Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

This is the final phase of the opening up of the postal service to market competition. It is quite clear that the agenda here is to allow the private companies enter the market and provide services which previously were exclusively the remit of An Post. What is wrong with An Post providing that service on its own? What potential benefit is there if, on Monday, a postman comes into the area in an An Post uniform and the same day, or the next, one is there in a TNT uniform? What possible benefit is it to the recipient of the service? There is none. This is about a prize and getting a piece of the pie for the private companies operating out there. Some excellent points have been made in that regard already.

The crass opportunism of Fianna Fáil and the points made by Deputy Ó Cuív were unbelievable, that not everything should be privatised and some matters are natural monopolies. These points are valid, but coming from the mouth of a Minister in the previous Government, given the litany of privatisation, etc., it showed brass neck and some cheek.

However, the points he made were valid and paint a picture of what will happen to An Post. We need not look too far. We can look at the position in the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte's constituency in terms of refuse collection, which example is similar in many ways. Here one had a public service on which a price was put, it was commodified, the private operators came in, employed their workers on lower terms and conditions and undermined the local authority's service. There arose the ludicrous situation where there were three or four different bin trucks in the area on the same days. The private operators undercut the local authority and the position today is that the local authority is driven out of that market and bin workers have been faced with a reduction of €200 in their weekly pay while those in the communities have no guarantee that the waiver will remain. No doubt the private companies will increase the prices and leave a private monopoly at the end of it. It is quite clear that the agenda of all privatisation and liberalisation are a serious attack on the pay and conditions of the workers and lead to a worsening in the service to the public.

The idea, as has been raised previously, that the universal social guarantee somehow means that the service will be maintained simply does not stand up to scrutiny. We know that it does not when we look at the experience of other countries. In fact, one could say that moves in that direction have already resulted in serious attacks on jobs and a worsening of services in Ireland. Traditionally, An Post has employed a significant number of people — thousands upon thousands of workers — but that number has been reduced over the past decade. The company is looking for another 1,200 jobs to go. Against the backdrop of the present economic situation, that is lunacy.

We have already seen decisions being made which have resulted in a worsening of the service to people in the areas. Even in my area, in Dublin, we have seen parcel collections centralised in an area of Balbriggan which means a pensioner or an unemployed person living in Lusk, Ballyboughal, Garristown or Rush who does not have a car and is not at home when the parcel calls, must find the means of driving miles away to Balbriggan to collect it. That is the scenario that is opening up. If that is the case in Dublin, as other Deputies have stated, the problems will be magnified in rural areas. Let us be clear here. This will not assist the recipients of postal service and it will not help the workers in An Post. Who will win out in this situation and what is the real agenda?

In 2007, the EU postal service was worth €94 billion. That is a massive industry in anybody's books. What we have seen, by liberalising the market, is the private companies being given a slice of the pie. That is the name of the game. Their purpose is not to enter the market because they are worried that companies such as Deutsche Post or An Post might not be doing a good enough job for some Granny living up a mountain in a rural area, but to make a profit. Inevitably, this will lead to a reduction in services and pressure on wages and conditions for the workforce in the drive to extract more profit. It is clear from contributions made by Members that nobody believes these companies will be concerned about the social element of their role. It is inevitable they will cherry pick and that will leave the social obligations with An Post, with serious consequences for many rural communities. The attitude of the private companies was summed up very well by Nick Wells, the chief executive officer of TNT Post in the UK. When the British postal services were liberalised, he said "...us handling your granny's postcard is unlikely". That will happen here.

Let us look briefly at the experience of other countries which have gone further in the liberalisation process than we have. There are 1.44 million postal workers employed across the European Union, but not one of the private companies that operates across Europe pays wages anywhere near what state companies provided. The unions that have conducted surveys suggest they pay approximately 20% less on average. In the Netherlands, where the service has already been fully liberalised, workers in many of the private companies do not get a salary or wage. Their contract is operated on the basis of piece work and if they go out to work in the morning but none of the people on their route are in, they do not get paid. They must keep going back and are only paid on the basis of delivery. That is how the company competing with the state companies operates and as a result workers in the state company are being told they must take a 25% reduction in their wages. It is a race to the bottom we are experiencing throughout Europe. In Belgium, the numbers employed in the postal service have gone down from 43,000 to 35,000 and the new contracts are fixed term. In Germany, TNT provides fixed term contracts which offer 60% less than what the state company pays, with the result that many of those workers must rely on the state for social welfare to make up a decent wage. We have seen another side of the process of liberalisation where over the past ten years of the process throughout Europe, some 10,000 postal outlets have closed. The serious social consequences of that, particularly in rural areas, have already been well articulated.

It is not the experience, nor is it true, that the universal social service guarantee will be maintained. That is not the case. In reality, the private companies will concentrate on the profitable business and leave the loss making business to An Post. As a result the State will lose money and there will be a drain on resources. Finland is a good example of what happens. It had a state postal service which was making a profit of between €30 million and €80 million but has ended up paying a private company €150 million to deliver a service. It has lost the profits of the state company and has to pay an extra €150 million in order to have a rural service provided. The owners of the private company are the only winners in that situation. It is clear the process of liberalisation has gone ahead significantly throughout Europe, but the trade union movement across Europe has a responsibility in this regard. There was not a sufficient fight early on in the battle, but it is not too late to fight against it. The unions have an onus and responsibility to mobilise their members against the threat to their wages and conditions and to the service provided by their companies.

Government parties in Europe, ably assisted by Fianna Fáil, have set the scene for the Bill. They have already supported it in Europe and have allowed it to come here. The Bill before us is only a continuation of the betrayal the Government's representatives started in the European Parliament. However, we can make a stand on it and stop it happening here. We should register for the record that if the Bill proceeds, An Post will be shackled with the loss making sections of the service, while the private companies will take the spoils. As a result of that decision, the viability of An Post and the future of the thousands of workers who depend on it for their livelihoods will be seriously undermined, as will that of their families and those in the community. We must continue to oppose this. If it proceeds and if in the future people bemoan the loss of the jobs and the service, the blame will return here. Therefore, it is better we make a stand on the issue now and that we fight for our historic and necessary service for the people.

See this speech in context