Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the alleged breach of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983, by the Bank of Ireland.
Adjournment Debate. - Postal Law Alleged Breach.
I should like to thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. It should be addressed by the Minister at the earliest possible date in case other companies or organisations pursue the course taken by the Bank of Ireland.
It is regrettable that such a profitable company should increase their profits still further by violating the law of the country in which they have their roots and where they make a large share of their profits. The House should not underestimate the gravity of what has happened. I will refer to the relevant sections of the Act to illustrate what I mean. Section 63 (1) states:
The company shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have the exclusive privilege in respect of the conveyance of postal packets within, to and from the State and the offering and performance of the services of receiving, collecting despatching and delivering postal packets.
Subsection (2) (a) states:
in view of its primary purpose of providing a national postal service and of the general duty imposed on it by section 13, to provide a service at the cheapest possible rate and (b) in recognition of the fact that a privilege of this kind is appropriate having regard to the area and population of the State and the present state of development of postal technology, and (c) because a viable national postal system involves subsidisation of some loss-making services by profit-making services.
Subsection (5) states:
a postal packet originating within the State shall not be taken or sent outside the State with a view to having the packet posted from outside the State to an address within the State for the purpose of evading the exclusive privilege of the company.
Subsection (6) states:
A person who breaches the exclusive privilege granted by this section, or who attempts to breach that privilege or who aids, abets, counsels or procures such a breach, or who conspires with, solicits or incites any other person to breach that privilege, shall be guilty of an offence. In any proceeding in relation to that offence it shall lie upon the person proceeded against to prove that the act or omission in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed was done in conformity with this section.
It was necessary to quote these subsections to illustrate the effect which the actions of the Bank of Ireland are likely to have on An Post, a company who stand to lose £3.9 million in the current year. This loss should be measured against the latest returns of the Bank of Ireland. My concern arises from the actions of the bank when, for some reason best known to themselves, they chose to circulate letters to their Access customers in this country from Southend-on-Sea rather than have a Dublin postmark on them. This is unprecedented and resulted in a substantial loss to An Post. I am of the opinion that this action was in breach of section 63 on several counts. It has been suggested to me that this action is not illegal on the basis that the Act specifically refers to a postal packet and that, in this case, no postal packet was actually transmitted. Granted there was no solid matter, as such, transmitted from one State to the other. Perhaps we have no proof of that. Under the provisions of that Act the onus is on the company to prove that this did not happen. However, I would suggest that the onus is on the Bank of Ireland to prove their innocence in this case. The provisions of section 63 (6) are very clear in this respect.
In addition to the loss occasioned by the initial action there was a further cost factor involved for An Post. Having been deprived of the fee per item they were then asked to return the letter, if undelivered, to a box number in Dublin; if one is to be specific the box number in this case was Dublin 1102. That is most unusual as the normal practice, if a letter is not deliverable, is that it is returned to the office of origin. That office either returns it to the sender, if there is a name and address to which they can forward it, or disposes of the packet by way of a procedure which has been in operation for many years.
As I have said, I fear this will lead to a loss on two counts. Should any other company or companies follow the example of the Bank of Ireland I have no doubt but that the continued viability of An Post as a national postal service would be endangered. I have received information in recent days that An Post are endeavouring to make a deal with their British counterparts which would allow for such action on a reciprocal basis. I would suggest that any such arrangement would warrant amending legislation and that, there has been a very definite breach under existing legislation. There is no doubt that that action violates all existing legislation.
I call on the Minister to give the House an assurance that he will take the necessary action to ensure that the law of this country is upheld in the interests of its people.
Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan has raised a question as to whether the Bank of Ireland are in breach of section 63 (5) and (6) of the Postal and Telecommunications Act, 1983, by virtue of the fact that their Access account statements are posted from the United Kingdom.
I would point out to the Deputy that, under the Constitution, it is a matter for the courts, not for the Minister, to interpret the law.
However, we have looked into the matter. The Bank of Ireland have informed us that they are one of ten banks serviced by the Access computer located at Southend-on-Sea. That computer centre processes all Access transactions for those banks——
They are also in breach.
That computer centre also produces cards and prints and dispatches monthly statements for all the banks. Those statements are posted in accordance with regulations of the Universal Postal Union.
Section 63 (5) of the Postal and Telecommunications Act, 1983, reads:
A postal packet originating within the State shall not be taken or sent outside the State with a view to having the packet posted from outside the State to an address within the State for the purpose of evading the exclusive privilege of the company.
If the Deputy has any evidence that the law has been broken, such evidence should be forwarded to enable a prosecution to be taken.
I gave that to the Minister for Finance; the evidence has already been produced.
However we have seen no such evidence to date.
Deputy Toddy O'Sullivan realises he has made his contribution effectively. We note that he has sent information.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 15 December 1989.