Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Apr 2011

Vol. 730 No. 1

Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Bill 2010 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputy James Bannon

I believe that post offices could and should have a role to play in the future, including the provision of additional banking services. I remain committed to the future of An Post and post offices. The closure of many post offices over the past number of years has caused real anxiety among people living in the countryside. I am particularly concerned about the lack of joined-up thinking by the previous Government which led to repopulation policies without sufficient regard for essential social infrastructure. If we are to see a balance between rural development and spatial strategies, it makes sense to ensure the post office network plays a role in such initiatives.

There is legitimate concern among postal workers and those in the wider postal services that snail mail is being replaced by electronic mail. This has been current for a number of years and extended roles such as the provision of banking facilities have been proposed for An Post in an attempt to maintain the post office network. However, the State is discriminating against the post office network by encouraging people to seek payment of their pensions and other social provisions into bank accounts. Rather than encouraging this the post office network must be supported and promoted. We must bear in mind that An Post has never been a drain on the taxpayer; it has never required a State bailout or hand out. It is, therefore, important that any legislation does not put undue strain on this valuable public service.

Many suggestions have been put forward, including the development of post offices as information centres and expansion of their commercial role. It is time that such ideas became more than just words and that a concerted effort is made to revitalise the place of the network in our society. In doing so we must keep the essential issue of job retention firmly in sight. We must not overlook the ability of An Post to help itself. Over the years, An Post has shown a remarkable ability to reverse its fortunes. Having made accumulated losses of €67 million between 2001 and 2003 and €43 million in 2003, it had to sell its assets to pay its wage bill. However by 2004, An Post made a profit of more than €11.6 million, increasing again in 2006 to €14.6 million. Such mixed fortunes have driven initiatives which were undertaken in expectation of the changes ahead in 2011 and the concerns generated. Those changes are no longer in the future but are very much the present face of the postal services, with the opening of the market to competition becoming a reality.

The Communication Workers Union, CWU, is concerned that problems will arise that will be difficult to resolve in regard to the construction of a system involving private and public operators while also retaining the current funding method for the services provided by An Post. The postal market is centred around a legal obligation to provide a guaranteed equal access postal service to all citizens. This holds true no matter how accessible their homes are or how frequent their mail service is.

I accept that in some ways any concerns about issues relating to mail may not be unduly pressing. The deregulation of the 50g letter service will not encompass the introduction of competition and, therefore, this Bill should not have an immediate impact on the number of post offices, which is an ever present fear. It is even possible that competition in the future could result in greater efficiency, perhaps even a reduction in the price of a stamp, which is one of the purposes of the Bill. This would be good for the economy and job creation, but it might preclude the subsidisation of uneconomic post offices which are being subsidised by the current postage rate.

However, over the past decade we have seen a significant drop in the number of letters being sent. There is a marked difference in the amount of post coming in the door compared to ten or 12 years ago, with the exception of politicians who receive a large amount of mail because people still use the traditional system to communicate with politicians. The reduction in the volume of post is undoubtedly due to the acceptance of e-mail, of which we also receive many.

Despite the decrease in letter post An Post is seeing a marked growth in parcel mail. It is in this area that I see major growth for An Post. The whole area of online shopping, which is becoming more and more the retail option of choice, will provide added growth incentives for An Post in terms of parcel delivery. If An Post is to expand and prosper it must channel its resources to the opportunities provided by the growth in parcel post. To secure its position in this market, it must be able to provide a service of a level that will give it top position over other current and potential future providers. There is already substantial competition in the market. Nonetheless, An Post is ideally placed to take on the challenge.

With further regard to parcel post, I note that a new section was inserted, section 49, which will enable the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to issue directions on to the interception of postal packets carried by postal service providers to all postal service providers. This power had previously been confined to packets carried by An Post. The Minister might elaborate on the section.

The issue of privatisation in the future is a real concern with this Bill. We must look to and learn from the situation in England, where privatisation of the Royal Mail has led to services in rural areas being downgraded. We must protect against the option for private companies to cherry pick profitable routes, leaving remote areas out on a limb. The Royal Mail was handicapped by the British Government allowing private companies to obtain what is known as downstream access at a vastly reduced cost.

Irish postal employees will not gain much comfort from the case of their German counterparts, who found their numbers cut to compete with new entrants into the sector and which operated a lower pay structure for the workforce. This is an ever present cause for reasonable worry. In the Netherlands the liberalisation of the postal services resulted in a number of cowboy operators hiring cheap labour to deliver mail, some of which ended up being dumped. I would like the Minister to make a clear statement on this to ensure that such practices do not occur in Ireland.

However, given that the Irish market is small and 40% of the population is rural based and widely dispersed by European standards, the likelihood of a rush by companies anxious to enter the Irish postal market is remote. Taking into consideration the Irish and global economic downturn it can safely be assumed that it will be at least 2012 before any incursion is likely and even then it will be on a limited scale.

On postcodes, which are one of the major components of this Bill, the reality is that they have been under discussion for a long time but have never materialised. This is particularly relevant to all parts of the country in regard to parcel post. Rapid and efficient delivery of parcel post with the minimum number of problems for the delivery service is essential for viability and has to be encouraged. Driving around in the hope of arriving at the right address is futile for everyone. Whether the global positioning system, GPS, is utilised for the new postcodes, care must be taken that whatever choice is made the chosen option will stand the test of time.

I am only too aware that there will be diverse opinions and schools of thought brought to bear on any choice. Now is the time for long-term planning encompassing rapidly changing technological advances, which we want to make sure is ongoing. A balance must be reached on what will suit An Post and the best international practice. Common sense must be brought to bear on this decision and forward planning to encompass future infrastructural changes is paramount.

Given that topography may change but latitude and longitude are constant, GPS may be the best option. The system is also fool-proof. It is of great benefit to the emergency services and is value-free, which is not the case with the current postal service. While I am aware of a certain snob value pertaining to postal addresses, particularly in Dublin, it is time we moved on to more practical considerations. The introduction of a system which is completely free of values would provide greater equity. It would break away from the current situation which makes one area more desirable than another. For this purpose using a GPS based on latitude and longitude would be most effective.

There is a considerable market in downstream services, that is, providers who are licensed to provide postal services in the processing, printing and packing of letters which they then pay An Post to deliver. Every effort must be made to retain these jobs for this country. I am aware, and other speakers have raised the practice, of An Post charging less to overseas providers of the service than it does to native providers. The outcome of this is that batches of letters which originate in Ireland are bulk dispatched overseas to be processed, printed, packed and sent back to be delivered by An Post. This comes about because An Post is offering a cheaper rate to the Royal Mail or the French or Swiss postal services than it offers to Irish providers.

It strikes me as incomprehensible that a semi-State company is allowed to do that. The result of such action is the loss of jobs here. It is also a risk to the environment and is environmentally unsustainable. Given that An Post loses money on these transactions, it is difficult to see the driving motivation and why such a policy is deemed worthwhile. I am totally at a loss to understand why such a measure, which is anti-employment and anti-competitive, is allowed to continue. It makes a mockery of the Bill which is endeavouring to provide for competitiveness in the market. Such a segmentation of the market must be investigated. I hope the Minister will take this on board and do what he can in this regard.

We can be confident that An Post is well able to compete in an open market as it has the network, expertise and experience which no one else has and a long-standing monopoly which should ensure it will be able to outperform any newcomers to the market. There is a real fear of cherry-picking in urban areas such as Athlone in my constituency of Longford-Westmeath, but perhaps this is largely unfounded. We do not want a situation where An Post will lose out in densely populated districts to newcomers to the market and be forced into more remote and sparsely populated areas. However, I believe this fear is groundless, given the monopoly of An Post to date and experience of the market. As a commercial State company offering a universal service, it has met all of its costs from its own resources based on the sale of the 55 cent stamp. I do not see why this should change.

I welcome the Bill and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am confident that the Minister will iron out any contentious issues in the interests of efficiency for postal users and in order to protect An Post and its workers.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is Deputy Kitt sharing time with Deputy Troy?

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Yes, I am.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill and also welcome the Minister of State. The Bill provides certainty for An Post and the users of its services and meets our obligations to the European Union, as it transposes a directive which provides for the final phases of the liberation of the postal service market.

There has been much uncertainty about the collection and delivery of mail. I remember attending a huge public meeting in Galway 20 years ago at which the issue discussed was the placement of letter boxes outside houses. Many welcomed this because they were happy with the service, but then the position changed such that letter boxes were to be placed at the top of the road. Some people were even told to go to the post office to collect their post. We have moved a long way from that position, which is a good development. A constituent once told me that he liked to see his postman putting a letter in his letter box and that he would not like to go to the top of the road because he felt there might be interference with some letters. We have come a long way on this issue and now have competition in the postal service market, which is very welcome.

There is a worry that undercutting by other organisations will affect An Post in cherry-picking customers. Price increases would also be of major concern. However, it is very welcome that An Post has now been designated. We have to admire the possibility that mail might be delivered to our homes every working day. The person who brings the post in rural areas often provides stamps for those who find it hard to get to the post office. The postman is the first contact for many elderly people.

I welcome the designation of ComReg as the national regulatory authority. There will be powers for it in respect of the exact services to be provided, the gathering of information and the making of directions.

The idea of a universal postal service is very welcome. There is, however, an issue about the price cap to be imposed. I understand it is for a period of five years. That is also very important because Irish postal service users should not be exposed to significant increases in prices, as happened in other countries following the so-called liberalisation of the postal service market.

The Minister might address the financial burden on An Post. There is a reference in the programme for Government to Exchequer funding. These matters might be discussed later in the debate. It is important that there is designation because it provides certainty.

When agencies were set up in the past, Members often had problems in trying to raise issues in the House. We only have to think about the National Roads Authority and so on. There was a worry that decisions might be taken that we would not be able to question in the House. The committee system is a great help in that regard, but the Minister stated any decision made by ComReg to designate or not to designate a service would be subject to ministerial approval. That is very welcome. There was a similar issue in respect of downstream access when we debated telecommunications issues, especially the telephone system. The question of competitors having access to the network used by An Post came up during the debates on Telecom Éireann and Eircom. The question of negotiating terms and conditions is very important, as is having a role for the regulator where parties cannot agree on the outcome. ComReg will resolve disputes that cannot be resolved elsewhere.

