister for Finance has to keep appearing in every section of the Bill. As a result, I sometimes feel that the Minister for Finance will make more decisions than the commission. Why is it not possible to provide that the commission rather than the Minister for Finance would deal with the money that is paid?
Dr. Henry: I have looked at the legislation on both aviation and electricity regulation, but I did not look at that aspect. I believe the Minister if he says that is the position, but the commission might be able to think of very good things to do with its money because this is an expanding area. Throughout the Bill the hand of the Minister for Finance seems to be much stronger than in the other regulatory Bills. If the Minister of State says that is the position, however, I will not oppose the amendment.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 7:
In page 12, subsection (1)(c), line 30, to delete "a" and substitute "an efficient".
It is quite timely that we are addressing this Bill today when one considers what happened in respect of the postal services in England yesterday. Apparently Consignia was totally disbanded and great changes have to be made to the postal service. It is probably one of the most important parts of the Bill for the public. While we may manage without the various digital channels we may have provided, the postal service is still extraordinarily important.
The amendment seeks to encourage the development of the postal service. It is fine to speak of its development, in particular, the availability of a universal postal service within, to and from the State at an affordable price, but efficiency is also very important. It is no good if post arrives three weeks after it is required. This is the problem the postal service ran into in England in terms of first class and second class post and all the various innovations made over the past ten or 20 years, which led to its downfall. Efficiency is extremely important in the postal service because people will not use it if it is not efficient. They will use whatever courier service is available or any other method of sending letters and parcels unless they have what can be seen as an efficient service.
Dr. Henry: All the time in the House I am told about European directives and that they have to be provided for word for word and so forth. However, I have seen the way in which they are interpreted in other countries. I once spoke to the Minister about the sustainable energy competitions and was told by the Department that we had to hold competitions here. I was present at a meeting where this matter was discussed and told that other countries do not interpret matter in exactly the same way as we do. For example, in terms of sustainable energy, the Germans decided to give, say, DM6 for solar energy per kilowatt, DM7 for wind energy per kilowatt or whatever. However, we appear to be in a set of circumstances where we interpret European directives very narrowly.
Surely we want an efficient postal service. I cannot believe the Minister of State does not want the commission to promote an efficient postal service. All the time the buck is passed to Brussels. After all, the interpretations in various countries of EU directives are not necessarily all the same. If we say we want an efficient postal service, why can we not provide for this?
Dr. Henry: It seems extraordinary that, in section 12, subsection (1)(b), the commission is described as having the following function:
to ensure the efficient management and use of the radio frequency spectrum and numbers from the national numbering scheme in the State in accordance with a direction under section 13.
Yet when we get down to subsection (1)(c), we cannot have an efficient universal postal service. Why can the commission promote efficiency in the area of radio frequency spectrums but not in the postal service? I am sure the Minister wants an efficient postal service, but why is the term "efficient" acceptable in subsection (1)(a) but not (1)(b)? I am not happy to be fobbed off with claims that the EU directive must be followed to the letter because I have seen that increasingly it is not in other places.
Dr. Henry: This amendment helps a great deal because one of the important things about this Bill is the attempt to speed up decisions.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 10:
In page 14, lines 40 to 42, to delete subsection (5).
I proposed these amendments on the grounds that the commission is totally under the supervision of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. The competitions will be controlled by the Minister for Finance, as indicated in subsection (4)(b):
the means by which entitlements to use such spectrum may be assigned (including appropriate fees)
That appears fine until we read subsection (5), which states:
A direction under subsection (1) relating to fees referred to in subsection (4)(b) may only be given with the consent of the Minister for Finance.
The Minister for Finance has control of the competition. I thought the most important aspect of the regulations was their independence. It now appears the commission is to be reduced to a subdivision of the Department of Finance. The only area in which the commission appears to have independence is the acceptance of individual undertakings for small schemes. This section of the Bill will spancel the commission in the competitions it undertakes.
I am sure the Minister will be able to accept amendment No. 13. With the exception of the Competition Authority Bill, 2001, I examined other Bills relating to the regulators and, as I recall, the Competition Authority did not have any restrictions regarding staff. I understand the reason for restricting staff numbers, but I do not understand the thinking behind subsection (3)(a) that determines the grading, remuneration and other conditions of staff to be appointed to the office of the commission. I do not believe any of the other regulators had to accept such restrictions regarding the employment of staff. Staff requirements will vary from time to time and consultants are often employed on a short-term basis. It is ridiculous that the commission should have to refer to the Department of Finance every time it wishes to have its instructions changed. I cannot understand why this subsection is included in the legislation. Perhaps the Minister's officials can tell me whether a similar rule applied to the Competition Authority, but I do not think so.
Dr. Henry: I understand why the Minister does not accept amendment No. 10. He does not want the commission to run off with public money. The Minister stated that both the Electricity Regulation Bill, 1999, and the Aviation Regulation Act, 2001, contain this clause. However, I examined both documents and I cannot see it.
Mr. Treacy: My officials assured me that is the case.
Dr. Henry: I cannot contradict the Minister's officials that the clause appears in both. If they say it is there, I must accept it. Is the clause also in the legislation for the Competition Authority?
Mr. Treacy: The Competition Authority and Civil Service are covered by the Public Services Act, which is pending.
Dr. Henry: Obviously, I overlooked that clause in the other two Bills. People employed by the commission will not be civil servants. The work of these bodies is hampered by such rigid legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Henry: The present regulator only has numbers. There are no grading, remuneration and other conditions of service, without which the regulator seems to work very well.
Question put and agreed to.
Dr. Henry: I wish there was a sense of urgency in the section in order that those who dig up the roads for electronic infrastructure reinstate them immediately. This causes considerable problems for some, like myself, who live on the main thoroughfare. The reinstatement of roads is frequently delayed and not done to the standard one would like where hot asphalt is driven over immediately leaving potholes in the road and it takes months to get something done about the problem. As I said during the debate on the Road Traffic Bill and driving penalties, we need to do something about road surfaces, currently a very serious problem in the city.
Amendment agreed to.
Dr. Henry: This is an excellent section of the Bill which tries to encourage people to share infrastructure. Senator Walsh and myself have spoken of situations where the asphalt is barely dry before another group digs the area up again. I hope the commission promotes this part of the Bill which is in the public interest.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 1:
In page 17, lines 41 and 42, to delete "grading, remuneration and other conditions of service".
Mr. Caffrey: I second the amendment.
Dr. Henry: The Minister of State's officials have assured both him and me that the electricity and aviation regulators have exactly the same conditions in the relevant legislation. It is about time this stopped. It is frankly ridiculous that these conditions are sent out to those who are supposed to be acting as independent bodies. That is the reason I have reintroduced the amendment on Report Stage.
Dr. Henry: I congratulate the Minister of State on bringing the Bill through the House. He has been greatly helped by my amendments, although he explained very carefully the reasons they could not be accepted. The Bill is important. A great deal of work must have been put into it by the Minister of State's officials. It is a practical measure which deals with an important industrial sector. During the debate we have dealt with everything from the ether to the felling of trees, including those covered by preservation orders. I congratulate the Minister of State and his officials on introducing this comprehensive Bill.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
