Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

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 has 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.

See this speech in context