I note there is no change to the free postage system for electoral candidates, which is certainly welcome.

Deputy Bannon raised an interesting issue on postcodes which can be introduced under the Bill. I read an article in The Irish Times in January in which it was stated we were going to have such codes. We were told it would lead to significant savings and efficiencies, on the one hand, but that it would cost €15 million, on the other. We have to look at striking a balance in that regard. Obviously, there are already postcodes in Dublin, but many other cities and towns would be interested in the proposal. As the Bill does not provide much detail on the system to be introduced, perhaps the Minister might address the issue.

There are other points to be made about the rural post office network which is not affected by the Bill and the banking and savings services supplied by An Post. The strong presence of An Post across the country will continue, which I welcome. It is also welcome that An Post has been designated, as is the fact that the question of Exchequer funding is being examined and that any decisions taken by ComReg on service providers will be subject to ministerial approval.

I hope the certainty provided for in the Bill will be welcomed by the general public who have great regard for what is happening with the postal service. We should not make too many changes when something is working very well.

Deputy Robert Troy

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As a rural postmaster I have a particular interest in the legislation and I fully realise the importance of the Bill in terms of the future viability of An Post as we know it and the future provision of mail delivery to every house and business on every working day throughout the year.

The Irish Postmasters' Union, IPU, will be delighted to hear of the fulsome support that Deputy Bannon gave the rural post office in his speech earlier. I shall relay his support to the next meeting of the IPU for Longford-Westmeath.

I understand that this and previous Governments had no choice but to implement this EU directive, and it is very worrying. It is important that the views of the Members of this House and the affected parties are fully considered before any law is enacted, because if something is not broken there is no need to fix it. The current level of service provided by the postmen and postwomen of An Post is second to none. These people have striven in recent years to achieve the target of 90% next-day delivery and they have done so by embracing change. They have often worked in some of the hardest and most severe weather conditions to ensure they maintain their high service level to all customers, both rural and urban.

It is often said that the only way to encourage people in semi-State bodies to embrace change and new practices is to open the market to competition. However, the staff of An Post have proven themselves willing and able to embrace change long before this Bill was initiated. The current market for parcels of more than 50g is open to competition. When one looks at the manner in which people deliver the telephone directories on an annual basis one wonders about the wisdom of moving this service from An Post to an alternative provider.

During the course of the recent general election campaign I saw telephone directories where they should not be. This simply happened because when no one was at home the directory was left at the front door or somewhere else, exposed to the elements and left to blow around in the wind. Not only did this present a litter problem, it also identified houses in which nobody was at home, giving rise to a security risk. It was a great worry for people, particularly in rural Ireland, to have potential burglars being made aware when houses were empty. This would never have been allowed to happen if An Post had retained the contract. The postman or postwoman would continue to bring the directory until he or she managed to gain access, or a note would have been left advising the recipient that the directory could be collected at the local post office. If this were allowed to happen in the letter post sector it would have dire consequences for rural Ireland in particular.

The local post person, while providing a quality service, also plays a major role in the social make-up of country living. Often he or she is the only person that elderly people living on their own meet from one end of the day to the next. An elderly person in my locality puts on an outside light if she wishes the postman to call. There is no alternative to An Post, with its network of offices the length and breadth of the country. Where would a person go to collect undeliverable mail, that is, post that requires a signature or is too bulky to go through a letter box? I can foresee a situation where people, on coming home from work, might have to travel miles to collect their undelivered letters. At present they can go to the local post office, which will often facilitate them after working hours. In 90% of post offices the local postmasters or postmistresses live on the premises and are very much community driven.

This Bill, opening the service to competition, is designed to make postal services cheaper, faster and more efficient. However, when one looks at where competition entered the market, one sees it did not always have the desired effects. Take Eircom, for instance, and the fact that there are large areas of rural Ireland with no broadband, as it cherry-picked the best areas in which to provide it, leaving others without it. Without deviating from the topic, I implore the Minister, especially under the NewERA document, to ensure that all parts of the country have accessible broadband. It is a critical piece of infrastructure and I call on the Minister of State with responsibility for the NewERA document, Deputy O'Dowd, to give that commitment to the House. In my village, where his Government colleague, Deputy Penrose also lives, we do not have access to effective broadband and that is not acceptable in this day and age.

I read the speech of the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, where he said that safeguarding the universal postal service was one of the explicit requirements of the directive and was central to this Bill. The universal postal service, he said, would ensure the collection and delivery of mail to every address in the State on every working day, and it was important that this minimum but significant level of service was enshrined in primary legislation. I acknowledge the Minister's statement in that regard but I am worried that the Bill also charges ComReg with the objective of enabling the development of competition and innovation in the postal service. I wonder what if any input Members of this House or the Minister of the day will have in any future decisions of ComReg. While I accept the need for a certain level of independence and regulation, I am worried that the Minister of the day and the Members of the Oireachtas will not be able to propose amendments that are obviously in the common interest. My fear is that in future years Deputies when submitting questions about the provision of postal services will receive a similar reply to the answer I got to a parliamentary question from the Minister as regards broadband to the effect that the provision of telecommunications services, including broadband, was a matter in the first instance for private sector service providers, operating in a liberalised market regulated by ComReg. That means the Minister and his office, in effect, are totally absolved of responsibility.

It will be too late after this and Deputies will be asking in the House in future why we did what we will have done to An Post. The Commission for Energy Regulation, CER, did nothing when the ESB introduced a minimum payment for those who pay their bills through instalments in the post office. Only last week we learned that customers wishing to avail of the new ESB price reductions will have to pay a higher minium payment or else pay by direct debit, and receive the bi-monthly bill electronically. This is a simple but clear indication as to why we should not allow any commission have full and ultimate control to dictate terms and conditions in the future.

I am told that the Royal Mail has moved from being a profit-making business into a loss making enterprise since the mail industry in the UK was opened to competition. Now the British Treasury is subsidising the Royal Mail to maintain the universal postal service in rural areas, because competitors have cherry-picked the most profitable areas. I do not wish to see a situation such as this happening in Ireland. Neither do I want to see people in rural Ireland only receiving their post a couple of days a week.

Already the Government has rowed back on a commitment in the programme for Government to protect the universal postal service obligation by assigning it to An Post for at lest 20 years. Now it has been reduced to seven years and ComReg has the power to nominate alternative providers during this period also. I have grave concerns that ComReg may dilute this commitment further without any say from the Minister. Are we to have multiple operators in some areas, just like we saw when the refuse collection services were privatised in so many parts of the country, with five or six operators providing the same service each week? It does not make sense.

I am also worried that there will be a need for Exchequer funding to ensure the provision of the universal postal service provider. At present cross-compensation being used by An Post is self-financing. In the current stringent economic climate is it wise to allow a situation to develop whereby public funds will have to be invested just to ensure continuation of a very basic service? Currently, it does not matter whether a letter is being posted from Leinster House to the GPO or from Leinster House to Malin or Mizen Head, the cost is the same. With the entry of new providers, I am concerned that all the non-profit making routes will need to be subsidised by the State.

I accept that An Post faces many challenges over the coming months, with more people turning to electronic statements, etc., but I am confident personnel in An Post will adapt to these challenges. I encourage the Government to continue to support An Post

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I welcome the introduction of this Bill which has been mooted for a considerable time. When I sat on the Opposition side of the House, I raised on the Order of Business on many occasions the urgent need for this Bill to be brought to the House because of the need to comply with the EU directive.

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by other speakers. I do not intend to vote against the Bill, but there are certain inadequacies and flaws in the system that have emerged over the past ten or 15 years. For some unknown reason the regulatory system upon which we depend for the daily delivery of services has failed again and again. It failed us with the banking system and in a series of areas. The public and the people we represent are suffering as a result. Mention was already made of the lack of broadband, yet this was regarded as a necessary area for investment up to 15 years ago. However, it was not done and did not happen because whoever was responsible did not do it. When a start was made on doing it, it was not done in the right way and we are years behind most of our European competitors and have put ourselves in a very awkward position from the point of view of competition.

What gave rise to this Bill? It comes from the need to stimulate competition in order to provide a better service to the public. However, I am not sure that is happening and am unsure the mission statement has been recognised fully by those charged with the responsibility of ensuring competition is utilised in such a way as to provide a better quality and standard of reliability and service to the public. One good thing about the Bill is that it acknowledges the need for the provision of a universal service to the public, albeit for just seven years. However, it is always necessary to review what is happening and whether the system is working properly and as intended. The seven-year provision is good in that regard, provided the mission statement and objective are not lost.

The objective is set out in the Bill and the explanatory memorandum. It is to provide a reliable service, next day delivery, throughout and to all areas in the country. It is not just to provide delivery to a few select areas where the population is more dense, but throughout the country. I agree with previous speakers who suggested that cherry-picking should not be allowed. Any service provider, now or in the future, who is fortunate enough to have a lucrative area in which to operate must not be able to use that area to compete in a predatory fashion because as a result customers would lose out.

As time moves on, postal services must consider providing alternative services, such as a banking service as offered currently. Mention was made of the need to ensure that the post office is retained in all its form, not just in token form, in all areas. We have all spent time over past years in this House talking about the optimum level of services. The optimum level is that the postal service should remain, grow and expand. Wherever there is room for growth, the opportunity should be taken and encouraged and we should see the evidence of that.

Reference was made by previous speakers to the Eircom situation. The question about competition must be raised and answered. Competition is good when it is used to achieve a useful or progressive objective. However, if it is used just to achieve a monopoly, it defeats its purpose. We must remember that competition is introduced to remove monopolies. We must recognise that the most important element of the issue is the delivery of service to consumers and it is good that is in the Bill.

