Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I have submitted amendments Nos. 13 and 14. There should really be a Government amendment in this regard because the programme for Government states:

A universal postal service is an essential public service, in particular for rural communities and those disadvantaged communities affected by digital divide. A publicly owned, commercially viable, profitable and efficient An Post is critical to the long-term viability of the postal market. We will enact into law the postal services Bill which opens postal market to competition. We will protect universal service obligation by assigning it to An Post for at least 20 years, make provision for State subvention and require that any decision by ComReg to reassign or scrap USO is subject to ministerial approval. We will ensure that the network of post offices around the country is maintained and that the communities have access to adequate postal services in their locality.

When one reads a quote, people wish to know the source. The document is called the Statement of Common Purpose, which was published in March 2011. Solemn commitments were given in that document.

My amendment, which I have no doubt the Minister will accept is fully in line with what was promised, gives exactly what was promised in the document, no more and no less. I have gone to the minimum of what is in the document, which states "at least 20 years" and my amendment stipulates "20 years". I ask the Minister, in the interests of credibility in politics, to reflect deeply on the amendment before him. I hope that when we get to section 17 and amendments Nos. 13 and 14, the Minister will accept those as being in line with the programme for Government. I am not asking the Minister to act in a way other than that which he promised a short few months ago as a member of the Government and of the team which accepted the Statement of Common Purpose to be implemented.

My heart lies with Deputy Ferris's amendment and I regret that European law requires us to introduce this Bill, whether it is good, bad or indifferent. I have no doubt that the Minister will probably argue that Deputy Ferris's amendment is out of order because the sector would not be opened to competition as a result, which we have been bound to do since 1 January 2011. The Government has probably researched the area well before writing the programme for Government, and it knows the service could be assigned to An Post for 20 years.

My mind boggles at the logic of arguing that in a market which is under pressure and which faces declining volumes because of electronic mail, it would make the service better to create more players. For those who believe competition is the spice of life, we have seen that in a contracting market there is normally fewer rather than more players getting into that market. The logic dictating that the answer to this declining market is to create more players fighting for what will inevitably will be less post - and that this will provide a better and more economic universal service - blows my mind.

We all know what will really happen. There will be competition in Dublin 2 or Dublin 4, the business parts of town, as virtually all mail is generated by businesses. Even in west Dublin, where there are not so many businesses, will the housing estates enjoy the same service in ten or 15 years that they have today? There are people who are very dependent on An Post as a way of getting a parcel. We have liberalised that element of the service but in the far removes of the country people are still dependent on An Post to get parcel mail because it is the only available service. In the more rural parts of the country, in the midlands, south, north or west, despite all the fine talk in Europe about universal services, we will inevitably see an accelerated destruction of the five-day delivery week for every house.

If these amendments are not accepted and these safeguards are not provided for, in a few years the private companies will take the most lucrative parts of this service. The universal service provider - An Post, which is the only company with the infrastructure to get into the far reaches of this country - will be left with the less lucrative parts. Some Minister will then try to implement the part of the Bill that provides for money to be charged to the profitable companies to ensure a universal service is provided.

Community interest dictated that the same thing be done in the case of the VHI in order to maintain universal health insurance coverage. In this case, just as in that case, the private companies will bring us down to the Four Courts, at the very least. The private operators will find then some means of holding this up for years. An Post will then demand money from the Exchequer. That is another promise that was made in the document I mentioned but is not included in this Bill. We will be told that it is not legally possible and that we do not have the money. Something will have to give at that stage. I suggest it will be the quality of the service.

The last time we discussed this legislation - we are at the heart of it tonight - I suggested some changes should be made. I was told this Bill was for the long term and I was reminded that circumstances change. I take it that it has been decided, again contrary to the programme for Government, that no provision for State subvention will be made. The programme for Government included a commitment to make such a provision. If the Government was concerned about the long term in this instance - we have been told everything else in the Bill is for the long term - State subvention would be provided for in it.

I will press my amendments on the basis that the Government has reneged on a promise it made a few months ago. It could easily have introduced an amendment in order to keep that promise. If the amendment to provide for a 20-year universal service is not accepted, we will vote against this Communications Regulation (Postal Services) Bill 2010 at its conclusion. I know the Minister has the numbers to carry such a vote. There is no question about that. He could probably carry it with half the Government's numbers. That makes no difference. It is important to give every Deputy on the Government side an opportunity to state whether he or she will honour the commitments outlined in the document I mentioned. The commitments in question have no connection with money or anything else. Can we take it that the document in question is now dead and that the promises in it were not worth the paper they were written on?

See this speech in context