Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, to delete lines 5 to 37, and to delete page 7.

When Members were discussing this Bill on Committee Stage, I made the point that only a few days had elapsed between the conclusion of Second Stage and the beginning of Committee Stage. If my recollection is correct, I recounted at the time that on the first day of the Second Stage debate, I received an urgent communication from the Bills Office to submit my amendments for Committee Stage. This is despite the Government's specific commitment in its programme for Government to allowing at least a fortnight to elapse between Second and Committee Stages to give Members a chance to reflect on the Second Stage debate, on their amendments and so on. This appears to me to be fairly fundamental and the Minister's excuse was there was a deadline it was necessary to meet. However, the bottom line is Members would have met the deadline, with the appropriate gaps, had the Second Stage debate been introduced earlier. One week later, having barely finished the Committee Stage debate, Members now have been shunted into Report Stage, have been told it will conclude today, that this will be it and to get their amendments out of the way. I have asked the Taoiseach a number of times in this Chamber about that specific commitment in the programme for Government. I have been asking him about it for four or five months but each time I do so, he laughs it off. He actually told me on one occasion that the Chief Whip's wife had a young baby and he had other things on his mind. He had some other half-cocked excuse last week. This is pretty fundamental to the way in which business is done in Ireland and to the functions and operation of this House. It is fundamental to the manner in which Members hold the Executive to account, which is their responsibility. While a constitutional revolution was promised, it is absolutely appalling to think that 75% to 80% through the lifetime of the current Administration, legislation still is being shunted through in this fashion. I consider it to be a disgrace that gives the lie to all those promises of fundamental change, constitutional revolutions and so on.

In respect of amendment No. 1, I made the point on Committee Stage that the post office network is vital to the country's social fabric. The moves that are being made to cannibalise the current post office network represent another nail in the coffin of rural Ireland. If one looks around the countryside, one sees shops, local Garda stations and bank branches closing down, as well as a countryside ravaged by emigration. The Government has now set itself on a path that, if this process is followed, will result in a majority of rural post offices closing down. The Government states it is operating in accordance with market forces and while market forces may be one thing, social responsibility also must be taken into account and comes into the equation somewhere. I would have thought it was of particular importance to the Labour Party but obviously, I am mistaken.

Section 3 of this Bill sends out a definite signal. The Irish Postmasters Union has conducted a high-profile nationwide campaign to save the post office network. It has made points that have not been answered satisfactorily by the Government and has indicated ways in which the business of post offices could be improved both to the benefit of the Exchequer and to the social benefit of the country because they would help to retain the remaining element of life in remote rural areas in particular. I represent an area that is largely urban and which has experienced a few post office closures. The communities in these areas have not yet recovered from the loss of those post offices, albeit there are other places to which they can go and which are a distance away that would appear to be hardly anything in the countryside. Half a mile in the city literally is over to the other end of town, whereas it is a very small distance in the countryside. However, even urban communities have been undermined by the closure of post offices.

The Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 is the basic legislation pertaining to social welfare and a part of that Act deals with service provision in which An Post is mentioned specifically as the service provider. Under the provisions of this Bill, An Post is being removed by something called "the service provider", which literally could mean anything, be it An Post or anything else. Consequently, it is opening up the possibility that An Post might even lose the social welfare contract, which of course would be absolutely devastating. In so far as I could understand the Minister's reply on Committee Stage the last day, she stated that unless she brought about this change, the contract that An Post has won to provide social welfare payments might be challenged. I cannot understand this particular reason. I acknowledge there was a court case in 2007 in which this system was challenged and in which the High Court decided there must be a fair competition. However, a fair competition took place and An Post won that competition fair and square. Moreover, that competition happened while the legislation still specifically mentioned An Post. If the competition took place against a background of legislation that specifically mentioned An Post, how then can the legal situation be changed by changing the legislation now? It happened and were someone to challenge the veracity of that contract tomorrow, he or she would be able to challenge it on the basis that An Post was specifically mentioned in the legislation that was operable at the time. Consequently, it appears to me as though changing it now makes absolutely no difference with regard to a challenge to the contract. This smacks of simply throwing out answers for the sake of being able to state one responded to the debate although one really has nothing to say.

The Minister will be aware that her colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, has stated several times, both in this House and outside it in meetings with the Irish Postmasters Union and so on, that the Government is firmly committed to the future of the post office network. However, this legislation and this provision tell another story. While I wish to give other Members a chance to speak on this matter, my point to the Minister is it makes absolutely no difference to the legality of the competition that has been contested and won by An Post that this change be made. It does not help it or detract from it in any way. However, it sends out a bad signal that the Government is not genuine about what it says, is not sincere and really has in mind a situation in which the post office network will be further and further diminished.

That would be disastrous for the country both socially and economically. As a gesture of goodwill to the postmasters' union and to the hundreds of thousands of other people throughout this country who rely on the post office and who want the post office network to be preserved, I ask the Minister to change that section along the lines suggested. I am not demanding that she accept my amendment which perhaps is badly drafted - I am not sure - but there are a number of amendments or she could instead introduce an amendment. The main issue is that the deletion of An Post as the service-provider for the post office network should be changed and An Post should be restored to the position it held in 2005.

See this speech in context