Mention was made of postcodes. We do not need a postcode system because we have a national grid with GPS already in place. This is already available and is available to An Post. This system is more accurate than people realise. I happened, for sins not mine but of others, to be in court in the past couple of days, where I heard somebody quote a location in evidence as being the address of a person or persons. The person was wrong, because the GPS system says something else. I knew that because I am a regular traveller in that part of the country. This proves beyond doubt that technology has advanced, although we have not necessarily embraced it as we should. The technology and GPS grid exist and are available and would cost little in comparison to the kind of costs we have heard mention of for a postcode system.

A postcode system could cost up to €50 million or €60 million to implement. I am aware the Bill provides for that but I would like to see a greater evaluation of the benefit of a postcode, which would provide a great opportunity for people to be targeted by mail order companies and junk mail artists of every description. I understand postcodes have benefits but being able to identify a location is not one of them because we already have that ability.

I hesitate to say how long I have been a Member of the House, but both the Chair and I know how long it has been. There are many young fellows here, including those sitting in the front benches who were not here when we arrived. I would like to point out that in that time accountability is the one issue that has achieved least attention from Government. God only knows where that has led us. How many times have we stood up in the House and said Ministers would be accountable to the House? I hope we are all sincere about that now. Accountability is hugely important. With every piece of legislation that goes through the House, we must recognise the need for Ministers to come to House and accept full responsibility and accountability.

Ministers must be able to call on the Departments to which responsibility has been devolved, under whatever legislation, and be able to ask officials whether the process is happening as intended. Ministers must be able to ask whether they can go before the House as Minister and tell the public that what was intended is being done and that the process is operating according to the rules. Looking at some of the legislation that came through this House over the past 15 or 20 years, this part of the jigsaw was missing.

I accept the affirmation given by the Taoiseach that he will create a situation where the Government becomes accountable to the House and the House to the people. In that situation we can all coexist as opposed to living in suspicion and doubt as we have done over the past ten or 15 years. I say this without reference to political colouring, good, bad or indifferent. It is bad for democracy that we have a situation where we have, as in the past, devolved responsibility to people who had no electoral responsibility, never stood for election, never will and would never have been elected.

They take upon themselves powers they presume to have and abuse them. They have done so and will continue to do so unless and until this House recognises the job it has to do. It must wrest back from those unaccountable bodies and agencies the power they have taken unto themselves and explain to them, simply and calmly, that they cannot do those things in a democracy and get away with it.

I wish to raise a matter which I have not had an opportunity to raise for a long time although I am not sure if this is the appropriate legislation under which to do so. I brought to the attention of the communications authorities, regulatory and otherwise, and this is a criticism of the regulatory system, a flaw in the burglar alarm installation system throughout the country. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may be concerned that this matter has no relation to this legislation, which it has not but it comes under its heading. I sought at the time to make the public aware of the fact that certain intruder alarm installations throughout the country were unsoundly based, that they could not do the job they were intended to do and that all the information on them of which the public should have been made aware was not being made available to them.

I use that analogy to again draw to the attention of all and sundry the necessity to recognise that whatever else happens there must be clarity, transparency and accountability. Those charged with regulatory functions must recognise at all times that they are accountable to somebody and not necessarily to a glossy production published every year or every two years that probably costs a fortune and is sent to all of us through the post by way of an explanation for what has been happening in the preceding 12 months. I need not emphasise the problems and difficulties in which this country has found itself, which have occurred simply because the Government devolved responsibility, in the first instance, to subordinate bodies, groups and agencies which do not wish to be accountable to anybody. It is not sufficient to say that they produce an account to the Comptroller and Auditor General or somebody else. They did not observe their mission statement, their raison d’être in the first instance and we are where we are now as a result of that. I want to emphasise particularly the necessity of ensuring there is 100% accountability. That does not mean to say that we should strangle commercial activity by over-regulation and over-accountability. We tend to opt for extremes in that where once there was no regulation, we suddenly have a multitude of such bodies, and one is as bad as the other. We want to be careful not to go down that road. The Bill proposes to regulate the postal services and we know that is necessary. It is also supposed to identify weaknesses that might arise and to put in place a response to be able to ensure that the public interest is protected at all times.

The number of providers may and probably will vary. An Post is without doubt the most available and best equipped organisation in the country to provide the service. I wish to mention a matter I have raised many times in the past. An Post, in its current shape and form, is without a shadow of doubt the most equipped body or agency to carry out a review of the voters register. I cannot understand why that has not been done. The postal delivery service goes into virtually every house in the country and is enabled to do so every day. I cannot understand why it has not been utilised. Various people would say people's PRSI numbers should be used in this respect but that information does not indicate the address of the person concerned, while the postal service has the ability to deliver in this respect. I cannot understand why this has not been done already. Whether it will be done under the aegis of this legislation I am not certain, although there is provision where extra services can be provided.

Any organisation providing a service to the public must ensure its service is run in a proper fashion, that there is nobody running a duplicate system, that nobody is encouraging the transfer of funds from the system into a foreign bank or investing in bogus accounts or other such investments. The question of the integrity of the system depends entirely on the degree to which there is regulation, accountability and offences in the event of something untoward happening.

It gives none of us any great pleasure to say that some of the developments that have occurred in this country during the past ten or 15 years were not ones for which one would be awarded a Nobel prize or the Pulitzer prize. Many things happened under the cover of various regulatory systems that were appalling and that led this country into a ferociously vulnerable situation. The regulatory and supervisory system in so far as it affects the postal services, as they are now and as they are likely to be provided — or as aspects of the service will need to be replaced in the future — is hugely important.

Some of us who have been Members for a few years, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will understand this better than most, sometimes have a gut feeling that proposals will go right and sometimes we have the opposite feeling. I remember speaking in this House on a debate on a proposed change to the structure of the TSB Bank when it was planned to be privatised, floated or sold off. I spoke against that proposal because I had an instinct it was wrong. The TSB Bank at the time gave a great personal small banking service to many households throughout the country. When did that service go? We all know when it went. That is the sad part about progress.

Deputy Joe Higgins

This Bill enshrines the final steps towards full liberalisation of the postal services in Ireland. In doing that it represents the implementation of the baleful policy of the European Union which for decades now has been pushing the privatisation of all public services and enterprises within the European Union and for the handover, essentially, to European big business of key public services in the interests of private profit. That enshrines the fundamental basis of the European Union, which was to set out to create, which it has done, a massive market for European big business with as little regulation and control as it can get away with, in the interests of the maximisation of profit.

We should not mind the lofty talk one often hears in the corridors of the European Parliament, to which I was subjected on a weekly basis as a Member of the Parliament, about the primary purpose of the European Union being to create a paragon of democracy, a haven of peace and humanity and all that was good, flowing with the milk of human kindness. Unfortunately, as a member of the Committee on International Trade of the European Parliament, I saw a different reality where the priorities of the European Union, worldwide, in terms of the trade agreements that have and are being pushed with many countries and trading blocs around the world, notably in the poorer continents, are designed to allow open access to raw materials and markets by European-based multinationals which often do enormous damage to the environment and to the economies particularly of poorer countries. They damage small, local producers and in many cases treat workers disgracefully.

In many existing trade agreements and those currently being negotiated, the EU Commission puts a huge emphasis on opening up the public services of the countries with which it wants to make an agreement to European big business. It is insisting on the privatisation of public services so that European companies can muscle in and take over the profitable sectors of those services in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is pushing in the same direction now with a proposed agreement with Canada. The policy of liberalisation and privatisation has done enormous damage at various times in many poorer areas. We saw that most dramatically in Bolivia in the early 2000s when European multinational water companies took over and began to charge for water, which put it out of the reach of poor people. Happily, there was a huge reaction — a revolution — against that and Bolivia took back control of the service.

That is no different to what is being proposed in the postal services directive for Europe. The library service of the European Parliament provided a briefing on the liberalisation of postal services which revealed some astonishing facts on the economic importance of this aspect of economic and social life within the European Union. It indicated that the postal sector in the European Union was estimated to be worth approximately €94 billion in 2007, equivalent to 0.7% of the gross domestic product of the Union. Of that €94 billion, the letter post market — its largest segment in terms of volume and revenue — amounts to €51.6 billion. Those are astonishing figures in terms of the scope and extent of postal services. It is little wonder that big business wanted to get its hands on significant sectors, in particular the profitable sectors, bearing in mind its importance to economic and social life and the large amounts of money involved.

The European Commission was the agent for European big business to deliver what it wanted, which is normal as far as big business interests are concerned. Therefore, from 1997 began the push within the European Union for the privatisation of postal services. That has been relentlessly implemented in many member states by right wing governments, whether the Christian Democrats of the family of the European Peoples Party, as it is known in the European Parliament, or the Social Democrat and Labour parties which have largely a similar right wing policy of pushing and facilitating liberalisation and privatisation.

The question to consider is the effect of the liberalisation of the postal services within the European Union in so far as we have experience of it to date. Let us see what the directive itself claimed in 2008. It stated:

Complete market-opening will help to expand the overall size of the postal markets. It will further contribute to maintaining sustainable and quality employment within universal service providers as well as facilitate the creation of new jobs in other operators, new entrants and associated economic sectors.

Unfortunately, all that has proven to be a monstrous lie when compared to the actual experience of liberalisation and privatisation within the postal services. Far from increasing the number of jobs, there is an ongoing slaughter of jobs within postal services in the European Union. The European Parliament Library briefing indicated that in Sweden between 1993 and 2005, a total of 16,000 jobs were eliminated by Sweden Post and only 2,000 created by private operators in that country over the same period. In Austria from 1995 to 2005 there was a reduction of 25% in the number of workers in the postal service. In Germany the reduction was 15%.

