Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I accept the ruling on the amendments. My amendments have the same intention which is to ensure that the current position, at the very least, remains, that An Post as the service-provider is written in the law and this gives it a greater standing and perhaps greater protection against the opening up of the An Post network of shops or cash points to privatisation, open competition, call it what one may.

I concur with Deputy O'Dea's point about the process for dealing with Bills in general. Second Stage was a rushed affair. The Bill had been published the week before it was taken in the House. The day before it was taken in the House, the officials helpfully provided advice to our parliamentary assistants to allow them to work through the details of the Bill. Most of the issues are not overly contentious and some of the provisions are quite technical. That briefing and advice was most helpful in efforts to clarify the provisions in the Bill. It can be a difficult process because even though all social welfare legislation was consolidated in the 2005 Act, two to three Bills are published every year and one needs to refer to all of them. My advice to the Minister would be that if the Department is working on the basis of a consolidated Bill, this should be made available to the public or at the very least to Members. It would make our work a lot easier when preparing for a debate. I suggest this should be the practice with every piece of legislation from every Department. The Finance Bill is a classic example where a principal Act is constantly being referred to. It would make life for everyone a lot easier.

The Government has promised on previous occasions that it would consider my request that at the very least the explanatory memorandums to Bills would be published as Gaeilge. If I wished to contribute to a debate on a Bill as Gaeilge I would be able to do so using the same terminology as in an explanatory memorandum and in the final Bill when enacted. The Minister herself suggested the compromise of publishing explanatory memorandums in 2011 because the Government did not intend to publish Bills bilingually.

To return to the point about the procedure, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste made great play of the democratic revolution and changes in the House. When the first proposals for Dáil reform were made, we were promised that there would be no guillotining and that sufficient time would be allowed to debate legislation. While this legislation is not being guillotined there is less than a week between the Stages of the Bill which does not allow sufficient time. I was first elected in 2002 and the convention since then was to allow two weeks between Stages of a Bill.

This legislation is not generally contentious and it does not require immediate passage. According to the Minister the only section that requires immediate passage is that which is bound by an EU directive which was first passed in 2010. The Government at the time sought a period of two years' grace before implementing the directive. However, in 2012, it was decided that the issues contained in the directive had not been fully addressed and the Government sought a further delay. The Government asked the EU for a two year extension before transposing the directive into Irish law. That was four years ago and two years ago a further two year extension was sought. Now we are landed with it in a rush because it has to be passed into Irish law by August or there will be a fine imposed on the State. Leaving this matter to the last minute is bad practice.

The main issue in these amendments is that An Post is mentioned in the legislation as being the service provider. I refer to the sections in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 where An Post is mentioned. Section 5 refers to any expenses incurred by An Post under Part 2. No other provider is mentioned. The section states that the Minister shall make payment out of the Social Insurance Fund to An Post. Section 242 refers to the payment of specified benefits through An Post. In section 274 "specified agency" means An Post or a person authorised to carry on banking business. There was a reason for the reference to An Post throughout the 2005 Act and the intention of my amendment is to revert to that position. I was even willing at one stage to contemplate An Post or another service provider, but at the very least An Post is mentioned because that gives it some protection in law.

The Minister stated on Committee Stage that it was not her intention or the Government's intention to undermine An Post and the post office network and that a new contract was in place. There is nothing to protect against another Minister for Social Protection or another Minister for communications deciding that this is not to be and that magical term would be used that this would be contrary to the market - that great market everyone talks about - and An Post would lose that contract, the consequences of which would be very significant.

Over the years, many Deputies have been lobbied by the Irish Postmasters' Union, individual postmasters and postmistresses and post office workers about the dangers the loss of the social welfare contract would present for post office services. Such is the value of the social welfare contract that its loss would result in the immediate closure of post offices not only in rural areas, but also in Dublin. This fact was recognised in the reference in previous legislation to "An Post". I cannot understand the reason for the Minister's decision to provide for the deletion of all references to "An Post" from the legislation. She has argued that the public service card is an ideal mechanism for addressing fraud and achieving what are known as control savings. Having all social welfare transactions made via an anonymous bank will create a problem because it will be possible for all payments to be withdrawn via automated teller machines, thereby limiting engagement between the recipient and a public servant or an official. This will preclude recipients being challenged and having their public service card checked to ensure the correct person is claiming the allowance.

I suggested previously that all social welfare payments should be collected in person from a post office. While I am no longer inclined to support that position, the vast majority of able-bodied recipients of social welfare payments, specifically jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit, but also other State payments made to people in employment and the unemployed, should be made via An Post. In recent years, social welfare officers have encouraged people to have payments made through their bank. Anonymising the system in this manner increases scope for fraud, which defies the logic of introducing the long-awaited and expensive public service card, the purpose of which is to ensure social welfare recipients' identification will be checked at some point. People who receive payments via their bank will not be subject to identity checks and will be able to withdraw money from a bank anywhere in the world.

If An Post's were to lose its contract for social welfare payments, we would lose a vital part of the fabric of society. Many people in Dublin do not understand the vital role post offices play in rural areas. In many small villages, the only services available are a grocery, pub and post office. If they lose their post office, the other two institutions immediately close, which creates a ghost village or ghost town.

I urge the Minister to accept the amendments or at least the spirit behind them and ensure An Post is afforded preferred bidder status. She argues it is not possible to do so under European competition law. It could be done under EU social law on the basis that the objective of affording preferred bidder status to the post office would be to protect the social fabric. Public service obligations apply to other aspects of life and could apply in this instance if the purpose is to allow for the retention of post offices. In addition, An Post would not benefit from any grant or subsidy from the State but from a decision on the part of the State that, in the interests of society and communities, it proposes to channel moneys through the post office network. Such a decision would send out a good signal.

On Committee Stage, the Minister argued that no other institution could deliver the contract for social welfare services because any payment service provider bidding for the contract would have to be able to deliver it in a similar number of locations as it is currently delivered by An Post through its network of post offices. A number of entities could put together a bid for the contract. For example, if a large number of bookmaker offices, petrol stations or publicans came together, they could deliver a payments service. It is also foreseeable that large retail chains such as Tesco or SuperValu could submit a bid on the basis that they have outlets at locations nationwide. If the Minister moves in the direction proposed, multinational or indigenous companies could bid for the business currently provided by An Post.

The contract for the provision of social welfare payments is lucrative because it involves a large number of transactions. The current trend is towards locating post offices in retail outlets such as SuperValu and Tesco stores. The only reason such companies agree to have post offices located in their stores is that it encourages social welfare recipients to spend some of their payment in the store. Many people are concerned that they are, to some extent, being forced to shop in the location in which they receive their blind pension, children's allowance or jobseeker's payment. I accept that this matter is not covered by the legislation. The Bill creates the possibility that An Post will not deliver the financial transactions that take place between the State and social welfare recipients.

See this speech in context