Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)

I declare an interest in that up to five weeks ago I was a postal worker and am still a member of the CWU. I have seen the impact the deregulation of An Post has had on jobs and communities and socially in rural areas. We are facing the third phase of deregulation of postal services. There is considerable concern about that. I agree with what other Members have said. We should consider not implementing the directive in its current form. Recital 16 allows member states to take into account the social impact of the directive on communities. Given the comments made to date it is imperative that we consider the social impacts of the directive and state that we do not accept it, in particular because of the social impact on rural areas.

Thousands of jobs have been lost across Europe due to the liberalisation of postal service in other countries. Various studies bear that out. Most recently, Union Network International conducted a study which found that in Germany, Deutsche Post cut more than 21,000 full-time jobs and more than 12,000 part-time jobs between 1999 and 2006. In The Netherlands the number of full-time equivalent jobs was reduced from 40,000 to as few as 24,000. The Government must use the job initiative, previously a job budget, to keep jobs within An Post and other companies in this country. An Post is one of the largest employers in the south of this country.

There is a campaign in Europe to counteract the liberalisation process. I refer the Minister of State to Recital 16. It is most important that we discuss the issue. I agree with Deputy Tuffy that we should address the matter. We do not want to just push it back and have it come up on the agenda again in six or eight months' time. As a country we must say we do not need it, that it is not part of our agenda and we will not implement it. Otherwise, we will be reduced to debate a race to the bottom. An Post workers cannot compete against courier companies whose pay and conditions are so different, who do not have trade union recognition or access to pension funds. An Post has a commitment to its workforce. One cannot compete against the low-pay element. It will result in a race to the bottom. As a nation we should not accept that.

The point was made previously that An Post is a much-loved service. Our bin service was much loved but let us consider what happened to it. Currently, up to six private companies travel up and down roads in residential areas to collect waste. The previous collection system involved one, well-organised local authority collection every week on every road, street and estate. Now we have six. So much for the environment. We will face the same situation with the postal service. There will be between six and eight competitors cherry-picking the most profitable areas served by An Post. We cannot accept that.

I could focus on many parts of the Bill. We should examine in particular section 28 and consider tabling amendments on the inward mail level and to protect the provision of the service by outlining what an "inward mail centre" would mean. At this Stage of the debate we must deal with the change in the situation we face and not accept what is proposed. Will the Minister of State clarify whether it is part of the memorandum of understanding to push the legislation through? If that is not the case, we must have a different focus for the debate. I seek clarification on the matter on Committee Stage before we advance matters further.

Proper licensing and regulation is necessary. An Post must adhere to standards set down by ComReg on the speed of delivery of post. New companies will not have to adhere to such standards and they will have no commitment to their workers or to national pay deals. They will not be committed to providing a similar service to that which has been part and parcel of rural communities where a postman or postwoman walks 50 m or 100 m up a by-way, talks to people and can see whether someone is well. If he or she has a problem then they let people in the community know. There is an important social aspect to the service.

Reference has been made to the universal service provided by An Post. No State subvention has been provided to date, yet now taxpayers could be asked to pay such a subvention because we cannot allow a situation where we must depend on other providers, which has happened already in Europe. Deregulation has failed miserably. Many countries such as the United Kingdom, for example, are facing the privatisation of services because they could not rely on private companies to fulfil the universal social obligation. If the proposed changes go ahead we must provide the money to ensure the service is continued.

The legislation does not deal with ministerial oversight of ComReg, which has been given power to decide how distribution is regulated and who is involved. That is totally unacceptable. The legislation must be changed so that the Minister can be held accountable in the Dáil for the day-to-day running of the postal service. It is wholly unacceptable that a regulator without democratic accountability would be given such latitude with a vital public service. It is important that we tackle that issue if the Bill is to progress to further Stages in the Dáil.

Irrespective of the direction we take, e-substitution and e-billing are being used by many companies in an underhand way. People are offered a reduction of 20% on gas or electricity bills as an inducement to pay online. As not everyone has a computer we should introduce legislation to ensure that cannot happen unless everyone has access to a computer and can access the same discount.

See this speech in context