I accept that there has been a change in the means of communication in the past two decades. It is natural that it would have a certain effect on the postal services but that was well known by 2008 when the directive was promulgated. Therefore, what the European Commission was doing in 2008 was making false promises and opening up a reducing situation in the postal services to cut-throat competition, knowing well that the effect of that would be a further massacre of jobs but also a vicious race to the bottom in terms of wages for workers and in working conditions within the European postal services. Unfortunately, that has come to pass. Many of the private companies that have muscled in on the postal services are paying disgraceful wages far below the decency threshold and dramatically below the State-owned postal services companies where they still operate. Full-time jobs are being replaced wholesale by casual labour, with no contracts for workers, no social protection and a severe reduction in the quality of the working life of the workers concerned. In the Netherlands, for example, 11,000 postal service workers who were in full-time employment with the benefits of wages and social protection are now being pushed from their permanent jobs into a situation of casualisation with horrific working conditions, going from a full-time job with a wage to a payment per item delivered. That has had a drastic impact on the income and working conditions of those workers so that, for example, shockingly, in the Netherlands — where anyone who has visited knows it is not a cheap place to live — of those workers who are in the postal service on casual contracts, 63% are now on €7 per hour or less. If one takes into account their slack days and the fact they are paid per item delivered, one will note they are on the equivalent of €3 or €4 per hour. That is the reality of postal service liberalisation within the European Union.

In Germany workers for the private company TNT Post earn 50% to 60% less than the German post office workers, such that many are dependent on social welfare. The experience of the European Union, therefore, is horrific, yet the Government created by Fine Gael and the Labour Party is taking from Fianna Fáil this reactionary right-wing legislation unchanged and pushing it through in the same way as its predecessor.

In the past day or so, I was interested to hear some Labour Party Deputies whinge about some right-wing aspects of this legislation. They were expressing fears about what it could mean for the provision of universal postal services and workers. I will take those Deputies seriously if they are prepared to vote against this legislation and for amendments that would prevent the opening up to privatisation and liberalisation of our public services — in this case, the postal services — thereby defending the wages and living conditions of post office workers.

In Ireland, this Bill will have very serious repercussions. Private business interests will corral lucrative sections of the postal service, leaving An Post with the non-profitable sectors. This is clear.

The universal service guarantee is a public relations sop, and the European Commission knows this full well. In practice, An Post will be required to have a universal service, but without services provided. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, if I understood his speech correctly, stated An Post would have to find the cost of providing a universal service from commercial revenues. This immediately puts the publicly owned entity at a disadvantage to privately owned profit-seeking operators who will have no such obligation. There is a real threat to postal services, including small post offices, on foot of this approach. In rural areas in particular, small post offices play a crucial public service role. They comprise a point of social interaction for elderly people, pensioners and others. The postman and postwoman cast a watchful eye on the elderly and vulnerable people in isolated areas. The brutal logic of the private profit system, as being imposed in the postal services, will not allow for these human considerations to be taken into account.

The alternative to the private profit-based system is to have the postal service continue in full public ownership, funded properly and with postal workers, clients and customers involved in its running and management. This would result in the provision of an excellent, affordable service with a social role, which we all want to see.

Is é atá i gceist sa Bhille um Rialáil Cumarsáide (Seirbhísí Poist) 2010 ná próiseas na seirbhísí poist a oscailt go dtí comhlachtaí príobháideacha a chur i gcrích. Cuireann sé i bhfeidhm fealsúnacht maorlathais an Aontas Eorpaigh maidir le príobháidiú seirbhísí poiblí, ar mhaithe le brabús an lucht mór ghnó. Ag cur san áireamh go bhfuil luach na seirbhísí poist san Aontas Eorpach thart ar €94 billiún in aghaidh na bliana — tá luach €51.6 billiún ar an roinn litreach amháin — tá sé soiléir go bhfuil airgead ollmhór i gceist. Tá na comhlachtaí móra ag lorg an bhrabús ón airgead sin. Ar ndóigh, tá an Coimisiún Eorpach ag obair i bhfábhar na comhlachtaí móra chun an chuid atá brabúsach — lena mbaineann an proifid — a thógáil amach as an tseirbhís phoist agus an chuid eile a fhágáil faoi úinéireacht phoiblí.

Níl aon dabht ach go mbeidh brú ollmhór ar an tseirbhís, go mórmhór faoin dtuath, agus ar choinníollacha oibre agus pá na n-oibrithe san earnáil seo. Tá 1.4 milliún duine ag obair sna seirbhísí poist san Aontas Eorpach. Is figiúr ollmhór é sin. I láthair na huaire, tá laghdú scanallach á dhéanamh ar phá an lucht oibre sin in an-chuid tíortha, de bharr an léirscaoileadh atá i gceist in oscailt an mhargaidh go dtí comhlachtaí móra príobháideacha. Má tá na gcomhlachtaí sin chun an brabús atá á lorg acu a dhéanamh, caithfidh siad brú síos ar phá agus coinníollacha na n-oibrithe. Tá sé sin ag tarlú san Ísiltír agus i dtíortha eile. Tá sé scannalach go bhfuil Fine Gael agus Páirtí an Lucht Oibre ag cur reachtaíochta chun cinn chun an rud ceanann céanna a dhéanamh sa tír bheag seo.

Caithfear gnóthú ar an mBille seo. Caithfear cur ina aghaidh go tréan. Caithfimid ár seirbhís poist a choimeád in úinéireacht phoiblí, ach faoi stiúradh poiblí agus daonlathach, chun seirbhís níos fearr a sholáthar faoin tuath agus sna cathracha. Caithfimid pá agus coinníollacha réasúnta a thabhairt don lucht oibre san earnáil mhaith seo do mhuintir na tíre.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell

I wish to share my time with Deputy Nicky McFadden.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell

I welcome this legislation. Along with giving a role to ComReg, its two main objectives are the liberalisation of the letter market and the introduction of postcodes. I understand that change always causes concern. People either suspect the legislation is somehow aimed at undermining the role of the incumbent operator, or they fear the legislation will have unintended consequences.

The opening up of the only remaining regulated market, which is associated with the 50g letter, is causing concern on two fronts. An Post employees are concerned that their jobs are at risk and rural users of the postal service are concerned they will lose their daily service. Employees worry that cherry-picking could occur, particularly in the urban markets and other densely populated areas, and that An Post would thus lose the profitable routes. I do not believe this will be the case because An Post has huge advantages in the market. It is the incumbent and is well placed to withstand even sustained attempts to undermine it through underselling. It has a network in place, expertise and experience, and it also has the ability to see off all newcomers to the market. There will, however, be a continuing loss of business in the letter market. I will return to this point.

A related fear felt by those living in more remote areas and expressed by many Deputies is that, by virtue of a more competitive environment, they will lose a daily service. I do not think this will happen. The legislation provides for An Post as the designated universal service provider for the next seven years, during which there seems to be very little to worry about. Concern is being expressed about what will happen after this, but to be honest in legislative terms and with regard to communications seven years is like a millennium. Given the rate of change in the communications sector, we cannot possibly anticipate what will be the problems in seven or eight years time and we certainly could not anticipate how we might deal with them at that stage. If there were threats to the daily service and the network, they should be addressed at that time, but it should be left to the Government of the day which would know what it was dealing with.

The major concern being expressed is with regard to the possible loss of rural post offices. This is not a new trend and efforts have been made to provide new more profitable ancillary roles for post offices such as providing banking services. Unfortunately, these efforts failed with the collapse of the banking system.

It is a major challenge for An Post to reinvent itself and find new roles. I can greatly sympathise with the concern people have, given the social role post offices fill in rural areas. However, I must question whether a vital business service which is fundamental to our competitiveness should fund the social service. I am not saying that social service should not be funded — it should — but I wonder whether the business community should be asked to fund it. It is a tribute to An Post that it has managed to remain profitable while providing both a social and business service on the basis of a 55 cent stamp.

The purpose of this market liberalising Bill is to increase efficiency and reduce the costs of competition. If it is successful in doing this, it is possible that the cost of a stamp will fall to a point where it cannot support uneconomic post offices. This is a genuine concern and one which cannot be ignored. It is right to raise it and point out that it is something we may have to tackle in the coming years.

A more immediate eventuality is the huge drop in the volume of letters which everybody has mentioned. The most significant change that has taken place in social and business communications is the switch to electronic communications, whether it be Twitter, Facebook, blogging, e-mailing or e-billing. When I was first elected to the Dáil and first became a public representative, almost all of my contact with the public was through letters. Now, it is almost entirely through e-mail. The only post items we now receive are the annual reports of State bodies, although thankfully some of them are changing to sending us their annual reports on disk, and letters from voluntary bodies sending us expensively produced material in lobbying us for more State funds. I wish they would understand this is not likely to endear them to us.

There is no doubt that the volume of letters is falling and that even traditional users of the service for large-scale deliveries are switching to e-billing. This will be a huge and growing loss to An Post. Recently, when watching UTV, I saw an item on encouraging people to return their census forms with pictures of people putting them into post boxes. I wondered why we did not use the postal system to at least send out the census forms, whatever about collecting them. There is an onus on the State to support An Post; if we are asking it to step up to the mark in terms of modernising, we should give it a little help, where possible, by using the postal service. During the week I was heartened to receive a card from An Post inviting me to avail of its new commission free service in purchasing dollars and sterling; obviously, therefore, it is entering the foreign exchange market which is welcome.

As one door closes for An Post another is opening to a bright new world and an area of huge growth — parcel delivery. The Internet killed off letter post, but it has facilitated a new growth market for on-line shopping which definitely seems to be the way of the future. It is extensively used, particularly by young people. At Christmas time I was struck by how the young people in my family did not go near a shop but did all of their Christmas present shopping on-line. I find it a rather joyless activity myself but clearly it is the new big thing and the way of the future. It is a huge challenge for An Post to rise to this and become a dominant player in the market because I realise it is one in which there is already competition and giants such as DHL. However, it is a natural growth market for An Post which has certain advantages because it is already delivering nationwide.

