Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, to delete lines 7 to 9.

A number of further amendments are consequential on this one. Given the tight timeframe, however, they were not proposed in the exact order desired by the Bills Office. They deal with the primary issue, that is, the removal of An Post from the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, which brings all of the relevant Social Welfare Acts together and in which specific mention is made of An Post. Indeed, An Post is given preferential status. For longer than I can remember, An Post has been the preferred vehicle for the delivery of social welfare payments. This served a number of purposes. First, there was a post office in virtually every town and village, which meant easy access for people collecting child benefit, jobseeker's benefit or its equivalent and pensions. In recent years, this contract with the Government became vital to post offices.
Second, the preference served a purpose in respect of social welfare. It helped to reduce the opportunity for fraudulent transactions, for example, where people used multiple IDs or were outside the country. People had to present at post offices and sign on, especially in small towns. Even in cities, staff knew who was claiming because people had to present in person, be it once per month in respect of child benefit or once per week in respect of other benefits. If the Department moves away from this system, there is a danger of a greater degree of fraud being committed. For example, if a payment is made into a bank account, that account can be accessed from virtually anywhere in the world.

The Department has encouraged people to present with bank details so a payment can be made in that fashion as an option. I am of the firm belief that as a fraud control the process should take place in a post office.

I was not present when the Minister responded to my initial comments on Second Stage but I have read that she stated there is no danger to the An Post contract. There is always a danger as An Post has the contract for two years, with the possibility of another four years, so it could lose the contract in future. If the amendments from the Minister are accepted, the recognition that being named in legislation gives to An Post will be eroded. If that happened, many post offices around the country would end up closing, which is a concern that has been raised by the Irish Postmasters' Union which lobbied us recently. It has not come about just this year because four or five years ago the same concern was raised when the social welfare contract was discussed and up for grabs. The Minister may be inclined to guarantee this but she is not likely to hold her position forever, and perhaps she will not even hold the office in the near future. There is, therefore, no guarantee that the preferential treatment An Post has received until now will be protected.

The Minister has also made the argument that EU competition rules demand that we take such a step. My amendment would reinstate An Post but it would not totally exclude the opportunity to have, as the Minister described, another payment service provider, as that is also mentioned. An Post may not be able to deliver a service in a particular area, for example. If Ireland argued for the importance of the post office network, including the social benefits, which we should have done until now in Europe, we would receive some recognition and support. If required, we should look to change the attitude of Europe to the post office.

I have a brother-in-law involved with the Communication Workers' Union and he has indicated that postal services across Europe have been under severe pressure, with the unions organising in Europe to try to protect the postal delivery service. Post offices have changed and moved with the times but if they were to lose a contract like this, I doubt that many would survive. If the public service obligation is on the Government rather than An Post to ensure postal services exist, the only way to guarantee a service is still to deliver it through An Post. The State could go much further if it wanted to protect a State institution rather than a private company like a bank. In many ways, the State could put much more money through the accounts of An Post, including wages or grants delivered through An Post, etc. That would add to An Post's future viability, and given the current state of the country, it would be important.

There is a recognition that changes are being made but my principal point for section 3 is to ensure that current recognition given in legislation to An Post would remain, albeit slightly changed in line with the Minister's comments. An Post should be a named organisation and therefore have preferential status for any future contracts. I will be moving my other amendments.