Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

We have had a postal service for in excess of 300 years. Therefore, it is a service that is well used to change. Most of the change occurred because of new opportunities and challenges that opened up the opportunity to improve delivery times. The service developed from the initial stagecoach service linked by the designation of post towns to the development of the railways in the 19th century and then onto road transport in the 20th century, particularly after the First World War.

Clearly, the urbanisation of Ireland, which has been the dominant pattern of growth in recent decades, has changed things again. However, the last part of the journey has always been a person physically delivering post door-to-door to a business or a home, which has happened for hundreds of years. At times that was vitally important, such as in the second half of the 19th century when $260 million was delivered by the postal service. We all know just how vital that was. Indeed, it also provided the funds for many to emigrate, which is unfortunately a feature of today's Ireland.

The changes being debated in this Bill have been brought about by our membership of the European Union and the Single Market in particular. It seeks, according to the document prepared by the Oireachtas library service, to safeguard universal services and facilitate competition within a liberalised postal market. If there is one thing that our financial crisis tells us, it is that the European Union is a very diverse place.

I did not support the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty. However, as a democrat I respect the view that was expressed at the ballot box by the citizens of Ireland and this is one of the issues that flows from that. What I feel we need to keep in mind when adopting any legislation is what the outcome will be not just now, but in years to come. We also need to look at the practical issues that flow from the changes we make. As this Bill provides for An Post to be the designated universal service provider for the next seven years, there is a temptation to postpone some concerns.

The designation of An Post as the universal service provider followed an evaluation that determined An Post to be the only service provider currently capable of providing the universal service following the market opening. The three things we need to ensure are that we retain a universal service, retain a quality service, which is what I believe we currently have, and that the jobs of those providing the service continue to be of a good standard. The Oireachtas Library document states that in Ireland "it is suggested that the economics of postal service provision may not facilitate low cost competition and will not allow for two operators operating a profitable nationwide delivery network at the same time". If that is currently the case and given the difficult economic times ahead, it is frankly very difficult to see when this might occur in the medium term, or even at all.

If the service is broken up it will inevitably lead to a less satisfactory and perhaps more expensive service, particularly in rural areas. That must be avoided. The postal service currently provided by An Post is just that; a postal and parcel delivery service. It is often the only human contact people, particularly older people, have and that is not just in rural areas. All sorts of deliveries used to be made door to door on a daily basis, such as milk, bread and insurance. Most of that has stopped and there is a presumption that everyone can make it to the shops, that everyone has a car and that we are all equal. However, we know that is not the case. Everything must not be measured in economic and efficiency terms; it is impossible to quantify the value of human contact. It has a practical outturn for people who are very isolated.

One potential issue raised by the Communication Workers Union is that of zonal pricing. Ultimately, the cost of this would be borne by those living in less populated areas. There needs to be an explicit understanding throughout this Bill that its aim is the provision of a universal service. We should not deviate from that in any way.

ComReg is to take on the mantle of supervising the service. For example, it may issue a direction to the universal service provider to take corrective action where it finds failures and I have no problem with that. Section 39 makes provision that any expenses incurred by ComReg in regulating the postal service can be recouped from postal providers that are providing services under the scope of the universal service provider. We are told that this levy shall be imposed "in an objective and transparent and proportionate manner". For the moment at least, this levy will be imposed on a monopoly. Additional costs in a situation where there is no scope for State funding means the levy will ultimately be imposed on the consumer. There obviously needs to be some cap on this in order to ensure that such a levy is reasonable.

The ownership of postal infrastructure is also something in which ComReg has an interest. Post boxes and databases might seem like a small issue, but we know potential competitors often seek to access some aspects of the incumbent's network, rather than build an entire competing network. I saw first hand what occurred when Dublin Bus and a private operator operated in north Kildare. Each had their own time tables, their own bus stops and termini. The one thing that did not seem to be considered was the consumer. The travelling public had to figure out for themselves what they were supposed to do. I saw people standing between two bus stops and guessing the next service that would arrive. This cannot occur with our postal services. Not every service lends itself to competition and I have serious doubts that the postal service can do this, particularly with the structure of our population.

The Bill clearly acknowledges the diversity of the European Union and it does not insist that one size fits all in how liberalization of the market takes place. Those countries that have been designated in the intense competition category are already along the way towards a liberalized postal market. We can see the issues that have been thrown. For example, the Royal Mail has a problem in closing the pension deficit gap and liberalization is taking place in that context. This is not without its consequences. An Post has a €400 million deficit in its own pension fund. How that deficit is to be closed is an issue in itself and it is of concern when dealing with how the market might be liberalised.

One area where An Post has competed with door to door delivery is in the area of advertising material. This has grown so much that many homes have placed "no junk mail" notices on their letter boxes. I estimate that up to 20% of homes in my area have one of these signs. It is not yet a feature in rural areas, but it is dominant in urban areas. I expect that figure will grow and this provides an opportunity for An Post to get better penetration. I presume the delivery of advertising material is excluded form regulation, although I am not entirely sure.

While we are the only country in the EU not to have post codes, we seem to exist fine without them and An Post itself cannot see any benefit from their introduction. This is an expensive luxury at a time of economic difficulty. I can see the value of the codes in the collection of social and economic data, but this does not justify spending €15-20 million. The initiative is intended to improve our postal service, but there is no evidence that will occur. Incidentally, the Bill states that liberalization of postal services will incur no costs on the Exchequer. If the Exchequer does not pick up the €20 million tab for the introduction of post codes, then it will fall to An Post and that will have a knock-on effect on the cost of the service to consumers. We are all acutely aware of that at the moment.

We are told that the introduction of post codes would see the country divided up into 200 post towns, with 40 to 50 properties within each post town. That would have to be sensitively handled. Such identity tags have thrown up conflicts within counties. For example, the proposed change is likely to ignore county boundaries, and although I do not personally have a difficulty with that, the issue of county identity is important for many and there are likely to be conflicts. Do we really need these conflicts? Some of those will have a practical impact. Post codes could be used for insurance purposes, with some people paying a higher premium, or even used as part of the school enrolment criteria. We do not know what way they would be used. We have seen conflicts such as the that between Glasnevin and Finglas in Dublin 9 and Dublin 11, and between Ballyfermot and Palmerstown in Dublin 10 and Dublin 20, so we can predict it will happen. We have to resolve many problems in this country, and this one should be long fingered.

Currently there are 5,000 skilled employees in An Post. There seems to be evidence that where liberalization takes place, it can contribute to job losses. The fact that the market is being opened up to competition at a time when new technology is changing work practices makes it difficult to quantify the exact number of jobs, but I have no doubt that it is having an adverse impact and it is valid for postal workers to be concerned.

See this speech in context