I am concerned about an existing practice of An Post when dealing with the wider postal market and downstream postal service providers which are licensed to provide postal services such as processing, sorting, printing and packaging material and which buy the services of An Post to deliver the material. This market involves many jobs and there could be many more were it not for the practice of An Post to offer cheaper rates to foreign providers of delivery services than it does to those operating at home. The result of this is that large-scale regular users of postal services have to send all of their material to England, Switzerland or France to have it processed, sorted, printed, packaged and posted. This creates jobs in France, Switzerland and England and supports their postal services, but it does very little for job creation at home. In legislation dealing with extended competition this is totally anti-competitive. It segments the market and is anti-jobs. From no perspective does it make sense and I intend to submit amendments on this issue, unless the Minister can tell me the reason An Post does this. I hope he will take notice of my amendments. Support for An Post must be a two-way street; if we support it, it should support Irish jobs.

Another source of concern is the concept of burden sharing. This is also an anti-competitive move. The idea is that if competition is so effective that An Post cannot fulfil its universal service obligation, other service providers must subvent it. The irony is that this is a directive to increase competition; it is not intended that any competitive edge should be removed by ensuring the successful competitor subvents the unsuccessful competitors. I appreciate it is unlikely that a new entrant will outperform An Post; nevertheless, if costs are involved in ensuring the universal provision of services, it is a cost that should be borne not by other businesses and the business community but by the general taxpayer. My real objection to this provision is the guarantee of a subvention being provided in legislation. A guarantee such as this reduces the stimulus to provide competition and allows the incumbent to take its foot off the pedal in striving for efficiency safe in the knowledge that somebody will pick up the bill if it fails to provide. The danger is that a cushion of comfort will be provided that will become nothing more than a subsidy for inefficiency and, therefore, will negate the entire purpose of the legislation. I do not think that could be in anyone's interests.

I want to deal with the issue of postcodes, the introduction of which I very much welcome and support. Their introduction has been postponed — excuse the pun — for a number of years because people feared them. This does not make sense to me other than there being a natural resistance to change. Postcodes can bring enormous advantages in terms of efficiencies in the delivery of post and a reduction in costs. They will also bring huge benefits to emergency services, provided the correct system of postcodes is used.

It is particularly important for providing parcel post, which will be a growth area for AnPost.

Whatever about a postman wandering up and down country lanes seeking the correct Michael Murphy, one cannot have delivery vans doing the same. It is hugely inefficient. A precise system is vital. People fear they will be targeted for marketing purposes, but they are targeted for those purposes in any event and I would prefer to be targeted with something that is relevant to my demographic than to receive all types of rubbish in the post.

The system of coding used is vital. I favour use of a GPS system. I understand An Post favours an alternative system which is based on or informed by the machinery it has for reading letter addresses. That is a very short-sighted approach. To choose a system simply because it is suitable for the incumbent does not represent clear, efficiency-driven, long-term thinking. We must choose a system that stands the test of time, regardless of the equipment used by An Post. GPS is based on latitude and longitude and is a foolproof system. Importantly, it will endure and not die when roads or lines on a map change, which does occur. It is a timeless system. We are choosing a system for use in the long term. There are also huge benefits for the rescue services as it will be possible to track somebody in the middle of a lake or at the top of a mountain, which one cannot do if one is depending on roads. Under the proposed system, that is not possible.

It is also a value free system. As I am aware from what happened in my constituency, the current system caused huge anxiety when people were moved from one post code to another. I believe this also occurred in the Minister's constituency. In fact, they were not moved. The An Post system has them located in areas where they do not think they are and when they discover that under the new system, if An Post has its way, they are not living where they think, there will be war. It will cause huge difficulty in introducing the system. The beauty of GPS is that it is value free. One can have any address one wishes provided one has these value-free letters, as nobody aside from An Post will know what they mean. A system that stands the test of time is essential.

I welcome the legislation and appreciate the opportunity to speak on it.

Deputy Nicky McFadden

I wish the Leas-Cheann Comhairle every success in his new role. I am also delighted to note the presence of the Minister, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, and wish him every success and congratulations on his appointment.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this Bill as I acknowledge its critical importance in the advancement of Ireland's economy and society. I commend the work of An Post over the years and pay tribute to the continued efficiency and dedication of its staff. A total of 87% of post is delivered on time.

An Post plays a significant role in every part of this country. In my Longford-Westmeath constituency it is highly regarded for its high quality service and as an important source of local employment. It has a good depot in Athlone. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, said on Second Stage that the essential element of a universal postal service is the collection and delivery of mail to every home in every corner of the State on every working day. I welcome that acknowledgement.

An Post is not only of economic benefit to communities but it also plays a wider societal role. The postman or postwoman might be the only person an elderly person who lives on a remote boreen might meet in a day. We saw what happened with the demise of rural post offices and I would hate something similar to happen to our postal service or to lose this valuable service. Despite the increasing prevalence of e-mail and social networking in our daily interactions, I believe the tradition of posting letters is still alive. I recently had a conversation with a friend who told me she writes regularly to her friends in Australia and America.

The maintenance and continued development of An Post is of paramount importance. I welcome the Minister's assurance that the Bill does not impact on the rural post office network, post office banking services or delivery of Government and financial services through the post office network. Through the creation of a new, open and liberalised postal services sector, this Bill will provide the framework to ensure, first, that An Post is safeguarded as the universal postal service, second, that consumer rights are protected and, third, that a comprehensive framework for fair competition is devised. I emphasise the word "fair". These three issues must be adequately dealt with in the implementation of this Bill.

The Bill seeks to recognise the fundamental difference between An Post and other postal service providers. Under its provisions, the regulator of the postal service sector, ComReg, designates An Post as a universal service provider for a period of seven years. After this, another provider can be designated, or it might be decided that no designation is made. I hope the Minister will consider a review of this period. Competition is healthy for the postal market provided the competition is fair. Competitive markets encourage innovation and greater focus on consumer friendly approaches. The introduction of a price cap, for example, would protect users against significant price increases. Of course, this new competition must be fair in nature and ensure that consumers, the State and existing postal service providers are protected through the creation of a robust regulatory framework.

I welcome the Minister's remark that under the Communications Regulation Act 2002 the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources can issue strategic policy directions to the regulator. This country has had bad experience with regulation so I warmly welcome that statement. An Post will carry certain obligations in its remit as universal service provider and I welcome the Bill's provisions which provide for competitors of An Post to contribute to universal service costs where the regulator deems that an unfair burden exists. Other postal service providers must not be granted free rein to cherry-pick preferred areas and shirk their universal service obligation of next day delivery. New entrants into the postal service market should be of high standard and should ensure that every member of the community is catered for, regardless of location.

I acknowledge the work carried out so far by An Post. I am concerned about liberalisation from the point of view of job losses, as there were huge job losses in Germany. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil as an deis labhartha ar an mBille rí-thábhachtach seo. Tá mé go huile agus go hiomlán i gcoinne aon athrú suntasach mar atá ag tarlú anseo i seasamh An Post. Sin atá i gceist anseo. Táimid ag oscailt an mhargaidh do sheachadadh litreacha agus gach rud eile a dhéanann An Post do chomhlachtaí eile agus ag ligean dóibh córas agus seirbhísí An Post a réabadh.

Tá spéis faoi leith agam san ábhar seo toisc go n-oibríonn mo bhean chéile, mo dheartháir céile agus a bhean in An Post. Mar sin, tuigim go maith na hathruithe atá déanta acu siúd atá ag obair in An Post cheana féin maidir lena gcóras oibre agus leis na huaireanta a n-oibríonn siad — mar an gcéanna leis na hathruithe eacnamaíochta atá déanta ag gach duine eile — agus tuigim na hathruithe atá déanta acu maidir leis an ragobair, a laghad a fhaigheann siad agus na cinntí atá déanta le bliain nó dhá bhliain anuas chun a cinntiú go mbeidh An Post ullamh do chomórtas, má thagann sé in aon chor. Ba chóir go dtarlódh go leor de na hathruithe sin pé scéal é. Ba cheart go n-oibreodh gach cuid den tseirbhís poiblí go héifeachtach chun luach an airgid a fháil as an infheistíocht a dhéanann an Stáit. É sin ráite, ní chóir go mbeimid ag déanamh ionsaithe ar sheirbhísí poiblí nó ag tarraingt astu. Ní gá ach féachaint siar go dtí an tréimhse sula raibh Eircom réabtha sa bhealach chéanna. Nuair a d'osclaíomar an margadh fóin póca agus teileafóin eile don mhargadh, tháinig comhlachtaí eile isteach. Tá a fhios againn conas mar atá cúrsaí imithe ó shin agus an staid ina bhfuil Eircom faoi láthair. Tá seans ann go mbeidh teip iomlán ar an gcomhlacht sin aon lá anois, agus go gcuirfí 3,000 duine ar na scuainí dól.

Sa chás seo, tá má ag rá go bhfuil mé go hiomlán i gcoinne príobháidiú An Post. Tuigim nach bhfuil sé sin i gceist sa Bhille seo, go díreach, ach tá seans ann go dtiocfaidh sé i ndiaidh oscailt an mhargaidh. Má tá An Post san iomaíocht le comhlachtaí eile sa slí atá leagtha amach ag an Aontas Eorpach nó an Rialtas anseo, tosóidh an comhlacht ag cailliúnt airgid. Má tá níos lú litreacha, srl., á seachadadh timpeall na tíre, beidh sé níos deacra do An Post dul san iomaíocht. Tá fadhbanna móra leis an líon stuif atá á seachadadh. Má thagann comhlacht eile isteach sa mhargadh, agus tosnaíonn sé ag cailliúnt airgid, an bhfuilimid cinnte nach dtarraingeoidh sé amach? Dá mbeadh An Post brúite amach ó cheantair áirithe, an bhfuilimid cinnte nach mbeadh cuid den tír — cathair nó dhó, b'fhéidir — fágtha gan seirbhís poist? Cad a tharlódh dá mbeadh An Post tar éis tarraingt siar as déileáil lena leithéid?

Ba cheart dúinn féachaint siar ar na cinntí míchearta a rinneadh ó thaobh An Post, nó an "P and T" mar a bhí, sna blianta atá imithe. Mar shampla, dhíol An Post an chomhlacht idirlín — Ireland On-Line — a bhí acu. Dhein an comhlacht brabús suntasach ó shin. Ba cheart go mbeadh cosaint ceart déanta ag An Post ar an cash cow a bhí acu agus go mbeadh gach uile ghné de chumarsáid na tíre faoi smacht comhlacht amháin. Bhí an Roinn Poist agus Telegrafa freagrach ní hamháin maidir le seachadadh an phoist, ach freisin maidir le Telecom Éireann agus Ireland On-Line. Níl mé ag rá gur chóir go mbeadh gach cuid den chóras cumarsáide faoi smacht an Rialtais, ach gur chóir go mbeadh sé faoi riaracháin comhlacht amháin. Má ghlacfaimid leis an mBille seo, measaim go ndéanfar damáiste do chomhlacht a chuireann seirbhís poiblí ar fáil. Ní mór dúinn gnéithe áirithe don eacnamaíocht, ar nós seirbhísí poiblí, a chosaint.

Nuair a tharla athruithe i dtíortha eile, theip go huile is go hiomlán ar na seirbhísí poiblí ar a rinneadh príobháidiú nó a cuireadh ar an margadh. Ligeann daoine áirithe orthu go bhfuil an margadh seo níos fearr ná aon rud eile sa domhan. Nuair a dhéanann siad léirscaoileadh ar seirbhísí poiblí, tarlaíonn rás go dtí an bun — race to the bottom — agus déantar laghdú nó íslú ar pá agus coinníollacha na n-oibrithe sna comhlachtaí a bhí ann roimhe. Bíonn na comhlachtaí nua-príobháidithe in iomaíocht de shíor le comhlachtaí osnáisiúnta. Toisc go bhfuil an margadh sa tír seo chomh beag, bíonn sé deacair dóibh iad féin a chosaint agus a tharrtháil i gcoinne na comhlachtaí móra seo. Tá dainséar ann go mbeidh orainn teacht ar ais anseo i gceann cúpla bliain nuair a deireann an Rialtas gur gá An Post a phríobháidiú toisc go gcosnaíonn sé iomarca airgid. Tá sé sin déanta i go leor gnéithe agus rudaí eile agus tá sé i gcomhréir leis an bplean agus an doiciméad a shínigh an Rialtas leis an IMF agus an ECB. Deireann an doiciméad sin go ndíolfaidh an Stát roinnt dá gnóthaí agus sócmhainní.

Ba chóir dúinn cur i gcoinne an méid atá sa Bhille seo. Seachas bheith ag gearradh siar ar sheirbhísí poiblí, ba chóir go mbeimid ag déanamh infheistiú iontu. Ba cheart dúinn poist a chosaint sa gheilleagar atá sa tír faoi láthair. Ba chóir dúinn cur leis an pá agus na coinníollacha a bhaineann le seirbhísí poiblí — ní hamháin i gcás An Post, ach i gcásanna Bus Éireann agus Bus Átha Cliath freisin. Chonaiceamar cheana conas mar atá an Rialtas ag caitheamh leo agus á dtarraingt siar. Tá a fhios againn cad a rinne an Rialtas le Aer Lingus agus le Aer Rianta, comhlachtaí eile a bhí cuíosach tábhachtach don oileán seo. Tá pleananna ann níos mó iomaíochta a thabhairt isteach i dtaobh Bord Soláthair an Leictreachais agus Bord Gáis, srl. Déanfaidh an Stát níos lú brabús sa chás sin.

Caithfimid bheith cúramach nach bhfuil an Rialtas ag ullmhú chun fáil réidh le sócmhainní an Stáit. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil sé ar aigne acu. Bhí gach ceann de na comhlachtaí seo an-bhrabúsach ag amanna difriúla. Bhaineadar úsáid as an mbrábús sin chun infheistíocht a dhéanamh i seirbhísí eile. Nuair a tháinig díbhinn ó Bord Soláthair an Leictreachais, Aer Lingus nó fiú Aer Rianta ag amanna difriúla, rinneadh infheistiú tríd an státseirbhís i scoileanna, bóithre nó pé rud eile. Ní gá ach smaoineamh ar an méid a tharla nuair a díoladh Irish Ferries agus Siúcra Éireann, agus an talamh a tháinig leo, roinnt blianta ó shin. Ní bhfuair an Stát an buntáiste ceart gur chóir go dtiocfadh as na comhlachtaí Stáit éagsúla a phríobháidiú nó a oscailt ar an mhargadh. Ní gá ach féachaint ar an debacle a tharla maidir leis an public service obligation a bhain leis an VHI. Theip ar na coinníollacha agus an chosaint a dúirt an Rialtas a bhí ann ó thaobh an VHI de nuair a chuaigh BUPA — nó pé comhlacht a bhí ann — chun na cúirte.

Dá bhrí sin, measaim nach fiú aon rud a deireann iad siúd a mhaíonn go bhfuil seirbhís poiblí seachadadh poist na tíre seo á chosaint. Nuair a rachfaidh na comhlachtaí príobháideacha chun na cúirte, gheobhaidh siad réidh le aon chosaint a bheidh sa reachtaíocht seo. Sa réimse seo, don chuid is mó, tá reachtaíocht na hEorpa i gceannas a luaithe is a osclaítear an mhargaidh. Is é sin an dainséar a bhí ann nuair a ghlacamar leis na hathruithe a thógadh isteach i gconarthaí Nice agus Liospóin, ach go háirithe. Dúramar go raibh siad ag ullmhú don phríobháidiú agus d'oscailt an mhargaidh. Measaim nach bhfuil sé seo an deireadh — rachfaidh siad i ndiadh go leor de na seirbhísí a chuireann na húdaráis áitiúla ar fáil don phobal. Déanaim impí ar an Rialtas arís tarraingt siar ón treo ina bhfuil sé ag dul faoi láthair. An tseachtain seo caite, fógraíodh arís go bhfuil an Rialtas ag tarraight roinnt de na cumhachtaí ó na húdaráis áitiúla trí Irish Water a bhunú. Beidh níos lú cumhachtaí ag na húdaráis áitiúla amach anseo má dhéantar sin seachas bheith ag dul i dtreo dílárnú cumhachtaí, tá an Rialtas chun a mhalairt ar fad a dhéanamh. Ba chóir go mbeadh níos mó cumhachtaí ag na húdaráis áitiúla seachas níos lú.

Ag filleadh arís don mBille atá os ár gcomhair, tá sé i gceist go mbeadh an margadh oscailte go hiomlán agus tá dainséir ansin. Ní gá ach féachaint ar cad a tharla nuair a osclaíodh margadh iarnróid i Sasana; bhí teip iomlán ann, bhí comhlachtaí ag teacht isteach agus amach agus ag titim agus bhí ar an Stát teacht isteach le hinfheistiú mór. I gcás seachadadh poist i Sasana, theip go huile is go hiomlán ar an léirscaoileadh a tharla sa mhargadh ansin. Tharraing Royal Mail siar, díoladh an comhlacht agus tháinig Consignia isteach. Ansin rinne Consignia praiseach iomlán ar an chóras seachadta poist agus na hoifigí poist timpeall na tíre. Bhí ar Royal Mail teacht isteach arís agus an gnó ar fad a cheannach ar ais arís ionas go mbeadh sé i gceannas an mhargaidh arís.

Is é sin an dáinséar nuair a thiocfaidh comhlachtaí isteach sa tír seo, go mbeidh siad ag súil go mbeidh cash cow acu, mar a rinne siad le Eircom, nuair a dhíol siad píosa anseo agus píosa ansiúd don mhargadh agus ansin tharraing na carpet baggers as Eircom agus d'fhág siad comhlacht nach raibh in ann dul san iomaíocht. Má tá comhlachtaí ag teacht isteach cad é an gealltanas go mbeidh siad in ann an tseirbhís a dhéanamh go huile is go hiomlán agus go mbeidh siad in ann leanúint leis an tseirbhís sin a thabhairt don phobal?

Tá seirbhísí ann. Dá mbeadh spéis ar bith ag an Rialtas seo An Post a chosaint, déarfadh sé leis an Roinn Coimirce Sóisialaí go mbeadh na híocaíochtaí a dhéanann an Roinn ag dul go hiomlán tríd an bhanc atá ag An Post agus go mbeadh daoine ag bailiú na n-íocaíochtaí agus á gcur sna cuntais choigiltis ag An Post. Ní féidir leo sin a dhéanamh faoi láthair, caithfidh siad úsáid a bhaint as an chóras bhaincéireachta atá againn sa tír. Tá sin tubaisteach agus tá cúpla duine tar éis an cheist sin a ardú liom le déanaí, toisc go bhfuil Rabobank, nó cibé dream a bhí gafa leis An Post, i ndiaidh tarraingt amach agus go gcaithfear na híocaíochtaí a chur i gcuntais de chuid AIB nó fiú Ulster Bank nó dream éigin mar sin. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé ag dul isteach san aon bhanc náisiúnta atá ag an Stát — An Post — nó go mbeadh na bainc atá faoi sheilbh an Stáit go hiomlán náisiúnaithe, seachas go mbeidís á rith amhail is gur comhlachtaí príobháideacha iad.

Ba mhaith liom ceist a ardú faoi ghrúpa, Citypost, atá ag briseadh an dlí faoi láthair foisc nach bhfuil an margadh oscailte go fóill. Tá súil agam go mbeidh an tAire sásta díriú isteach ar a leithéid atá ag briseadh na rialacha atá sa mhargadh, ag seachadadh poist i gcoinne an dlí. Tá an comhlacht ag dul isteach in ainneoin nach bhfuil léirscaoileadh ar an mhargadh, go mbeidh sí ullmhaithe. Caithfidh ar a laghad go bhfanfaidh an comhlacht go dtí go mbeidh an margadh oscailte, fiú in ainneoin go bhfuil mise go hiomlán ina choinne sin.

B'fhiú don Rialtas smaoineamh go mbeidh níos lú poist ann, ní go mbeidh poist nua á gcothú. Tá fadhbanna ag An Post ó thaobh phost de toisc nach bhfuil go leor litreacha á seoladh ag daoine. Beidh An Post ag dul san iomaíocht le comhlachtaí a bheidh ag teacht isteach sa mhargadh agus a bheidh bunaithe sa chathair anseo, áit inar féidir níos mó brabúis a bhaint as seachadadh litreacha; beidh siad ag díriú ar an chuid sin den mhargadh seachas aon chuid eile de. Tá an dainséar ann go mbeidh ar An Post daoine a dhéanamh iomarcach de thairbhe nach mbeidh an t-airgead aige chun iad a íoc. An impleacht atá ann ná go mbeidh an iomaíocht is mó sna ceantair uirbeacha agus beidh daoine faoin tuath ag brath ar sheirbhís níos lú toisc nach mbeidh brabús le fáil ann mar tá sé níos deacra a dhéanamh agus cosnaíonn sé i bhfad níos mó do An Post é a dhéanamh faoi láthair.

Cá bhfuil an buntáiste a thiocfaidh do An Post as an tseirbhís sin a dhéanamh? Tá public service obligation ag An Post agus beidh go fóill agus ní bhfaighidh sé aon bhuntáiste nó aon compensation ó na comhlachtaí nua. Nuair a bhí sin ann idir BUPA agus VHI, chuaigh BUPA os comhair na cúirte agus theip go huile agus go hiomlán le VHI an córas sin a choinneáil. Caithfear déanamh cinnte nach mbeidh comhlacht in ann teacht isteach agus cherry picking a dhéanamh. Má tá an Rialtas dáiríre faoin mBille seo a rith, ní chóir go mbeadh ach comhlacht amháin sa tír. I mo thuairim ba chóir go mbeadh an comhlacht sin mar An Post agus má thagann comhlacht eile, go mbeidh uirthi gach uile rud atá An Post ag déanamh faoi láthair a dhéanamh go hiomlán.

Ba mhaith liom díriú isteach ar ghné eile den reachtaíocht seo atá beagáinín seafóideach: an cheist faoi chód poist. Bhí díospóireacht mhór ann agus sa Bhille seo, déantar damáiste don infheistíocht a rinne An Post i dtreallamh toisc go raibh sé in ainm agus a bheith i gceannas ar sheachadadh poist amach anseo. Ní raibh An Post ag súil go mbeadh aon mhórathrú ag tarlú nuair a infheistíodh na milliúin euro i dtreallamh nua sórtála sa dóigh is nach mbeadh sé in ann aon chóras nua a chur i bhfeidhm. Beidh ar An Post na milliúin euro a chaitheamh chun athruithe a dhéanamh ar an chóras dá dtabharfaí isteach cód poist in ionad an chórais atá aige faoi láthair atá ag obair go maith. Ba chóir cloí leis an sean slí: mura bhfuil sé briste, ní gá é a dheisiú. I gcás An Post, agus ní hamháin sa chóras cóid phoist, mura bhfuil an margadh briste, ná deisigh é.

An rud a tharlóidh sa deireadh ná go mbeidh an córas briste ó bhun go barr agus tá sé tubaisteach go bhfuil seo os ár gcomhair agus níos tubaistí fós go bhfuil Aire ó Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre i gceannas an léirscaoilte, rud atá go huile i gcoinne na tuairime a ba chóir a bheith ann, go mbeadh pá agus coinníollacha oibre cosanta agus ná laghdófaí seirbhísí poiblí don phobal in aon bhealach. Is cúis náire é go bhfuil an tAire ag dul ar aghaidh le reachtaíocht a cuireadh os ár gcomhair faoi réim an Rialtais dheiridh, a raibh polasaí na PDs mar bhunús ann agus an tAire Charlie McCreevy ag fógairt thart timpeall na hEorpa gurbh é an léirscaoileadh an rud is fearr. Chonaiceamar cad a rinne sin d'Éirinn, ní gá ach féachaint ar an damáiste a rinne sé don chóras baincéireachta sa tír seo. Táim ag tabhairt foláirimh go dtarlóidh sin arís.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies Mattie McGrath and Healy have ten minutes each.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an mBille seo. This legislation proposes to open the Irish postal market to free competition. This may be regarded as a wonderful thing but, unfortunately, we have discovered in recent times that it is not all it is made out to be. The result will be the undermining of the current funding model for the universal service obligation on An Post.

This is a fundamental tablet of stone that has been used by An Post and successive Governments since the foundation of the State. It is the mechanism that allows An Post to fund the loss-making part of its service provision. This is critical for our society and communities as it guarantees a five-day per week delivery service to every address in the country at a single price. It is the backbone of the postal service.

With advances in technology, communications networks are changing drastically. There are more ways and options available for people to communicate. However, this does not take away from the importance of the postal service which provides a door-to-door service to every household at a reasonable cost. It also facilitates and further embodies the age old practice of the art of letter writing. The art of letter writing, a creative art in itself, is treasured by many people in rural and urban Ireland. Many elderly people learned that wonderful craft in their younger days and enjoy writing letters and look forward to the postman coming to their door.

The viability of this service is threatened by this Bill, as are 10,000 jobs in the sector at a time when jobs are haemorrhaging at an alarming rate. If the Bill is passed, we will be accused of paying lip-service and of uttering pious platitudes and passionate pleas about assimilating growth and preserving jobs.

It beggars belief that the Bill will have such a fundamental impact. I have been lobbied not only be postmen and postwomen and postmistresses and postmasters but by trade union representatives, who have made solid cases. They asked us to look over our shoulders to our nearest neighbour, Britain. Evidence from across Europe, including Germany, the Netherlands and the UK where liberalisation has already occurred, indicates that the opening of the postal market results in the erosion of service levels and job losses.

It also results in social dumping. This is the new jargon but we all know what it means. Decent jobs with reasonable pay and conditions will be replaced by low paid work. We heard much about that in the context of the recent unfair reduction in the minimum wage and the promises to reserve it. In Germany, the temporary and precarious nature of postal jobs forces employees to depend on social welfare for supplementary income. Employment standards in the industry must be protected.

The Bill must include a reference to article 16 of the EU postal directive which states that social considerations should be taken into account when preparing to open up postal markets. Surely, we have learned from our experience of what happened to other semi-State companies. With the advent of the Celtic tiger, social considerations were put on the back burner. Article 16 was specifically included in the directive to provide member states with an opportunity to legislate against negative outcomes.

An Post has never needed State aid or taxpayer support. The price of the stamp funds a service which delivers post to every door. Clearly, a significant amount of human labour is required from the time the stamp is fixed to the envelop in a friendly post office until it is delivered locally — in some cases on foot or by bicycle.

I compliment postmen and postwomen on their work. As a young boy I remember the friendliness of and the welcome the postman received in houses. That is still the case in rural Ireland and in our towns. It was never needed more than during the past two winters and the cold spells when the postman or postwoman might have been the only individual to regularly check on elderly and isolated people. In many cases, they raised the alarm when they discovered something amiss or even worse.

Postmen and postwomen have also prevented crimes. I sit on the national board of Muintir na Tire which runs the community alert and neighbour watch programmes. Many postmen and postwomen go beyond the call of duty to act as the eyes and ears of their communities. They are not spies but decent people who are mindful of who they meet in strange places, at strange times and in strange vehicles. They play an important role ensuring the safety of our communities.

The efficient service which An Post operates is one of the least expensive in Europe but it operates to one of the highest standards. Its prices are the eighth lowest of 29 countries surveyed and that is no mean achievement. These high standards must be protected. The employment conditions of postal workers who work in difficult conditions must not be undermined. I acknowledge the importance of postal services to the public good. They form an essential part of the fabric of our society and provide stable jobs which must be protected in the current economic conditions.

All of the post offices do a good job but the sub-post offices face particular dangers because of the money they hold on behalf of An Post and the State. Many have been violently robbed and they must operate to high standards of security. I have an intimate understanding of the risks they face because my sister is a postmistress. There is no more important a social role than that of a postal worker. We have stripped away many social services but we cannot allow this one to be undermined and threatened in any way.

The Minister has good reason to introduce the Bill but it is badly thought-out, ill-advised and it must be re-examined. The experience in the UK indicates the importance of downstream access. If this is handled badly, it could spell the end of An Post and almost 10,000 jobs. I am not scare-mongering but I refer to the experience of our nearest neighbour. Opening up the service will lead to cherry-picking of profitable routes.

We saw what happened to Eircom. I have repeatedly argued in this House and elsewhere that the ESB should not be a monopoly but I am certainly not in favour of opening up our services as we did with Eircom in 1999. A good friend of mine who is employed by that company was previously based in Clonmel but is now required to cover the entire south east. He would need a helicopter to travel around and he is on call every second weekend. Eircom's employees work very diligently but local knowledge has been lost. The company has changed hands so many times that its employees would be hard-pressed to know who owns it. This cannot be allowed to happen to An Post.

I have no intention of voting for this Bill because it will do irreversible damage to the fabric of rural communities. We have seen the result of the loss of rural co-operatives. The spirit of the late Canon Hayes led to the creation of small co-operatives which mushroomed into Glanbia and Dairygold with the result that wastelands have been created in the centre of our towns and villages. Trucks are on the road 24-7 and the way of life in rural Ireland has been undermined. We must try to save that because it is one of the last bastions of rural Ireland.

Several years ago we fought a huge battle over the proposal to install green boxes at the end of certain lanes. It may have been a cost-cutting exercise but it was also a retrograde step. Postmen and postwomen are often invited to have a cup of tea and a chat with households. Sometimes they deliver or exchange a newspaper. I hope I do not get anybody into trouble when I say that many postmen and postwomen drove past the boxes to deliver post personally. It is part of the human nature of Irish people who are diligent about their work and interested in human engagement.

Unfortunately, job losses and social dumping go hand in hand with liberalisation. We need look no further than Eircom for evidence of this. According a comprehensive study undertaken by the UNI network, job losses occurred in nearly every postal market opened up to competition. Surely, we must learn from mistakes. Why must we blindly follow what happened in America, Europe and in Great Britain? The first-class research on countries opened up to liberalisation is there for everybody to examine and it cannot be contested.

We cannot allow this to happen and must call a halt. We must hold on to what we have and go back to sensible engagement. I do not believe many people will line up to take this over in the current climate. We should hold on to what we have as we have lost enough. It is incumbent on all of us to do our best chun an seirbhís sin a choimeád. Sin mar atá sé anois.

Deputy Seamus Healy

I am disappointed but not surprised to see this legislation before the House. The legislation was introduced by the previous Government and it has been taken over hook, line and sinker by the new one. I suppose it is in line with what has happened in other areas. There is has been a seamless transition from opposition to Government.

It is disappointing that the new Government has taken this legislation on board. I am particularly disappointed to see a Labour Party Minister doing so. The legislation is before the House as a result of the EU postal directive. The liberalisation we see throughout Europe gives the impression that one will get something good, new and improved from the situation but all indications from Europe are that this liberalisation results in the decimation of the service provided and acts as a forerunner to privatisation. If it is not broken, why fix it? I will not support this legislation.

We are talking about An Post and it is worth hearing background information. Postage costs in Ireland are the eighth lowest in 29 European countries. An Post is the seventh most efficient operator of postal services in these 29 countries. In the past 20 years there have been only three price increases, which lagged behind inflation for the same period. An Post operates without any State subvention or taxpayer support. It employs approximately 10,000 staff and on a daily basis it processes and delivers approximately 2.5 million items of mail to 2.2 million businesses and residential addresses. It uses a fleet of over 2,500 vehicles and 650 bicycles. Every week, An Post serves 1.7 million customers through its unique national network. It is a profitable organisation.

Others have referred to the excellent service it provides. I refer to the excellent service provided during the difficult weather periods at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. I live outside the town of Clonmel, at the foot of the Comeragh Mountains. During the spell of bad weather, all dwellings in the area received post. Normally the delivery is made by van but over that fortnight post was delivered on foot by postmen and both women to various premises and residences. The service also provides a service in rural areas to rural communities. In many places, the only person seen by some people on a daily or weekly basis is the local postman. The postman may take on the role of a social worker in keeping an eye on elderly people. He provides a service that is second to none and it will disappear in time if this legislation is passed and implemented.

Due to all this liberalisation in many other EU countries, profitable sections of the business are cherry picked by operators and the less profitable areas are left to the semi-state sector to operate. This is almost always done at a loss. A number of speakers referred to the fact that many of the private operators in the business make the jobs more casual, meaning they are part-time or poorly paid. In many cases, workers are paid the minimum wage or lower part-time rates. Many workers find themselves supplemented by social security services in the relevant countries.

Many rural areas run the risk of losing the daily service further down the road. Even though that service is protected in this legislation, the daily service will be reduced further down the road. The service may operate only on a weekly basis. I refer to the universal service obligation. How will this be financed and who will finance it? How will downstream access allow operators to use the An Post network and how will this be managed? How will legislation deal with cherry picking? Competitors will compete for profitable postal routes and will leave loss-making groups to An Post.

How can the market be protected from social dumping, where competitors drive down employment standards and force the national operator to do likewise? This has happened in a number of other countries where this directive has been transposed into legislation and implemented. Cherry picking will be a major problem. If operators pick off profitable routes and leave An Post with the loss-making parts of the service, it will remove a major source of revenue from An Post, undermine the service initially and lead to job losses and further unemployment. We have 440,000 people unemployed and this is something to which we should try to avoid adding.

This legislation is ill-advised and unwise. If the service is not broken, why fix it? This legislation will eventually devastate the postal service and eventually privatise it completely. It will undermine jobs in the service and will make the alternative jobs created in private enterprises more casual. These private operators will take over the more profitable parts of the service and their employees will be casual, part-time and poorly paid. I do not support this legislation.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

While I am a new Deputy and there is much I do not know, I am learning day by day.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte

We are all in the same boat.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I am totally confused by this Bill. It is not that I do not understand the language used in it; I do as it is fairly clear. As I understand it our current postal service is highly regarded. I know that is the case in my area. It is regarded as a reliable and confidential service which provides good employment for the thousands of people working therein. People regard it as a good service which operates at no cost to the taxpayer. My understanding is that our postal service is provided at no cost to the taxpayer. It is universally acknowledged that we have a good service that is valued by the public. It is a service which the people do not have to support by way of taxation, although I am sure they have paid down through the decades for the development of the infrastructure for the postal service. What confuses me is why we now want to allow the vultures of privatisation to get their claws into it. I cannot figure that out. Regardless of how long I remain a Member of this House, I will never figure it out.

One does not need a crystal ball to know what is going to happen. Private companies will sign up to provide a service throughout the country in whole or part or, in one of the provinces, taking on staff whom they will probably pay the minimum wage. When they realise their shareholders are not getting enough profit from the business they will put it to the regulator that it is not financially viable for them to run the service for the country or province as a whole or in part and will seek to only provide the service in built up urban areas, leaving somebody to pay for a reduced service, perhaps in rural areas. That somebody will inevitably be the taxpayer.

I cannot figure out why we are proposing to ditch a good service which does not cost the taxpayer anything in favour of a service that will inevitably cost the taxpayer money and will be disjointed in different parts of the country. Have we learned nothing? I believe that a few weeks ago members of this Government would have been vociferously against this Bill. Have we now taken on the mantle of protectors and promoters of privateers? Is private profit more important than the interests of the people and taxpayers of this country? To whose charter are we working in this regard? Is this a charter for the people or the privateers? Who is instructing us to do this? If this is an EU instruction then let us be more accurate in our language when speaking about the EU. Let us stop using the term our "EU partners" and use instead the phrase "EU masters".

I do not believe any Minister or Government should be bullied or forced by anyone or any body to make a decision which is wrong for the people and taxpayers of this country. The Minister knows that this Bill fits within that category. Sinn Féin will be voting against this Bill. It was wrong in its conception and drafting and is wrong in terms of its implementation. It will provide for a poorer service at cost to the taxpayer.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte)

I thank the large number of Deputies who contributed to this debate, in particular those Deputies who chose to speak on this subject in making their maiden speeches in the House. It shows the extent of affection there is for An Post and the high regard for its workforce in terms of the service they deliver daily, often in adverse circumstances. I share that high regard for An Post and its workforce and acknowledge the role An Post and post offices play in rural communities. If the social role played by the postman is not his or her primary function it is, nonetheless, an important one, which I accept.

A number of Deputies appear to have confused liberalisation with privatisation and seemed to draw the conclusion that we are heading inexorably towards privatisation, which is most emphatically not the case. There is no proposals to privatise An Post. This legislation bears no connection good, bad or indifferent to the proposals we are awaiting from Mr. McCarthy in respect of State companies. We recognise the strategic importance that the postal sector plays and the central role played by An Post to date. However, it is true, as most Deputies have acknowledged, that the postal service is changing and that An Post is confronting a number of significant challenges, not least that of electronic substitution, with which we must deal. There is not much point in my being dragged into a major debate here about the nature of the European Union and the primacy it attaches to deregulation or whether deregulation is always suitable in every sector in every country. I am merely charged with the transposition of the third directive. That is my main task.

Deputies have stated that no changes have been made. I cannot make changes to the Bill until Committee Stage. I have already signalled that I will bringing forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage, some of which I hope will address some of the issues raised by colleagues across the House who have contributed to this debate. It is hoped Committee Stage will provide us with an opportunity to debate the Bill in more detail. Colleagues on both sides of the House have asked that Committee Stage of the Bill be taken when the committees are established rather than in the House. I am happy to facilitate that.

I thank all Deputies who contributed to this debate.

I have noted their concerns regarding the sustainability of the universal service obligation and I am happy we can deal with that. There is no question of creating a two tier postal system divided between rural and urban Ireland. That is not the objective; rather, it is merely to implement the directive. I hope some of the Members opposite can table amendments on Committee stage, when we will examine the Bill section by section, regarding weaknesses they see in the Bill. I am grateful to the House for facilitating the passage of the Bill on Second Stage.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 112; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Bannon, James.
• Barry, Tom.
• Breen, Pat.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Butler, Ray.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Coffey, Paudie.
• Collins, Áine.
• Collins, Niall.
• Conaghan, Michael.
• Conlan, Seán.
• Connaughton, Paul J.
• Conway, Ciara.
• Coonan, Noel.
• Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
• Costello, Joe.
• Creed, Michael.
• Creighton, Lucinda.
• Daly, Jim.
• Deasy, John.
• Deering, Pat.
• Doherty, Regina.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Dooley, Timmy.
• Dowds, Robert.
• Doyle, Andrew.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frank.
• Ferris, Anne.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flanagan, Terence.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Hannigan, Dominic.
• Harrington, Noel.
• Harris, Simon.
• Hayes, Brian.
• Hayes, Tom.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Humphreys, Kevin.
• Keating, Derek.
• Keaveney, Colm.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kelly, Alan.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Lawlor, Anthony.
• Lynch, Ciarán.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• Lyons, John.
• McCarthy, Michael.
• McEntee, Shane.
• McFadden, Nicky.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McGuinness, John.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McLoughlin, Tony.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Maloney, Eamonn.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Mathews, Peter.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mulherin, Michelle.
• Murphy, Eoghan.
• Nash, Gerald.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Neville, Dan.
• Nolan, Derek.
• Noonan, Michael.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• O’Dea, Willie.
• O’Donnell, Kieran.
• O’Donovan, Patrick.
• O’Dowd, Fergus.
• O’Mahony, John.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Perry, John.
• Phelan, Ann.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ross, Shane.
• Ryan, Brendan.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Spring, Arthur.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Stanton, David.
• Timmins, Billy.
• Troy, Robert.
• Tuffy, Joanna.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Varadkar, Leo.
• Wall, Jack.
• Walsh, Brian.

Níl

• Adams, Gerry.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Collins, Joan.
• Colreavy, Michael.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Daly, Clare.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
• Fleming, Tom.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McDonald, Mary Lou.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McLellan, Sandra.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O’Brien, Jonathan.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Catherine Murphy.

Question declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 19 April 2011.